Holy Days and Feasts of the Lord

Continuing a chronological Bible study:

(Leviticus 23:1) And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, (2) “Speak to the children of Israel, and say to them, ‘The feasts of the LORD, which you shall proclaim to be holy convocations, these are My feasts.'"

The Lord had been speaking to Moses in the past several chapters about various laws and continued here, now turning to the topic of the feasts of the Lord.  The original word translated as "feasts" was "moed" and it meant literally "appointment" or "appointed time".  Holy convocations, or "miqra", were sacred assemblies of the people.  Following would begin a list of the appointed times that the people were to assemble together and observe each holy time.

(3) "‘Six days shall work be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of rest, a holy convocation; you shall do no work in it; it is the Sabbath of the LORD in all your dwellings.'"

The Lord began this segment of laws by repeating the law of the Sabbath.  The people might do work in the first six days, but the seventh day was to be a Sabbath of rest, and they were to do no work on that day.  Not only was it a day of rest, but it was a holy convocation, a holy day for sacred assembly.  Whether or not they were involved in a holy assembly and public observance of the Sabbath or not, they were to observe the Sabbath of their Lord in all their dwellings.

(4) "'These are the feasts of the LORD, holy convocations which you shall proclaim at their appointed times. (5) In the fourteenth day of the first month at evening is the LORD’s Passover.'"

The Sabbath was kept every week, but now began a list of the holy assemblies that were to be observed in the appointed times of the year.  First was the Lord's Passover which was to be observed on the fourteenth day of the first month, the Hebrew month Nissan, which is about the time of our March and April.  The Jewish calendar is based on the cycles of the moon, and their months went from the beginning of the moon's cycle to the end, which is why it varies compared to our Gregorian calendar.  On the fourteenth day of the first month of their year, specifically at evening (actually the evening of the thirteenth day by our reckoning), when the Jewish date began, was to be the Lord's Passover, in remembrance of their deliverance out of Egypt and the preservation of their first-born.

(6) "‘And on the fifteenth day of the same month is the feast of unleavened bread to the LORD; seven days you must eat unleavened bread.'"

The fifteenth day of the same month, Nissan, actually began on the evening of the fourteenth day, and that was to begin the Feast of Unleavened Bread.  It began on the fifteenth day and ended on the 21st day, and for those seven days the people were to eat unleavened bread, in remembrance of the time they went out of Egypt with their dough, not having time to leaven it.

(7) "‘On the first day you shall have a holy convocation; you shall do no servile work in it. (8) But you shall offer an offering made by fire to the LORD for seven days; the seventh day is a holy convocation; you shall do no servile work in it.'"

On the first day of the seven days of the Feast of Unleavened Bread they were to have a sacred assembly.  They were to do no servile or customary labor on that day.  However, they were not to remain idle, but were to offer offerings made by fire to the Lord.  They were actually to offer the burnt offerings for each of the seven days, but on the first and the seventh, they were to do no other work, but to have a holy convocation.

(9) And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, (10) “Speak to the children of Israel, and say to them, ‘When you come into the land which I give to you, and reap its harvest, then you shall bring a sheaf of the firstfruits of your harvest to the priest.'"

The Lord continued instructing Moses in what to tell the children of Israel.  When they came to the land of Canaan which the Lord was giving them and had reaped its harvest, they were to remember their Lord and bring an offering of the first fruits of their harvest to the priest.  They were to bring a "sheaf" or "omer" (the original word) which was one tenth of an ephah, about two liters.

(11) "'And he shall wave the sheaf before the LORD, to be accepted for you; on the next day after the Sabbath the priest shall wave it.'"

The priest would then wave the offering to and fro before the Lord, to make acknowledgment to the Lord that those fruits of the earth were of Him, and to give Him the praise and glory, "to be accepted for" the children of Israel as a thanksgiving to their Lord.  The day after the Sabbath was actually the next day, the sixteenth day of Nissan, the fifteenth being a Sabbath rest in that no servile work was to be done.

(12) "‘And you shall offer that day when you wave the sheaf, a male lamb without blemish of the first year, for a burnt offering to the LORD.'"

That same day when the priest waved the sheaf of the first fruits, they were also to offer a male lamb without blemish in its first year, for a burnt offering to the Lord.  As Dr. John Gill wrote so beautifully in his Exposition of the Entire Bible, this lamb was "typical of the perfect and immaculate Lamb of God, whose sufferings are fitly signified by a burnt offering; and which were endured at the time he became the firstfruits of his people, and sanctified them."

(13) "'And its meat offering shall be two-tenths of an ephah of fine flour mixed with oil, an offering made by fire to the LORD, for a sweet savor, and its drink offering shall be of wine, one-fourth of a hin.'"

As pointed out in an earlier post, the "meat" in this offering could be rendered as bread or food in other passages; according to Albert Barnes in his Notes on the Bible, "bread, meat, and food, were nearly equivalent terms when our translation was made, and represent no distinctions that exist in the Hebrew."  In this case it definitely indicated a grain (or bread) offering.  The offering was to be of two tenths of an ephah (two omers or about one dry gallon) of fine flour mixed with oil, burned on the altar, for an acceptable sacrifice to the Lord.  Additionally, there was to be a drink offering of wine, one-fourth of a hin, or about a quart.

(14) "'And you shall eat neither bread nor parched corn nor green ears until the same day that you have brought an offering to your God; it shall be a statute forever throughout your generations in all your dwellings.'"

The people were not to eat bread made with their grain, nor any roasted grain, nor any fresh-plucked ears from their fields until they first brought an offering to their God.  This was to be a statute forever throughout their generations, at least until the Messiah came.  Additionally, it was to be a statute in all their dwellings, which may mean wherever they might dwell throughout their generations, they were to do this.

(15) "‘And you shall count for yourselves from the day after the Sabbath, from the day that you brought the sheaf of the wave offering; seven Sabbaths shall be completed.'"

The people were to begin counting from the day after that Sabbath explained above, from the day of the sheaf wave offering, which was the sixteenth day of Nissan, and count seven Sabbaths, seven weeks, or 49 days.  Here began the explanation of the feast of Pentecost, or Weeks, as it was called because it was observed seven weeks after the Passover.  It was also called the Feast of Harvest (Exodus 23:16).

(16) "'Even to the day after the seventh Sabbath you shall number fifty days; and you shall offer a new meat offering to the LORD.'"

The day after the seventh Sabbath would make it a total of fifty days that the people were to number.  On the fiftieth day they were to offer a new grain offering to the Lord.

(17) "‘You shall bring out of your habitations two wave loaves of two-tenths of an ephah; they shall be of fine flour; they shall be baked with leaven; they are the firstfruits to the LORD.'"

I am assuming that all the people were to bring from themselves the ingredients to make the two wave loaves, and not that every person brought two loaves!  They were to be made with two omers of fine flour and were to be baked with leaven.  These loaves were not to be offered on the altar where no leaven could be offered, but were just waved before the Lord in thanksgiving and recognition of His great mercies and of the fact that it all belonged to Him.  Scofield Reference Notes had an interesting take on this:  "With the wave-sheaf no leaven was offered, for there was no evil in Christ; but the wave-loaves, typifying the church, are 'baken with leaven,' for in the church there is still evil."  Most commentaries seem to agree that because the loaves weren't to be burned on the altar, and represented the best the people had to offer of what they themselves would consume, they were made with leaven and then given wholly to the priests.
 
(18) "‘And you shall offer with the bread seven lambs without blemish of the first year, and one young bullock, and two rams; they shall be for a burnt offering to the LORD, with their meat offering and their drink offerings, an offering made by fire of a sweet savor to the LORD.'"

With the bread wave offering they were to offer seven unblemished lambs in their first year.  Albert Barnes believed that these were seven sheep of a year old to distinguish them from the "lamb" offered in verse 12.  I see no difference in the original words used, and see no reason to assume they were different.  Barnes didn't cite any historical reference as a reason for believing this, and the other commentaries I study made no mention of there being any difference in the type of lambs offered.  What did seem to be a point of confusion was that in this verse there were additionally to be offered one young bullock and two rams, whereas in Numbers 28:27, seemingly speaking of this same day, it said there were to be offered along with the seven lambs, two bullocks and one ram.  Perhaps it was left to the discretion of the priests as to whether it was one bull and two rams or two bulls and one ram, but usually the laws concerning the sacrifices were pretty strict.  Perhaps the rules were unique for this particular wave offering.  I cite Dr. John Gill here not because I necessarily believe what he said on the subject, but to show how confusing it all was:

"...Aben Ezra suggests, that this was at the will and option of the priest, whether one bullock and two rams, or two bullocks and one ram; but according to Maimonides, these sacrifices were distinct from them; they are sacrifices of the day, as being a feast day, and these belonged to the loaves; so that according to him, and so he expresses it, there were to be offered on this day, besides the daily sacrifices, three bullocks, three rams, and fourteen lambs, twenty beasts in all, for burnt offerings; and two goats for sin offerings to be eaten, and two lambs for peace offerings to be eaten; and with this account agrees Josephus, they sacrifice for burnt offerings, he says, three bullocks, and two rams, (or, as Dr. Bernard thinks, it should be read three rams,) and fourteen lambs, and two goats for sin offerings..."

I am really struck by how very hard it was to keep the law!  It is no wonder people could inadvertently sin as we read about in scripture.  Isn't that the lesson here?  It is impossible to keep the law!  "Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin...For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God..." (Romans 3:20 and 3:23)  "For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, 'Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them.' But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God is evident, for 'the just shall live by faith.'" (Galatians 3:10-11)  Jesus railed against the Pharisees who were so legalistic to keep the law to the nth degree, but neglected justice, mercy, and faithfulness.  Fortunately, Christ came to save us from the law and we "shall live by faith".  "For by grace are you saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast." (Ephesians 2:8-9)

Back to verse 18 above, the seven lambs, one young bullock, and two rams were to be a burnt offering to the Lord along with "their" grain offering and "their" drink offerings.  I stress "their" because these particular grain and drink offerings appear to be tied to the beast offered, and do not refer to the wave offering in verse 17.  On this subject Dr. Gill wrote:  "...each of the said beasts were offered, unto the Lord on the altar of burnt offering, and burnt thereon; and to every beast they offered, there was a meat offering and a drink offering: the meat offering consisted of three tenth deals, or omers, of fine flour, to a bullock, two to a ram, and one to a lamb; and the drink offering was half an hin of wine to a bullock, the third part of one to a ram, and a fourth part to a lamb, as Jarchi observes, which appears from Num. 28:12..."

(19) "‘Then you shall sacrifice one kid of the goats as a sin offering, and two male lambs of the first year as a sacrifice of a peace offering.'"

Then they were to offer a kid goat for a sin offering for the sin of the whole congregation, illustrative of Christ who was an offering for our sin; and they were to offer two male lambs of the first year for a peace offering.

(20) "'And the priest shall wave them with the bread of the firstfruits as a wave offering before the LORD, with the two lambs; they shall be holy to the LORD for the priest.'"

As opposed to being burned on the altar to the Lord as with the seven lambs, bull, and two rams, the two lamb offerings from verse 19 were to be waved with the bread of the firstfruits as a wave offering to the Lord.  These lamb offerings, being the peace offering of a whole congregation, as opposed to being from a single person, were considered holy to the Lord and to be eaten only by His priests.

(21) "‘And you shall proclaim on the same day that it is a holy convocation to you; you shall do no servile work in it; it shall be a statute forever in all your dwellings throughout your generations.'"

On this same fiftieth day, known as the day of Pentecost, I read a proclamation was made by the priests with the sound of a trumpet for the people to observe this holy day of sabbath rest, devoted to sacred service with no other customary work to be performed.  It was to be a statute forever to be observed in all their dwellings throughout their generations, or at least until the Messiah came.

(22) "'And when you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not wholly reap the corners of your field when you reap, nor shall you gather any gleaning of your harvest; you shall leave them for the poor and for the stranger; I am the LORD your God.’”

This law is repeated from Leviticus 19:9.  When the people reaped the harvest of their land, they were commanded not to wholly reap the corners of their fields.  Additionally, they were not to go back and gather the gleanings of their harvests, but to leave those and the corners of their fields for the poor and for the strangers.  As discussed in the post on Leviticus 19, it was in this way God provided for the poor and for the strangers, the foreigners in the land.  It taught the people not to be greedy about every single thing they could lay claim to, but encouraged generosity to the poor.  God was giving them this new land that would provide for them, and as their Lord gave to them, and did not withhold His mercies, so should they give and be merciful to the poor and the strangers.

(23) And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, (24) “Speak to the children of Israel, saying, ‘In the seventh month, on the first day of the month, you shall have a sabbath, a memorial of blowing of trumpets, an holy convocation.'"

The Lord continued speaking to Moses, instructing him on what to tell the children of Israel.  On the first day of the seventh month after their first month, Nissan, this seventh month called Tisri, they were to have a sabbatical rest.  Tisri aligns with our September and was said to be the first month of the "civil" year, which was, according to Albert Barnes and others, "the first day of the Civil year in use before the Exodus, and was observed as the festival of the New year."  I really don't know that there was any significance to it being the first day of the old year, but rather believe it was significant because it was the seventh month.  As John Wesley said in his Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible, "For as the seventh day was the sabbath, and the seventh year was a sabbatical year, so God would have the seventh month to be a kind of sabbatical month, for the many sabbaths and solemn feasts which were observed in this more than in any other month."  This holy day was to be commemorated with the blowing of trumpets which, according to Jewish scholars, was continued from sunrise to sunset.  It was known as the Feast of Trumpets, and I have read that it was very generally embraced by both Jews and Christians to be a memorial of the creation of the world, at which "the sons of God shouted for joy," (Job 38:7).

(25) "‘You shall do no servile work in it, but you shall offer an offering made by fire to the LORD.’”

There was to be no customary work done on that day, only that which was necessary for making the offering made by fire to the Lord.

(26) And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, (27) "Also on the tenth day of this seventh month there shall be a day of atonement; it shall be a holy convocation to you; and you shall afflict your souls, and offer an offering made by fire to the LORD."

The Lord continued instructing Moses:  on the tenth day of this seventh month of Tisri, there was to be a day of atonement, a holy day when the people would gather to offer an offering made by fire to the Lord, and "afflict" their souls.  Matthew Henry said it this way in his Commentary on the Whole Bible, "They must mortify the body, and deny the appetites of it, in token of their sorrow for the sins they had committed."  This they did with prayer, fasting, sorrow and repentance.

(28) “And you shall do no work on that same day, for it is the day of atonement, to make atonement for you before the LORD your God."

The Israelite people were to do no customary work on that Day of Atonement that was set aside as a holy day in which atonement was to be made for them for their sins.

(29) "For whatever soul who is not afflicted on that same day shall be cut off from among his people."

As Matthew Henry described it, "Every soul must be afflicted, because every soul was polluted, and guilty before God; while none have fulfilled the law of innocency none are exempt from the law of repentance, besides that every man must sigh and cry for the abominations of the land."  Any person who did not do this was to be cut off from among his people, which was either excommunication or death.

(30) "And whatever soul who does any work on that same day, that same soul I will destroy from among his people."

Likewise any person who did any customary work on this day of atonement would be destroyed from among his people.  That word definitely makes it clear that they would not be merely excommunicated, but killed, if they did not obey this law for the Day of Atonement.

(31) “You shall do no manner of work; it shall be a statute forever throughout your generations in all your dwellings."

The commandment is repeated, which might be to show how strictly God required this day be kept, and how careful men should be not to break the commandment in this respect.  It was to be a statute forever in all their dwellings throughout their generations, at least until the coming of Messiah.

(32) “It shall be to you a sabbath of rest, and you shall afflict your souls; on the ninth day of the month at evening, from evening to evening, you shall celebrate your sabbath.”

This tenth day of the seventh month of Tisri (v. 27), which began in the evening of the ninth day of the month and continued until the evening of the tenth day, the people were to celebrate this sabbath.  The people were to do no customary work and they were to afflict their souls.

(33) And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, (34) “Speak to the children of Israel, saying, ‘The fifteenth day of this seventh month shall be the feast of tabernacles for seven days to the LORD.'"

The Lord continued instructing Moses on what to tell the people.  The fifteenth day of the seventh month was to begin what was called the Feast of Tabernacles.  It was a time when the people dwelt in booths or tents for seven days to commemorate the dwelling of the children of Israel in tents and booths during their abode in the wilderness.

(35) "‘On the first day there shall be a holy convocation; you shall do no servile work in it.'"

The first day of this Feast of Tabernacles was to be one of holy assembly of the people, and the people were to do no customary work on that day.

(36) "'Seven days you shall offer an offering made by fire to the LORD; on the eighth day shall be a holy convocation to you, and you shall offer an offering made by fire to the LORD; it is a solemn assembly, and you shall do no servile work in it.'"

For each of seven days the people were to offer a burnt offering to the Lord.  The eighth day was to be another holy convocation when they would offer another burnt offering, and one in which they were to do no customary work.  I thought John Wesley had the best explanation of this.  He wrote that although the eighth day was not strictly one of the days of this Feast of Tabernacles, "in a larger sense it belonged to this feast, and is called the great day of the feast (in John 7:37). And so indeed it was, as for other reasons, so because, by their removal from the tabernacles into fixed habitations, it represented that happy time wherein their 40 years tedious march in the wilderness was ended with their settlement in the land of Canaan, which it was most fit they should acknowledge with such a solemn day of thanksgiving as this was."  Of course, at this time, the people had no idea that they would remain in the wilderness for forty years, but God knew.

(37) "‘These are the feasts of the LORD which you shall proclaim to be holy convocations, to offer an offering made by fire to the LORD, a burnt offering and a grain offering, a sacrifice and drink offerings, everything on its day.'"

The feasts described above, the Lord's Passover (v. 5), the Feast of Unleavened Bread (v. 6), the Feast of Pentecost (v. 15-16), the Feast of Trumpets (v. 24), the Day of Atonement (v. 27), and the Feast of Tabernacles (v. 34), were to be proclaimed as holy convocations.  They were feast days to the Lord when burnt offerings and grain and drink offerings were to be made, everything on its particular day as instructed.

(38) "'Besides the sabbaths of the LORD, and besides your gifts, and besides all your vows, and besides all your freewill offerings, which you give to the LORD.'"

Those feasts described above were to be in addition to the weekly sabbaths and other offerings.

(39) "‘Also on the fifteenth day of the seventh month, when you have gathered in the fruit of the land, you shall keep a feast to the Lord seven days; on the first day there shall be a sabbath and on the eighth day shall be a sabbath.'"

The Lord went back to the subject of the fifteenth day of the seventh month when was to be observed the Feast of Tabernacles.  I believe an additional point was made, that it was not only a time for the people to remember when they had dwelt in tents, but when they had gathered in the fruits of the land, they were to give thanks for those fruits of the earth, and keep that feast to the Lord seven days.  This was the same seven day feast called the Feast of Tabernacles, and it was also known as the Feast of Ingathering because it was the time when they had gathered in the fruits of the land.  The first day of this feast and the eighth day were to be considered sabbath days, days of rest when there was to be no servile work.

(40) "‘And you shall take for yourselves on the first day the boughs of goodly trees, branches of palm trees, the boughs of thick trees, and willows of the brook; and you shall rejoice before the LORD your God for seven days.'"

On the first day of this feast the people were to take branches of good thick trees to make booths or tents in which they would dwell for seven days.  However, those branches were not only for the making of tents, but for joy, honor, and worship to their Lord.  That definitely seems alluded to in John 12:13, when the people "took branches of palm trees and went out to meet Him, and cried, 'Hosanna! Blessed is the King of Israel who comes in the name of the LORD!’"  Also Revelation 7:9 speaks of the multitude that stood before the Lamb with palms in their hands.

(41) "'And you shall keep it as a feast to the LORD for seven days in the year. It shall be a statute forever in your generations; you shall celebrate it in the seventh month.'"

Every year this feast was to be kept for seven days beginning on the fifteenth of the seventh month; it was to be a statute forever throughout their generations, at least until the Messiah came.  It strikes me that John 12:13 described how the people then took the branches that they formally used for booths and rejoicing before the Lord, and at that present time rejoiced in the presence of and before their Lord Jesus Christ.

(42) "‘You shall dwell in booths seven days; all who are native Israelites shall dwell in booths, (43) That your generations may know that I made the children of Israel dwell in booths when I brought them out of the land of Egypt; I am the LORD your God.’”

During this feast the native-born Israelites were to dwell in booths or temporary shelters for seven days.  It was Albert Barnes who noted the omission of foreigners here was noteworthy because they seem to be included in the feast in Deuteronomy 16:13-14:  “You shall observe the feast of tabernacles seven days, after you have gathered in your corn and your wine; and you shall rejoice in your feast, you and your son and your daughter, your male servant and your female servant, and the Levite, the stranger, and the fatherless and the widow, who are within your gates."  Mr. Barnes suggested that "perhaps the intention was that on this joyous occasion they were to be hospitably entertained as guests."  Indeed the passage in Deuteronomy does not indicate that the strangers were to dwell in booths, but that the rejoicing would include them.

(44) And Moses declared to the children of Israel the feasts of the LORD.

Moses declared to the children of Israel what the Lord had told him to tell them regarding the feasts of the Lord, the times they were to be observed and the manner in which they were to be observed.  We should be thankful that we no longer have to observe so many different burdensome and costly feasts, as Christ became the fulfillment of all these feasts.  Once again, I have come to realize that the law wasn't created to make men fail, but illustrative of how hard it really was and how much we needed Christ.  It is impossible to follow a law to the T.  Everything was a picture of Christ to come.  Sacrifices were a picture of His coming sacrifice.

Laws Concerning the Priests and Sacrifices

Continuing a chronological Bible study:

(Leviticus 21:1) And the LORD said to Moses, “Speak to the priests, the sons of Aaron, and say to them, ‘None shall defile himself for the dead among his people,'"

In the past few chapters and posts, the Lord had been speaking with Moses, giving him laws to pass onto the people.  Now He apparently turned his focus to Aaron and the priests, and told Moses to tell them this and the following laws.  First, no priest was to defile himself for the dead among his people, by touching the dead body, preparing it for burial, coming into the tent where the dead body lay, or in any other way that a person might make himself ceremonially unclean by contact with a dead body.

(2) "'But for his kin, that is near to him, his mother, his father, his son, his daughter, and his brother; (3) And for his sister a virgin who is near to him, who has had no husband, for her he may defile himself.'"

Exceptions were made for immediate family, mother, father, children, brother, and unmarried virgin sister.  The priests would be allowed to do those things like touching their loved ones and preparing them for burial, etc.; those things that would make them ceremonially unclean were allowed in the case of the near blood kin described.  Note that the wife is not included here.  The original word translated as "kin" above was "sheer" and it literally meant "flesh", so perhaps in this context, it referred to only the nearest blood kin.  A spouse is not related by blood.  However, does scripture not say that a man and wife become "one flesh" when they marry (Gen. 2:24, Mark 10:8)?  It would seem reasonable to assume that the wife of a priest would be included here.  The old commentaries I study seem to agree that the wife was included.  They point to the prohibition against Ezekiel mourning for his wife in Ezekiel, chapter 24.  It seemed this was the exception to the rule, that in most cases one would mourn for his wife, but the Lord told Ezekiel not to in that case.  There was a similar exception to the rule regarding sons and brothers when God struck dead Aaron's sons, Nadab and Abihu.  He told Aaron and his remaining sons not to show any signs of mourning for the sons that were struck dead (Lev. 10:6).  It does seems reasonable to assume that these exceptions would not have to have been pointed out if they had been the rule and the law all along.

(4) "'But he shall not defile himself, being a chief man among his people, to profane himself.'"

Holding a chief position among his people, a priest was not to profane or defile himself in any cases other than those mentioned in verses 2 and 3.  There are some Bible commentators I regularly study who have a different view of the meaning in verse 4.  Because the original word translated as "chief man" above, "baal", also means "husband", they take it to mean, as the Treasury of Scriptural Knowledge by Canne, Browne, Blayney, Scott, and others, wrote, "Or, the verse may be read, being an husband among his people, he shall not defile himself for his wife, etc."  They point to the case of Ezekiel as proving this point.  Most agree, as I do, too, that this is not the intended meaning.  "Baal" also means "master, lord, ruler, etc."  There is no reason to assume it means "husband" in this case.  Dr. John Gill, in his Exposition of the Entire Bible, proposed another meaning.  The word "being" above was supplied by the translators and not actually in the original text.  It still has the same meaning when read, "But he shall not defile himself, a chief man among his people, to profane himself."  However, Dr. Gill suggested it might be possible to read the verse as a prohibition against defiling himself "for any chief man" (rather than "being a chief man").  Even if it was a chief ruler among his people, a priest was not to defile himself by coming in contact with the ruler's dead body, unless, of course, the ruler, was his immediate next of kin.  This translation doesn't really change the meaning of the previous verses.  A priest was NOT to defile himself for the dead among his people, unless it was his immediate blood kin, and that was the only exception (except for perhaps spouses as pondered above). 

(5) "‘They shall not make baldness on their heads, nor shall they shave the edges of their beards, nor make any cuttings in their flesh.'"

There was already a prohibition made against any of the children of Israel shaving the corners of their heads or their beards, or of making any cuttings in their flesh (Lev. 19:27-28), which were pagan practices that were done as signs of mourning (described more fully in the post on Leviticus 19).  I believe the sense here is that even though the Lord gave priests an exception for defiling themselves for the dead of their very near kin, they were forbidden to take part in those heathen mourning practices described.

(6) "'They shall be holy to their God and not profane the name of their God, for the offerings of the LORD made by fire, and the bread of their God; therefore they shall be holy.'"

The priests were to be holy to their God, totally devoted to Him and His service.  They were not to act in a way that would allow the name of their God to be profaned or spoken evil of on their account.  The reason was because they offered the bread of their God, the offerings of their Lord made by fire; therefore they were to be holy.  The bread above might refer to the shewbread, which they set every week before the Lord on the shewbread table, but surely referred to any bread or meat offering that they offered to their Lord.  Albert Barnes noted in his Notes on the Bible that, "The word here and in Lev. 21:8 rendered 'bread', is the same as is rendered food in Lev. 3:11, Lev. 3:16, etc., and meat in Lev. 22:11. The reader of the English Bible should keep in view that bread, meat, and food, were nearly equivalent terms when our translation was made, and represent no distinctions that exist in the Hebrew."

(7) "‘They shall not take a wife who is a whore, or profane; neither shall they take a woman put away from her husband: for he is holy to his God.'"

Priests were not to take for their wives any women who had prostituted themselves or were in any way profane, probably meaning defiled or deflowered.  They were not to take women as wives who had been previously divorced by their husbands.  The reason again was because the priests were holy to their God, separated from common people, and devoted to the service of God.

(8) "'Therefore you shall sanctify him, for he offers the bread of your God; he shall be holy to you, for I the LORD, who sanctify you, am holy.'"

It appears the people of Israel are now being addressed.  They are to sanctify their priest, regarding him holy and to reverence him, because he was the one who offered the various offerings of their Lord God.  The priest was to be holy to the people because their Lord God was holy who had sanctified them and had separated them from all other people to be a holy people to Him.

(9) "'And the daughter of any priest, if she profanes herself by playing the whore, she profanes her father; she shall be burned with fire.'"

The daughter of any priest who profaned and defiled herself by prostituting herself likewise profaned and brought disgrace to her father.  By profaning her father, she brought shame to the office of the priesthood and profaned the name of their God (v. 6 above).  Therefore she was to be burned with fire.

(10) "'And he who is the high priest among his brethren, on whose head the anointing oil was poured and who is consecrated to wear the garments, shall not uncover his head nor tear his clothes;'"

The one who was the high priest among the priests, the one on whose head the anointing oil was poured, as it was poured on Aaron the high priest at his consecration (Ex. 29:7, Lev. 8:12), and on all others who succeeded him, that high priest who was consecrated to wear the high priest's garments, that man was never to uncover his head nor tear his clothes.  Uncovering the head and tearing the clothes were usual signs of mourning.  The high priest was forbidden to take off his mitre or tear his garments in common expression of mourning.  He was not to be common, but holy before the Lord.

(11) "'Neither shall he go in to any dead body, nor defile himself for his father or for his mother;'"

Additionally, the high priest must never go into the place where a dead body lay, even if it were his father or his mother.

(12) "'Neither shall he go out of the sanctuary, nor profane the sanctuary of his God, for the crown of the anointing oil of his God is upon him; I am the LORD.'"

The sense here becomes clear in context with the previous clause; the high priest was not to go out of the sanctuary thus profaning the sanctuary of God by deserting his priestly post to observe the common practices of mourning.  The complete thought would read that the high priest was never to enter the place where a dead body lay, or even leave the sanctuary, for that matter.  The reason was that the anointing oil of his God, that crown of glory, was upon him, and he was not to thusly profane his holy Lord.

(13) "'And he shall take a wife in her virginity. (14) A widow or a divorced woman or a defiled woman or a harlot—these he shall not take; but he shall take a virgin of his own people as wife.'"

The high priest was only allowed to take a virgin as his wife.  He was not allowed to marry a widow or a divorced woman, nor a woman who was "defiled" and not a virgin.  Additionally, the virgin must be of his own Israelite people.  It may be argued that he was only allowed one wife according to verse 13 which states he shall take "a wife".  The older commentaries I study stated that although polygamy was practiced by the common priests, it was forbidden by the high priest to set him apart as a type of Christ, to whom the church was to be presented as a "chaste virgin":  "For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy, for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ." - 2 Corinthians 11:2

(15) "'Neither shall he profane his seed among his people, for I the LORD do sanctify him.'"

The high priest was not to defile or pollute his posterity by marrying such women as described in verse 14, because the Lord Himself sanctified the high priest.  The Lord Himself separated the high priest from all other men for His service, and would not have His people defiled or corrupted by marriages to such as described above, nor by marriages to women of other countries and cultures.

(16) And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, (17) “Speak to Aaron, saying, ‘Whoever he be of your seed in their generations who has any blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God.'"

The Lord continued speaking to Moses, and told him to instruct Aaron, as high priest, on the fitness of his descendants to be able to "approach to offer the bread of his God".  Any man among his successive generations who had any blemish or defect must not be allowed to serve at the altar of his God.  This seems to pertain to all priests, not just the high priest.

(18) "‘For whatever man who has a blemish shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame man, or he who has a marred face or anything superfluous,'"

The Lord began a list of blemishes that might affect successors to the priesthood that would prevent them from being able to serve at the altar of their God--a blind man, one that was lame, one who had a deformed face, or any extra or uneven features, like having six fingers or one leg longer than the other.  I have to admit I used to be uncomfortable at the idea that God would reject any creation by Himself who had imperfections beyond their control, like blindness or lameness.  My husband is blind, and the idea that he would be rejected by God bothered me.  However, priests were symbolic of Christ, and Christ was perfect and without blemish.  I don't think it is so much that a blind or lame person is unfit to act as a priest, but rather the priest must be like Christ.  In the same way I have come to understand the blood sacrifices that used to make me uncomfortable and had me wondering why God would demand those things.  It's not that God demanded a blood sacrifice and ultimately Christ had to do that for Him, but because Christ, as God come to earth, sacrificed Himself to save us, as pictures of the coming Christ, sacrifices were commanded.  I find it so awesome to see how often the coming Christ can be seen in the pages of the Old Testament!

(19) "'Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded,'"

If a successor to the priesthood had a broken foot or hand for a time and then it healed completely and normally, I would imagine that the man would be prevented from serving at the altar of God for a time while he was "blemished", but perhaps could take over the duties when he was completely healed and unblemished.  I think verse 19 may pertain to permanent deformities caused by broken bones, or someone born club-footed, or with some other such deformity.

(20) "'Or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or who has a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or has his stones broken;'"

A man was prohibited from serving at the altar of God is he was hunchbacked, or a dwarf, or had a defect in his eye, such as discoloration or perhaps crossed or wandering eyes.  If he were scurvy or scabbed, again I think it possible he could not perform the priestly duties for a time until he was considered unblemished.  "Stones" refer to testicles, so broken ones probably referred to ones that had been removed or damaged, or perhaps even deformed ones, such as having only one.

(21) "‘No man of the descendants of Aaron the priest, who has a blemish shall come near to offer the offerings made by fire to the LORD; he has a blemish; he shall not come near to offer the bread of his God.'"

Of the descendants of Aaron, successors to the priesthood, if any had a blemish as described above, he was not allowed to serve at the altar or attend or assist in offering sacrifice or burning incense.

(22) "'He shall eat the bread of his God, both of the most holy, and of the holy.'"

Although blemished and unable to serve at the altar of God, they were still allowed to eat of the portions that were given to the priests for maintenance of them and their families; that included all the things the priests ate of, even the most holy.

(23) "'Only he shall not go in to the veil or come near to the altar, because he has a blemish, that he not profane my sanctuaries, for I the LORD do sanctify them.'"

A priest with a blemish was not allowed to go within the veil or approach the altar so that he did not defile God's sanctuaries which God had separated and devoted for sacred uses, and were not to be defiled by any.  Adam Clarke, in his Commentary on the Bible, pointed out that this was a picture of how we, too, cannot approach God defiled; it is only by the atonement of the perfect blood sacrifice of Jesus Christ which blots out our sins and defects that we may enter into heaven.

(24) And Moses told it to Aaron and his sons, and to all the children of Israel.

All the things above that the Lord had told Moses pertaining to ways in which the priests might defile themselves for the dead, their marriages, and blemishes that would prevent them from attending at the altar, Moses told to Aaron and to all the children of Israel, which was most likely told to the heads of the tribes and elders of the people, to be passed on to them.

As these priests were types of Christ to their people, they were to be without blemish and separate from sinners, adhering to God's perfect laws as nearly as humanly possible.  What a perfect example for our ministers today!  Even though, because of Christ, we are no longer prevented from approaching God because of our physical defects, we must still strive to be imitators of Christ.  I love this statement by Matthew Henry, in his Commentary on the Whole Bible:  "There is many a healthful beautiful soul lodged in a crazy deformed body."  He went on to explain how we should infer from these laws about blemishes that, "incapable those are to serve God acceptably whose minds are blemished...Those are unworthy to be called Christians, and unfit to be employed as minsters, that are spiritually blind, and lame, and crooked, whose sins render them scandalous and deformed, so as that the offerings of the Lord are abhorred for their sakes."

As chapter 22 continued with more laws concerning the priests, and chapter 21 was relatively short, I will continue in this post:

(Leviticus 22:1) And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, (2) “Speak to Aaron and his sons, that they separate themselves from the holy things of the children of Israel, and that they do not profane My holy name in those things which they hallow to me; I am the LORD."

The Lord continued speaking to Moses directing him on what to tell Aaron and his sons, the priests.  Continuing with the things that must separate priests from their priestly duties, I believe the point here will become more clear in the verses following.  Perhaps this was a continuing thought from Leviticus 21:22-23 above.  Although blemished and unable to serve at the altar of God, those blemished priests were still allowed to "eat the bread of his God", but they were not to go within the veil or approach the altar, nor were they to touch the holy things of the children of Israel, that is, the sacrificial foods they offered, which they consecrated to the Lord.  They must not profane God's holy name by flippantly touching anything that was dedicated to the Lord while they were unclean.

(3) “Say to them, ‘Whoever of all your seed among your generations, who goes near the holy things which the children of Israel hallow to the LORD, having his uncleanness upon him, that soul shall be cut off from my presence: I am the LORD.'"

Anyone of their descendants, which I believe meant even women of their families who ate of the holy things that the priests were given for their families, while they were unclean, would be cut off from the presence of the Lord.  That may have meant excommunication from the sanctuary of the Lord, or from the children of God, or even from the living; that part is not explicit.  The Lord Himself decreed this and He alone had the right and power to avenge any such breach of His law.

(4) "‘What ever man of the seed of Aaron who is a leper or has a discharge, shall not eat the holy things until he is clean. And whoever touches anything made unclean by the dead, or a man whose seed goes from him,'"

 "What ever man" as translated by the NKJV or "what man soever" in the KJV, probably means "whoever" referring to anyone of the seed or descendants of Aaron, not just men, although the part about seed or semen going out from him, obviously refers to just men.  No person in the family of priests, including the priests themselves, were to eat of holy things of the Lord while he was unclean, not until he was clean.  Then began a list of the ways in which he might be considered unclean, by being a leper, or having any bodily discharge, including semen, or by touching anything made unclean by the dead. 

(5) "‘Or whoever touches any creeping thing by which he may be made unclean, or any person by whom he would become unclean, whatever uncleanness he has, (6) The person who has touched any such thing shall be unclean until evening, and shall not eat the holy things, unless he washes his flesh with water.'"

Anyone (of the descendants of Aaron) who touched any unclean creeping thing or any unclean person, or anything at all that would make him unclean, that person would remain unclean until the evening, and would not be able to eat of the holy things until he washed himself with water.

(7) "'And when the sun is down, he shall be clean, and shall afterward eat of the holy things; because it is his food.'"

After the sun went down, and after he had washed himself, he would be considered clean and able to eat of the holy things, because after all, it was his food.  We had already been told in Leviticus 21:22 above that a permanently blemished man was allowed to eat the bread of his God, both of the holy and the most holy, as this verse above states, "because it is his food", his sustenance.  However, this current passage insured that anyone who made himself temporarily ceremonially unclean would necessarily make himself clean again before being allowed to eat of the holy things of the Lord.  Just because those permanently blemished were allowed to eat of holy things, that did not excuse those who would become temporarily unclean from doing the things that would make them clean again before partaking of their food.

(8) "'That which dies of itself, or is torn by beasts he shall not eat, to defile himself with it; I am the LORD.'"

Animals which had died by themselves or had been killed by beasts, not having been killed for sacrifice, were not to be eaten by the priests and their descendants, as they would become defiled by eating the impure food, thus said their Lord God.

(9) "‘They shall therefore keep My ordinance, lest they bear sin for it and die therefore, if they profane it; I the LORD do sanctify them.'"

Aaron and his descendants were required to keep the laws of the Lord as before stated or they would bear sin and incur guilt and suffer punishment and death, for the neglect and violation of them.  The Lord sanctified the priests, separating them from the other people for His service, and therefore commanded them to be holy and obey His ordinances.

(10) "'No stranger shall eat of the holy thing; a sojourner of the priest or a hired servant shall not eat of the holy thing.'"

No stranger, someone apart from the family of Aaron, nor a temporary resident or guest of the priest, nor a hired servant of the priest, was to eat of the holy things.

(11) "‘But if the priest buys a person with his money, he may eat it; and one who is born in his house may eat his food.'"

However, if a priest bought a servant with his own money, then he (or she) being the priest's own possession, so to speak, was allowed to eat the holy things as a member of the priest's family.  Additionally, children born of servants he had bought and now owned, were also considered his "property" and were allowed to eat of the holy things with his family.

(12) "‘If the priest’s daughter is married to a stranger, she may not eat of an offering of the holy things.'"

If the priest's daughter married someone outside the family of Aaronic priests, then she, belonging to another family, was not allowed to eat of an offering of the holy things.

(13) "‘But if the priest’s daughter is a widow or divorced, and has no child, and has returned to her father’s house as in her youth, she may eat her father’s food; but no stranger shall eat it.'"

However, if a priest's daughter became a widow and had no children with whom she would be considered as having a separate family, and she returned to her father's house again being neither a wife nor a mother, she would again be looked upon as a daughter and could eat of the holy things.  "But no stranger shall eat it", I believe, refers to any child or anyone connected to the daughter who returned home to her father.  Only the daughter, if she had no other family connections, could return home and be as a daughter as in her youth; only she could eat of the holy things.

(14) "‘And if a man eats the holy thing unwittingly, then he shall put a fifth of it, and shall give that to the priest with the holy thing.'"

If a man unknowingly or unintentionally ate of the holy things, then he was to restore to the priest what he had eaten plus an additional one fifth amount.  He would not be able to give the actual holy thing itself, so it must be understood to mean that he gave something with the equivalent value of the holy thing he had eaten, plus an additional one fifth of that value.

(15) "'And they shall not profane the holy things of the children of Israel, which they offer to the LORD, (16) Or allow them to bear the iniquity of trespass, when they eat their holy things; for I the LORD do sanctify them.'"

No one was to profane or dishonor the holy things of the children of Israel that they offered to their Lord by doing any of the things described as being prohibited above.  In doing those things they would not only dishonor their Lord, but would bear the guilt of sin.  They were not to profane their Lord and bring sin upon themselves because their Lord had sanctified them, setting them apart for His holy service.

(17) And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, (18) “Speak to Aaron and his sons, and to all the children of Israel, and say to them, ‘Whatever man of the house of Israel, or of the strangers in Israel, who offers his sacrifice for any of his vows or for any of his freewill offerings, which they offer to the LORD as a burnt offering— (19) You shall offer of your own will a male without blemish of the cattle, of the sheep, or of the goats.'"

The Lord continued speaking to Moses, telling him what to pass on to Aaron and his sons, and to all the children of Israel.  Any person from the children of Israel, as well as any stranger who dwelt with them, who offered a sacrifice for a vow or a freewill offering, which they offered to the Lord as a burnt offering, must offer a male without blemish from their cattle, sheep, or goats, and it must be given of their own free will.

(20) "'But whatever has a blemish you shall not offer, for it shall not be acceptable for you.'"

An animal with a defect was not to be offered to the Lord because it would not be acceptable to Him on their behalf.

(21) "‘And whoever offers a sacrifice of a peace offering to the LORD to accomplish his vow, or a freewill offering in cattle or sheep, it shall be perfect to be accepted; there shall be no blemish in it.'"

Likewise, whoever offered a peace offering to the Lord to fulfill his vow or as a freewill offering in cattle or sheep, that must also be perfect and without blemish in order to be accepted by the Lord.

(22) "'Blind, or broken, or maimed, or having a wen, or scurvy, or scabbed, you shall not offer to the LORD, nor make an offering by fire of them on the altar to the LORD.'"

Any blind or lame or injured animal, or any with any sores or cysts or scabs, or any such defect, was not to be offered to the Lord, and was not to be burned upon the altar to the Lord.

(23) "'Either a bullock or a lamb that has anything superfluous or lacking in its parts, that you may offer for a freewill offering, but for a vow it shall not be accepted.'"

There appears to be an exception to the perfection rule when it came to animals with anything superfluous or lacking in their parts.  Matthew Henry wrote that the Jews understood this to mean any part larger or smaller than the other one in a pair, such a longer leg or a smaller eye or ear.  It would not make sense to mean lacking a complete member such as having only three legs that would make it lame.  However, an animal with this type of imperfection was only allowed for a freewill offering, like one that might be offered for the repair of the sanctuary.  This type of imperfect offering was not accepted for a vow; for a vow the animal must be perfect.

(24) "‘You shall not offer to the LORD that which is bruised, or crushed, or broken, or cut; neither shall you make any offering of them in your land.'"

An animal that was bruised or crushed or broken or cut in any way was not accepted as an offering.  Because the phrase "any offering of them" was added by the translators for better understanding, I think you could take the meaning two different ways.  It might be as the translators seem to suggest, that the people were not allowed to make any kind of offering with that type of imperfect animal anywhere in their land.  Read the verse without the supplemented phrase and it becomes, "You shall not offer to the LORD that which is bruised, or crushed, or broken, or cut; neither shall you make in your land."  The original word for "make" is "asah" and it also means "do".  The verse would now suggest that the people were neither to give an animal that was bruised or crushed or broken or cut, and neither were they to do any of those things to any of their animals in their land.

(25) "'Neither from a stranger's hand shall you offer any of these as the bread of your God, because their corruption is in them, and blemishes are in them; they shall not be accepted for you.'"

Still speaking about the bruised, crushed, broken or cut animals, those would not even be accepted from a stranger who perhaps might want to show respect to the God of Israel.  The reason given was because their corruption or disfigurement was in them; therefore they were blemished and unacceptable to make atonement for the people.

(26) And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, (27) “When a bull or a sheep or a goat is born, it shall be seven days with its mother; and from the eighth day and thereafter it shall be accepted for an offering made by fire to the LORD."

The Lord continued speaking to Moses and told him that when a bull, sheep, or goat, was born, those being the animals given in sacrifice, the newborn animal was to stay with its mother for at least seven days, and then from the eighth day and thereafter it would be accepted as a burnt offering to the Lord.

(28) "And whether it is a cow or ewe, you shall not kill it and her young both in one day."

The only reason for this law seems to be that it encouraged mercy and tenderness and discouraged cruelty not to kill a mother and her young in the same day.  There should never be a rampant slaughter of their animals without discrimination and observance of God's laws.  As Adam Clarke wrote, "When it is necessary to take away the lives of innocent animals for the support of our own, we should do it in such a way as not to blunt our moral feelings; and deplore the necessity, while we feel an express gratitude to God for permission, to do it."

(29) “And when you offer a sacrifice of thanksgiving to the LORD, offer it of your own will. (30) On the same day it shall be eaten; you shall leave none of it until the next day; I am the LORD."

When the people offered a sacrifice of thanksgiving to the Lord, it was to be given of their own free will, and just as they pleased, as long as they obeyed the aforementioned laws.  Additionally, the flesh of the sacrifice must be eaten the same day it was offered, and none was to remain till the next day.  Thus said their Lord who made the law and required its observance.

(31) "Therefore shall you keep My commandments, and do them; I am the LORD."

Once again, because it was their one true Lord God who made all the commandments and He alone was the sovereign Lord who required the observance of them, the people were commanded to observe and perform all His commandments.

(32) "Neither shall you profane My holy name, but I will be hallowed among the children of Israel; I am the LORD who hallows you, (33) Who brought you out of the land of Egypt, to be your God; I am the LORD.”

The people were not to profane God's holy name by not obeying His commandments.  The same original word, "qadash", is used in how the Lord was to be "hallowed" among the children of Israel, and how the Lord would "hallow" them.  The word meant "to consecrate, sanctify, prepare, dedicate, be hallowed, be holy, be sanctified, be separate".  The Lord was holy and to be hallowed among His people, and He was the one who sanctified them, separating them as His holy people, when He brought them out of the land of Egypt.  The one true sovereign Lord was to be their God.

Chapter 22 began with a continuation of the laws concerning priests and transitioned into the sacrifices that were offered.  The chapter ended with the Lord reminding His people that He was the one who brought them out of bondage in Egypt.  Adam Clarke added to this beautifully, "By such a series of miraculous interferences, to be your God - to save you from all idolatry, false and superstitious worship, teach you the right way, lead and support you in it, and preserve you to my eternal kingdom and glory. God, infinite in his own perfections, has no need of his creatures; but they need him; and, as a source of endless felicity, he opens himself to all his intelligent offspring."

Laws Repeated with Penalties Assessed

Continuing a chronological Bible study:

(Leviticus 20:1) And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, (2) “Again, you shall say to the children of Israel, 'Whoever of the children of Israel, or of the strangers who dwell in Israel, who gives any of his offspring to Molech, he shall surely be put to death; the people of the land shall stone him with stones.'"

In the past couple of chapters (and posts), the Lord had been giving Moses various laws that he was to pass on to the people.  He continued speaking to Moses, telling him to in turn tell it to the children of Israel:  Anyone of the people of Israel, including the strangers who dwelt among them, who gave any of their offspring to the god Molech, would be put to death by stoning by the people of the land.  Molech was the fire-god of the eastern nations.  To give one's offspring to Molech may have been literal, to give to Molech in sacrifice.  The Treasury of Scriptural Knowledge by Canne, Browne, Blayney, Scott, and others, describe Molech and the sacrificing to him this way:

"The Rabbins describe this idol as made of brass sitting upon a throne of the same metal, in the form of a man, with the head of a calf, adorned with a royal crown, and his arms extended as if to embrace any one. When they offered any children to him, they heated the statue by a great fire kindled within, and the victim was put into his arms, and thus consumed. Others relate, that the idol, which was hollow, was divided into seven compartments within; in one of which they put flour, in the second turtles, in the third a ewe, in the fourth a ram, in the fifth a calf, in the sixth an ox, and the seventh a child; which were all burnt together by heating the statue inside."

Indeed, other scriptures (Jeremiah 7:31 and 32:35, 2 Chron. 28:3) do speak of burning children in the fire:

“And they have built the high places of Tophet, which is in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire, which I did not command, nor did it come into My heart." - Jeremiah 7:31

Moreover he (Ahaz) burned incense in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, and burned his children in the fire, according to the abominations of the heathen whom the LORD had cast out before the children of Israel. - 2 Chronicles 28:3 (parentheses mine).

Adam Clarke, in his Commentary on the Bible, doubted the description of the TSK above, writing that he saw no evidence of it in the "sacred writings".  He felt there was only "presumptive proof, and that not very strong, that human sacrifices were at all offered to Molech by the Jews. The passing through the fire, so frequently spoken of, might mean no more than a simple rite of consecration to the service of this idol. Probably a kind of ordeal was meant, the persons passing suddenly through the flame of a large fire, by which, though they might be burnt or scorched, yet they were neither killed nor consumed. Or they might have passed between two large fires, as a sort of purification."  The scriptures referenced above do speak of burning their children, but I suppose it is possible that Mr. Clarke could be right that they might have been burned but not completely consumed and killed. 

Most of the Bible translations of the original word "zera" indicate it meant "children" or "offspring".  The KJV translated it as "seed" which also meant children and offspring, but could have also meant "sperm", as the man's reproductive "seed".  Indeed, that is what Dr. John Gill wrote in his Exposition of the Entire Bible, referencing Aben Ezra, early Jewish biblical commentator and philosopher.  He interpreted it as "lying with an idolatrous woman, or a worshipper of Molech, the abomination or idol of the Ammonites." 

With so many different opinions on what is meant in verse 2, I think it is safe to say that at the minimum, the people were not to give their seed or children over to Molech, in any form or fashion, encouraging them to follow a false idol.  Steering them away from the one true God, the only One who could give them everlasting life, was to lead them to death, and their punishment for doing so was indeed death.  If it had nothing to do with his children, but meant mingling reproductive seed with an idolatrous woman, then that person himself was guilty of idolatry and deserving of death, which is what he chose for himself.  Stoning with stones was a common form of capital punishment.  I wonder if it was the preferred method because the execution was the act of the whole congregation, making each person cognizant of the sin against God that led to the stoning.

(3) "'And I will set My face against that man, and will cut him off from among his people, because he has given of his seed to Molech, to defile My sanctuary and profane My holy name.'"

The Lord actively setting His face against a man would be treating him as an enemy, throwing the force of His full anger and wrath toward him.  The Lord would cut him off from among His people, which of course, meant literally, as he was stoned and removed from the living, but also meant he was spiritually removed from God's own people.  I suppose you could say that man was given over to Molech, whom he chose, whether by literally giving his children in sacrifice to Molech, or giving his potential posterity over to him by lying carnally with worshipers of the false god.  Either way, it would defile God's pure sanctuary and profane His holy name by allowing the sharing of the presence and worship of false idols.

(4) "‘And if the people of the land should in any way hide their eyes from the man, when he gives of his seed to Molech, and they do not kill him, (5) Then I will set my face against that man and against his family; and I will cut him off, and all that go a whoring after him, to commit whoredom with Molech, from among their people.'"

There is some discrepancy among commentators as to what man is meant in these verses, with regard to the one that will be cut off.  If taken as written, I interpret it the following way:  If the people of the land purposely look the other way when they know a man is giving his seed to Molech, and do not kill him, then God Himself will set His face against that man and his family, and will cut him off from his people.  Just because the people did not follow through and stone the man, would not mean that the man got away with it.  God would not tolerate it.  Dr. John Gill believed that the man God was setting His face against in verse 5 was the man that knew of, but winked at, the sin.  I don't believe that's the case, because the plural people were hiding their eyes from the singular man who gave his seed to Molech.  Then God set His face against that singular man.  However, God did say He would also cut off the man's family and all that went "a whoring" after him.  Committing whoredom with Molech referred to spiritual whoredom, idolatry, giving worship, something that belonged to the one true God alone, to the faithful God who had brought them out of bondage in Egypt, giving that worship to another god.  The man's family would have known about him giving his seed to Molech, and all that went "a whoring" after he did it, perhaps would indeed mean those who knew he did it and allowed it were also guilty of committing spiritual whoredom.  Verse 5 does end with "from among their people"; the man would be cut off, as well as all who went a whoring after him would be cut off, from among their people.  The apostle Paul wrote about those who approved of those who sinned, fully realizing that they sinned against God:

Who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them. - Romans 1:32

(6) "'And the soul who turns after those who have familiar spirits, and after wizards, to go a whoring after them, I will even set my face against that soul, and will cut him off from among his people.'"

The person who consulted mediums and their spirits or wizards and their magic, rather than the only true and sovereign God, was seen as "a whoring" after other spirits, forsaking their Lord and putting their faith and confidence in fortune-tellers and the like.  The person who turned to those things, would be cut off from his people by the Lord.  I believe there is just as strong a prohibition against this now.  I do believe these spirits can be real, and can perhaps be truthful at times, but they are not of the Lord.  They can't possibly be, because to encourage a person to communicate with themselves, would be to go against the Lord from whom they professed to be.  Common sense tells us to stay away from such things.  Just because they might be real or might be truthful, does not make them from God.  God alone knows what is best for us and desires what is best for us, and He will reveal to us what He wants us to know.  Any truth revealed by other spirits is only to ultimately benefit them and the force behind them, Satan.  It would likely be to entrap the one consulting the spirits into following them.

(7) "'Sanctify yourselves therefore, and be holy, for I am the LORD your God.'"

Therefore the people were to sanctify themselves, consecrating themselves to their Lord, separating themselves from the idolatrous practices mentioned before.  They were to be holy, as much as was within their power to be, because their Lord God was holy and instructed them to imitate Him.

(8) "‘And you shall keep My statutes, and do them; I am the LORD who sanctifies you.'"

The people were to observe their Lord's statutes and were to practice them.  When doing so, their Lord would sanctify them.  We know that the law itself does not make one holy.  All people will sin and will fall short of the glory of God (Rom. 3:23), but by having a heart toward their Lord and desiring to follow Him and to do what He said, their Lord would respect that and sanctify them.  It reminds me of the passages in Romans 4 that spoke of Abraham.  Abraham believed God and it was counted to him for righteousness.  Abraham was a flawed man who at times faltered and sinned, but he had faith in the promises of God, and that was what was counted for righteousness.  If the people would honor and do the Lord's statutes, then they would be sanctified.

(9) "‘For everyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death; he has cursed his father or his mother, and his blood shall be upon him.'"

Now begins a repetition of those statutes, and the penalty for disobeying.  The people were to honor their mothers and their fathers, and anyone who cursed either was to be put to death.  The original word translated as "cursed" was "qalal" and meant more completely to belittle, to disrespect, to make light of.  He who disrespected his parents was said to have cursed them, and he was guilty and deserving of death.

(10) "'And the man who commits adultery with a man’s wife, who commits adultery with his neighbor’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress, shall surely be put to death.'"

Both the adulterer, the man committing adultery, and the adulteress, the woman with whom the man committed adultery, were to be put to death.  The clause is repeated, the first time "the man who commits adultery with a man's wife", and then he "who commits adultery with his neighbor’s wife", I believe only for emphasis and further explanation.  A man was not to commit adultery, period; that was an act against the seventh commandment of God.  A man was also not to covet his neighbor's wife, in violation of the tenth commandment.  Dr. John Gill wrote that early Jewish scholars Jarchi and Ben Gershom thought it was expressed that way to make an exception for the wife of a stranger, but most commentators I study don't believe that to be the case.  I don't either.  After all, who is your neighbor?  That has been proven elsewhere to be any member of mankind.  Other scriptures definitely point to adultery with any married woman being punishable by death (Deut. 22:22, Num. 25:6).

(11) "'And the man who lies with his father’s wife has uncovered his father’s nakedness; both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.'"

I am beginning to understand that the first clause in verse 10 was a general one, the man who committed adultery with a man's wife (period) was to be put to death.  The second clause in verse 10, and subsequent verses 11 and 12, further explain the ways in which a man might commit adultery, first with his neighbor's wife, next with his father's wife, etc.  In Leviticus 18:7-8, God had already outlined a law in which a man must never uncover his father's nakedness, that is, taking his wife that was his father's and his father's alone, whether the woman was his own mother or not related, but his stepmother.  In further explanation of the ways a man might commit adultery, in this case, both parties were to be put to death.

(12) "'And if a man lies with his daughter-in-law, both of them shall surely be put to death; they have wrought perversion; their blood shall be upon them.'"

Likewise, if a man committed adultery with his daughter-in-law, both parties were to be put to death.  The word translated as "perversion" was "tebel", and Strong's defined it as "unnatural, as in bestiality", and Brown-Driver, Briggs defined it as "a violation of nature, perversion".

(13) "'If a man also lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.'"

Additionally, besides the ways in which he might commit adultery, if a man lay with another man as he would lie with a woman, both men would be considered as having committed an abomination, and were to be put to death.  It can be reasonably assumed that this only applied to two consenting partners.  A later scripture speaks of a man who forces a woman against her will (Deut. 22:25), and in that case, only the man was to be put to death.  That would reasonably be assumed to be the case in this situation, as well.

(14) "'And if a man takes a wife and her mother, it is wickedness; they shall be burned with fire, both he and they, that there may be no wickedness among you.'"

I believe the case to which this referred would be one in which they all three consented to the union; then they would all be burned with fire so as to deter others from doing such wickedness.  It doesn't seem reasonable that a wife who married her husband with the best intentions should later be guilty and burned in the fire, if her husband decided at a later date to take her mother to wife, as well.  I believe the phrase "if a man takes a wife and her mother" must necessarily mean the taking of them at the same time.

(15) "'And if a man lies with a beast, he shall surely be put to death, and you shall kill the beast.'"

Bestiality was punishable by death; both the man and the beast were to be killed.  There are those who might question why an innocent beast was put to death when it was a victim and abused by a man.  I have never been one who believed an animal's "rights" were equal to man's.  Back in Genesis 1, God gave man dominion over the animals.  Countless verses tell us they were given to be used for food and clothing and protection, but they were not to be tortured and abused:  "A righteous man regards the life of his animal, but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel" (Proverbs 12:10).  In this case the animal was put to death probably to wipe out the temptation that might arouse from the curiosity from seeing such an animal that was an instrument in so heinous a sin.  Even if there was no temptation to "lie with the beast", you can imagine the curiosity and talk surrounding the animal, and I am sure it was best to blot out the memory of such a sin.

(16) "'And if a woman approaches any beast and lies down with it, you shall kill the woman and the animal; they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.'"

It was not only in the case of a man lying with an animal, but a woman who lay with an animal was also to be killed along with the animal.

(17) "'And if a man takes his sister, his father’s daughter or his mother’s daughter, and sees her nakedness and she sees his nakedness, it is a wicked thing, and they shall be cut off in the sight of their people; he has uncovered his sister’s nakedness; he shall bear his iniquity.'"

A man was forbidden to lie with his sister, whether his full sister, daughter of both his parents, or just his half sister, daughter of just one of his parents.  "Seeing her nakedness" did not refer to an innocent or even intentional mere glimpse of nakedness, but referred to lying together naked in fornication.  Both were to be cut off from the sight of their people, which probably meant death, but I suppose could have meant just a casting out or separation from their people.  The fact that "he shall bear his iniquity" meant that the guilt of it would stay with them, to be reckoned for another day, if not immediately.

(18) "'And if a man lies with a woman during her sickness and uncovers her nakedness, he has exposed her flow, and she has uncovered the flow of her blood; and both of them shall be cut off from among their people.'"

If a man lay with a woman during her period, both of them were to be cut off from their people.  In this case, previous verses have told us this being "cut off from among their people" meant a separation for a time from their people because of uncleanness.  That is why I am not sure whether the phrase in verse 17 meant separation by killing or just a casting out from among their people.  However, in this case (v. 18), a person could be made clean again after a period of seven days and by offering a sacrifice (Lev. 15:24), but verse 17 does explicitly state that he would "bear his iniquity" which sounds as if that iniquity would stay with him, and would not be purged with sacrifice and offering.

(19) "'And you shall not uncover the nakedness of your mother’s sister nor of your father’s sister, for that would uncover his near kin; they shall bear their iniquity.'"

A man was not to lie with his aunt, whether his mother's sister or his father's sister.  This relationship was considered "near kin", and the Lord had pronounced a law against this in Leviticus 18:6 and 18:12-13.  Both would bear their iniquity, both the man and his aunt, and we can assume it would also refer to a woman and her uncle.

(20) "'And if a man lies with his uncle’s wife, he has uncovered his uncle’s nakedness; they shall bear their sin; they shall die childless.'"

I believe this means that even if the woman was not his aunt by blood, either his mother or father's sister, but merely his uncle's wife, he was still guilty because he had exposed what was his uncle's alone.  Both he and his uncle's wife would bear their sin and they would die childless.  I suppose there are different ways of interpreting this.  Perhaps they were cut off from their people and any children would likewise be cut off and not considered among the Israelites.  Perhaps they were cut off by death and therefore would die before having any children.  Maybe God denied them the blessings of children because of their incestuous relationship.  The verse does not detail exactly how this was to play out, but we do know that God considered this a sin that had lasting consequences.

(21) "'And if a man takes his brother’s wife, it is an unclean thing; he has uncovered his brother’s nakedness; they shall be childless.'"

A man was not to take his brother's wife, that which was his brother's alone; that would be considered an unclean thing and they would die childless.  I believe this probably refers to the taking of his brother's wife while his brother was still living, as God did provide for a case when a man was to marry the wife of his brother (Deut. 25:5) after the brother died.

(22) "‘You shall therefore keep all My statutes and all My judgments, and do them, that the land where I bring you to dwell may not spew you out.'"

The people were instructed by the Lord to keep all His statutes and judgments as He had laid out for them; they were to honor and perform them, so that the land to which the Lord was bringing them would not vomit them out, as He had described in Leviticus 18 the land had done to its previous inhabitants because of their wickedness.

(23) "‘And you shall not walk in the manners of the nation which I cast out before you; for they committed all these things, and therefore I abhorred them.'"

Continuing the thought started in verse 22, the people were to keep God's statutes and were not to walk in the ways of the nations that occupied the land before them, for they had committed all the idolatries, incests, and uncleannesses before mentioned, and He abhorred them and drove them out to give the land to His people, the children of Israel.  God warned His people against doing the same things that resulted in the previous people being spewed or driven out of their land.

(24) "‘But I have said to you, “You shall inherit their land, and I will give it to you to possess, a land flowing with milk and honey." I am the LORD your God, who has separated you from other people.'"

God reminded His people that He had promised they would inherit a land abundant in rich blessings, and that He, their one true Lord God, had separated them from all the other peoples of the world to be His special people.

(25) "‘You shall therefore distinguish between clean animals and unclean, between unclean birds and clean, and you shall not make yourselves abominable by beast or by bird, or by any manner of living thing that creeps on the ground, which I have separated from you as unclean.'"

Because they were God's chosen people, they were to observe His clean and unclean laws and not make themselves abominable by choosing the unclean of any animal, those animals He had explicitly told them were unclean (Lev. 11).

(26) "‘And you shall be holy to Me, for I the LORD am holy, and have separated you from other people, that you should be Mine.'"

His people were to be holy and follow His example and statutes for He was holy and had separated them from other people to be His holy chosen people.  They were His chosen people and therefore were to obey His statutes and judgments if they were to be considered His people.

(27) "‘A man or a woman who has a familiar spirit, or who is a wizard, shall surely be put to death; they shall stone them with stones; their blood shall be upon them.'"

Finally, any man or woman who had a familiar spirit, a spirit with whom he or she communicated, or one who was a wizard, was to be put to death, stoned with stones.  That person was guilty of putting his faith in spirits other than his one true Lord, and his blood would be upon him, that is, he was worthy of death.

Most of these laws are repetitions of laws before given, now repeated with the penalties for breaking them.  As Matthew Henry wrote in his Commentary on the Whole Bible, "those who would not be deterred from sin by the fear of God might be deterred from it by the fear of punishment. If we will not avoid such and such practices because the law has made them sin...surely we shall avoid them when the law has made them death, from a principle of self-preservation."

The last few verses summarized how we are to act if we are God's children, as stated so well in Ephesians 5:11:

"And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them."

Various Laws of God

Continuing a chronological Bible study:

(Leviticus 19:1) And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, (2) “Speak to all the congregation of the children of Israel, and say to them, ‘You shall be holy, for I the LORD your God am holy.'"

The Lord continued speaking to Moses, giving him more laws to pass along to the children of Israel.  His people were to be holy, to the best of their capacity, by separating themselves from the defilements named in this and previous chapters, and by being consecrated to God and obedient to His laws.  Because their Lord in His nature was holy, so must His people strive to be, to the best of their ability, by following the laws He set forth for them.

(3) "‘Every one of you shall fear his mother and his father, and keep My Sabbaths; I am the LORD your God.'"

"Yare", the original word translated as "fear", means more broadly, "to fear, reverence, honor, respect".  Every person was to honor his mother and his father, as had been commanded in the fifth commandment.  They were also instructed to keep the Lord's sabbaths.  It may be that these two things were paired together because if parents were faithful to God's sabbaths, and children in turn, honored their parents, they would continue in honor to their Lord and would pass that on to their children.  Perhaps another way to look at it is that one was to honor his parents regardless of whether or not they observed the Lord's sabbaths, and that it was the responsibility of the children to observe them even if their parents had not taught them so.  Every person was to honor his parents and to keep the Lord's sabbaths because the Lord, their sovereign God, told them to and they were to follow His commands to be holy to the best of their capacity.

(4) "‘Do not turn to idols, nor make for yourselves molded gods; I am the LORD your God.'"

The people were commanded not to turn away from their one true God to idols.  There are many Hebrew words that have been translated as "idols", but this particular word, "eliyl", meant literally "nothing, worthless".  The people were not to turn from their one true God to worthless idols, nor were they to make for themselves gods molded by their own hands, even if they thought they were making an image of their one true Lord.  Again this is a repetition of one of God's Ten Commandments.  I like what Matthew Henry wrote about this in his Commentary on the Whole Bible, "Make not to yourselves gods, the creatures of your own fancy, nor think to worship the Creator by molten gods. You are the work of God's hands, be not so absurd as to worship gods the work of your own hands.”  Once again, the reason behind these commands is because so said their one true Lord, the only One to be worshiped and the sovereign One who had the sole right and authority to command these things.

(5) "‘And if you offer a sacrifice of a peace offering to the LORD, you shall offer it of your own will.'"

Peace offerings were described in Leviticus 11 as being of three different sorts--thanksgiving, vow, or voluntary.  This seems to refer to voluntary peace offerings which were to be offered of one's own free will, and not specifically required.  The way John Wesley put it in his Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible, "For though this in general was required, yet it was left to their choice to determine the particulars."

(6) "‘It shall be eaten the same day you offer it, and on the next day; and if any remains until the third day, it shall be burned in the fire.'"

The sacrifice of their voluntary peace offerings was to be eaten the same day they offered it, or by the next day, at most.  However, if any of it remained until the third day, that part was to be burned in the fire.

(7) "‘And if it is eaten at all on the third day, it is abominable; it shall not be accepted.'"

If any of the sacrifice was eaten on the third day, it would be considered "piggul", literally a stinking foul thing, an abomination; it would not be accepted by God as a sacrifice.

(8) "‘Therefore everyone who eats it shall bear his iniquity, because he has profaned the hallowed thing of the LORD; and that person shall be cut off from among his people.'"

Anyone who did eat of the sacrifice on the third day would be considered guilty and would have to bear that guilt because he had profaned a holy thing of the Lord.  He would have to bear his punishment and be cut off from his people.

(9) "'And when you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not wholly reap the corners of your field, nor shall you gather the gleanings of your harvest. (10) And you shall not glean your vineyard, nor shall you gather every grape of your vineyard; you shall leave them for the poor and the stranger: I am the LORD your God.'"

What a beautiful law to take care of the less fortunate and to encourage generosity among God's people!  When the people reaped the harvest of their own land, they were to leave the corners of their fields for the poor.  The gleaning of a harvest was what was left over after the reapers; the people were not to gather the gleanings of their own harvests, nor were they to gather every single grape of their vineyard.  This was commanded by God to provide for the poor and for the stranger, the foreigner in the land.  It also taught His people not to be greedy about every single thing they could lay claim to, but encouraged generosity to the poor.  After all, God was giving them this new land that would provide for them.  As God gave, and did not withhold His mercies, so should they give and be merciful.  It's one of the ways they should be holy as their Lord was holy (v. 1).  Thus said their sovereign Lord.

(11) "‘You shall not steal, nor deal falsely, nor lie to one another.'"

The people were not to steal or deal fraudulently with each other.  Nor were they to lie to one another, but were to be honest and true in all their dealings.

(12) "‘And you shall not swear by My name falsely, nor shall you profane the name of your God: I am the LORD.'"

The people were to maintain a high reverent regard for the sacred name of their Lord, and were commanded not to swear by His name falsely, nor profane His name by using it flippantly in vain.  Never mind the use of God's name as a curse word, I also shudder to hear how commonly "OMG" is used even among children.  What a common, empty, trifling way to refer to the name of the Lord!  Once again the people were to do this because their sovereign Lord commanded it.  People often bristle at that notion, "Because I said so."  There may be reason to question a person who says that, but when the sovereign Lord of the universe says it, you have no reason to question it.  When you fully understand that our Lord is all good, completely just, and works things to the good for those who love Him, you don't have to question Him; you just trust Him.  Even when God punished, it was to bring His people back to Him, which was their only way to life everlasting.  Although He doesn't force and He gives us freedom to choose, in His mercy, He uses His rod and staff to nudge us in the right direction.  When we understand that, and the fact that a great life on this earth is not our ultimate reward, but to be absent from our bodies is to be present with the Lord, then we can wholeheartedly accept what He tells us and not question His love, wisdom, or motives:

Therefore we are always confident, knowing that while we are at home in the body we are absent from the Lord. (For we walk by faith, not by sight.) We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord. - 2 Corinthians 5:6-8

(13) "‘You shall not defraud your neighbor, nor rob him; the wages of him who is hired shall not remain with you all night until morning.'"

The people were commanded not to defraud or cheat their neighbors, nor rob them.  They must not take that which did not belong to them, nor were they to withhold for a time what was rightfully due others.  That is what was meant by holding wages until the next morning.

(14) "‘You shall not curse the deaf, nor put a stumbling block before the blind, but shall fear your God; I am the LORD.'"

I believe the point of cursing the deaf is that they cannot hear what is being said of them, and thus defend themselves.  Likewise, the blind cannot see and therefore protect themselves from the stumbling block.  No man was to take advantage of the ignorance, simplicity, or inexperience of his neighbor, but in all things do to his neighbor as he would have his neighbor do to him, if the situation was reversed:  "Love your neighbor as yourself" (James 2:8).  Fear the Lord, understanding that He could easily strike you blind and deaf, and revere the omnipresent and omniscient Lord who sees all and hears all, thus says your Lord God.

(15) "‘You shall do no unrighteousness in judgment; you shall not be partial to the poor, nor honor the person of the mighty, but in righteousness you shall judge your neighbor.'"

The people were to judge fairly and righteously, giving no partiality to the poor because of pity for them, nor partiality to the rich and powerful.

(16) "‘You shall not go about as a talebearer among your people; nor shall you take a stand against the blood of your neighbor: I am the LORD.'"

I believe "talebearer" means "gossip".  Some of the commentators of old, I'm sure wiser than me, indicated that the original word "rakiyl" referred more to a merchant or peddler, and suggested that this just meant someone who dealt in scandal and sold secrets as a merchant would.  I believe it refers to a gossip, plain and simple, as a gossip does act as a peddler going about passing the news to many he meets.  The King James Version does not use the word "gossip" anywhere in its translation, but the word is translated as "gossip" in other versions where our definition of a gossip is obviously meant (Proverbs 11:13 and 20:19).  I believe "talebearer" in the KJV meant just that, one who bore tales about another, a gossip.  The people were also not to take a stand against the blood of their neighbors, meaning they were not to take a stand as an accuser that would put his life in danger or stand idly by when his life was in danger.  Obviously, this would refer only to accusing or defending falsely, as the people were commanded to be truthful and fair and not show preference to one over the other.  Their sovereign Lord commanded this.

(17) "‘You shall not hate your brother in your heart; you shall surely rebuke your neighbor, and not suffer sin upon him.'"

The child of Israel was not to hate his brother within his heart.  It was not enough to refrain from hateful actions toward him, but he also must not harbor any hatred toward him in his heart.  Jesus would later say that harboring hatred in the heart was a breach of the sixth commandment:  “You have heard that it was said by those of old, ‘You shall not kill, and whoever kills will be in danger of the judgment.’ But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment." (Matthew 5:21-22a)  If a brother wronged him, the child of Israel was not to hold it in and let it fester into hatred, but was to rebuke him if necessary, and not allow him to stay in his sin, unconvinced and unrepented of it.  Wow!  Love your brother enough to lovingly rebuke him.  How often do we just ignore sin, and just "live and let live"?  "Judge not" seems to be the favorite scripture nowadays.  We certainly can't judge the heart or motives of a person, but the fruits or actions we see, we can judge.  How often are we told to do just that!?

“Take heed to yourselves; if your brother sins against you, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him." - The words of Jesus in Luke 17:3

And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. - Ephesians 5:11

Open rebuke is better than secret love. - Proverbs 27:5

Let the righteous strike me; it shall be a kindness; and let him rebuke me; it shall be an excellent oil, which shall not break my head... - Psalm 141:5a

Those who sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear. - 1 Timothy 5:20

Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one converts him, let him know that he who converts a sinner from the error of his way will save a soul from death and cover a multitude of sins. - James 5:19-20

Brethren, if a man is overtaken in a fault, you who are spiritual restore such a one in a spirit of meekness, considering yourself lest you also be tempted. - Galatians 6:1

Another way to look at the last part of verse 17 is that not only is the brother who committed the act in danger of staying in his sin, but the one who failed to rebuke him may suffer sin upon himself:

“When I say to the wicked, ‘You shall surely die,’ and you give him no warning, nor speak to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life, that same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood I will require at your hand." - Ezekiel 3:18

Who knowing the judgment of God, that they who commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them. - Romans 1:32

Now back to Leviticus 19:

(18) "‘You shall not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself; I am the LORD.'"

The people were told not to avenge themselves for any wrong they felt done to them, nor were they to bear any grudges against the children of their people.  It appears here the Lord was telling His children of Israel how they should treat one another, not necessarily outsiders.  However, he tells them to love their neighbor as they love themselves, and He will tell them in a later verse that the stranger that dwelt with them was also to be loved as they loved themselves.  Thus commanded their sovereign Lord.

(19) "‘You shall keep My statutes. You shall not let your livestock breed with a diverse kind; you shall not sow your field with mixed seed, nor shall a garment of mixed linen and wool come upon you.'"

The Lord told His people through Moses that they were to keep His statutes, and He continued to list them.  There were not to cross-breed their livestock with different kinds.  It is generally believed this meant breeding a horse with a donkey, or a donkey with a cow, etc., and did not mean breeds within cattle or breeds within horses, etc.  The original word "kilayim" means "separate", indicating a complete separate breed of animal.  The people were also instructed not to sow their fields with mixed seeds.  This may have meant planting two different crops together which may have resulted in one overtaking the other, and seems just prudent agricultural management.  It may have been the cross-breeding of two different kinds of seeds for an entirely different kind of food that the Lord was commanding against.  After all, He had already created perfect and sufficient kinds, and man need not try to improve upon them.  The mixing of garments is harder to understand.  The actual meaning of the original word "shaatnez" is not really known.  Since it is included with other "mixings", we can be sure it is a mixing of materials in a garment.  The older commentators wrote that it was probably something called "linsey woolsey", cloth of linen and wool spun together.  It may have also meant the wearing of garments that were patched together with two different types of fabric.  Once again, it may have been for wise and prudent reasons because the threads or fabrics would not wear or age well together. However, I believe the bigger picture was that God was teaching them to be a pure people and not to intermingle with the heathens.  He wanted to discourage experimentation and to teach them to respect and accept His best for them.

(20) "'And whoever lies carnally with a woman, that is a bondmaid, betrothed to a husband, and not at all redeemed nor given her freedom, she shall be scourged; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free.'"

If a man lay with a slave who was betrothed to a husband, and not at all redeemed or given her freedom, they were punished, but not put to death.  Because the woman was a slave and not free, she did not possess complete self-command and could not be considered completely guilty on her own.  Had she been free, later scripture indicates she would have been put to death.  Being betrothed, this would have been considered adultery.  Being redeemed would have meant a sort of repayment that would have given the woman her freedom.  Now to a more difficult part--why was the woman to be scourged and not both of them?  Actually, some of the Bible commentators believe that the wrong pronoun was used and they both were to be scourged.  However, Dr. John Gill, in his Exposition of the Entire Bible, he himself relying on other former scholars, explained it this way:

"...she shall be scourged; and not he, as the Targum of Jonathan and Jarchi remark, though the Vulgate Latin version renders it, "both shall be beaten"; and the original text does not clearly determine it whether one or both should be scourged, since it may be rendered, "there shall be a scourging"; and seeing both were guilty of sin, it is reasonable to suppose that both should be scourged, but this is contrary to the sense of the Jewish writers; so Kimchi [medieval rabbi and biblical commentator], observes, the word is...in the singular number and feminine gender, and not in the plural; wherefore, according to the simple sense, she is to be beaten, and not he to be beaten; and this was done with the thong of an ox's hide, as is the sense of the word used, according to Gaon [medieval Jewish scholar], and so some in Aben Ezra; and so it is remarked in the Misnah, all the uncleannesses, whether of a man or woman, are alike as to stripes and sacrifice, but with respect to a bondmaid, he (i.e. God) hath not made the man equal to the woman as to stripes, nor the woman to the man as to sacrifice..."  Note the italicized phrases are my own words; the other names are labeled and defined in other blog posts.  In summary, neither the man nor the woman was to be put to death.  The woman was to be scourged, and the man's requirement was as follows:

(21) "‘And he shall bring his trespass offering to the LORD, to the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, a ram as a trespass offering.'"

The man who lay "carnally with a woman, that is a bondmaid, betrothed to a husband, and not at all redeemed nor given her freedom," was to bring a trespass offering of a ram to the Lord to the door of the tabernacle.  The woman, being a bondmaid and having nothing of her own, was not obliged to bring an offering; her scourging was sufficient.

(22) "'And the priest shall make atonement for him with the ram of the trespass offering before the LORD for his sin which he has done; and the sin which he has done shall be forgiven him.'"

Accepting the ram trespass offering before the Lord, the priest would make atonement for the man for his sin, and he would be forgiven.

(23) "'And when you shall come into the land, and have planted all manner of trees for food, then you shall count their fruit as uncircumcised; three years shall it be as uncircumcised to you; it shall not be eaten.'"

When the people came into the land the Lord was giving to them, and they planted all kinds of trees for food, the fruit of those trees was to be considered "uncircumcised", not fit to be eaten, but to be cast away as the foreskin of the flesh.  For three years they were not to eat the fruit of those trees.  There were probably multiple reasons for this.  The fruit of a young tree before its maturity would not be good; plucking off the fruit as soon as it began to form on young trees would help them grow stronger and help them to bear better and more abundant fruit the next year; spiritually, this law could be compared with that of animals, that no creature should be accepted as an offering till it was past eight days old, which was also the time when children were to be circumcised. We will see that God would have the first-fruits of their trees, but because for the first three years they were considered as a lamb or a calf under eight days old, God would not yet accept them, as He should have every thing at its best.  The law taught the people obedience and patience

(24) "‘But in the fourth year all its fruit shall be holy with which to praise the Lord.'"

In the fourth year all the fruits of the newly planted trees were to be considered holy, separated and devoted to the Lord, probably given to the priest or perhaps ceremoniously eaten before the Lord in praise and thanksgiving to Him.

(25) "‘And in the fifth year you shall eat its fruit, that it may yield to you its increase; I am the LORD your God.'"

In the fifth year of the newly planted trees, the people were allowed and encouraged to eat the fruit of them, that they might be blessed for their obedience with the trees' increase; thus said their Lord God who promised the increase and was well able to deliver it.

(26) "‘You shall not eat anything with the blood, neither shall you use enchantment, nor observe times.'"

Albert Barnes, in his Notes on the Bible, explained that this began a list of "pagan customs" that were grouped together.  The prohibition against eating blood would seem to refer to the eating of blood with meat which had not been properly bled in slaughtering as commanded previously in Leviticus 7:26 and 17:10, but Mr. Barnes believed there was probably a special reference to some sort of magical or idolatrous rites, as it was repeated with the list of other pagan rituals.  The people were also forbidden to use "enchantment", the original word being "nachash" which meant to whisper a magic spell.  They were not to "observe the times", the original word "anan" meaning "cloud", which probably referred to divination by the clouds to observe lucky and unlucky days, as was a superstition in practice among pagans.  It sounds very much like the reading of horoscopes today.

(27) "‘You shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shall you mar the corners of your beard.'"

Rounding the corners of their heads was probably in reference to the customs of the Arabs who would  show honor to their pagan god by cutting the hair away from their temples in a circular pattern, wrote Albert Barnes.  Marring the corners of the beard may have some reference to hair used in divination which was the practice of some heathens, but it was believed by Mr. Barnes and others that it may have just meant the pagan practices that were done as signs of mourning, to be included with those in the next verse, all of which were spoken of together by the Lord in later verses (Lev. 21:5 and Deut. 14:1).

(28) "'You shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks on you; I am the LORD.'"

I have read the ancients were very violent in their grief.  Even in the Bible we read of tearing the clothes and pouring ashes on the head, but apparently it could get more violent with the tearing of the hair and face with the nails, cutting their ears or arms, and beating their chests with their fists, which was done to appease the gods.  If the printing of marks on a person was in reference to things done for the dead, Dr. John Gill referenced Aben Ezra, early Jewish scholar, that "there were (those) who marked their bodies with a known figure, by burning, for the dead".  Most of the commentaries I read pointed to the custom of tattooing marks on the body in honor of different idols.  This was not to be done for the Lord was their one true sovereign Lord God.  In Revelation, false worshipers are represented as having received in their hands and on their foreheads the mark of the beast.  I have often wondered if this will indeed be a visible mark, but apparently the ancients did mark their bodies thusly.  Adam Clarke, in his commentary on the Bible, called these marks "stigmata", and referenced Galatians 6:17 when the Apostle Paul wrote that he bore in his body the marks (stigma) of the Lord Jesus.  I'm sure that Paul did not have literal tattoos of Jesus, but his heart and the life he lived, as well as literal marks received from scourging and stoning of him for Christ's sake, marked him as belonging to Jesus.  Mr. Clarke lived from about 1760 till 1832, and I had to chuckle when I read what he wrote about tattooing:  "I have seen several cases where persons have got the figure of the cross, the Virgin Mary, etc., made on their arms, breasts, etc., the skin being first punctured, and then a blue colouring matter rubbed in, which is never afterward effaced."  Can you imagine if he saw all the "cases" nowadays?!

At first, I thought I would not dare try to tackle whether or not tattooing was anti-Biblical, but I believe I will.  A prohibition against tattooing is only mentioned once in the Bible, in this verse.  God said that by two or three witnesses a thing shall be established, so when there is only one obscure verse about a thing, I know that does not represent the will of God.  He would have been very clear about it!  Personally, I would never permanently mark my body with anything, but I have to say that I don't believe there is a clear prohibition against tattooing.  There IS a prohibition against cutting and marking for the dead and for idols, and this idea is definitely repeated throughout the Bible.

(29) "‘Do not prostitute your daughter, to cause her to be a whore, lest the land fall to whoredom, and the land become full of wickedness.'"

This was definitely a prohibition against prostitution, specifically prostituting one's daughter, which was a practice of the Gentiles to honor some of their idols to whom women were consecrated and publicly prostituted.  When that type of lewdness was practiced openly in religious rites, it no doubt led to that type of immorality throughout the land.  The whole land would become full of wickedness.  Although our U.S. government is not supposed to be a religion, I would argue that it does represent an agnostic or atheist religion in that it seeks to prohibit any mention of the one true God.  I see it as trying to push its religion on the country, and just look at how its religious or anti-religious notions affect the morality of our nation!  God or His laws can't be mentioned in schools or public places where it might "offend".  People must be free to sacrifice their unborn babies and to practice uninhibited heterosexual and homosexual sex, and we all must be made to accept it and even applaud it!  I do believe the verse above refers to physical prostitution, but in many places in the Bible a spiritual whoredom and adultery is meant when the people "go a whoring after idols", and of course, that leads to a land full of wickedness.

(30) "‘You shall keep My sabbaths and reverence My sanctuary; I am the LORD.'"

The people were commanded to observe the Lord's sabbaths and to reverence His sanctuary, and not defile it with the types of impure and immoral worship as was practiced in the temples of the pagan gods, as He alone was the one true God and they were to reverence Him as He told them.

(31) "‘Give no regard to them who have familiar spirits, neither seek after wizards, to be defiled by them; I am the LORD your God.'"

The original word transcribed as "familiar spirits" is "ob" and it literally meant "water skin" as a bottle, and it referred to diviners who perhaps empty of themselves, swelled up as bottles full of their demonic spirits and speaking the spirits' words.  The people were commanded to turn away from those who spoke by spirits and from wizards, or "yiddoniy", "knowers".  I believe this is an absolute prohibition against any sort of spiritism or fortune telling, as this theme is indeed repeated throughout scripture.  By seeking after such people, the children of Israel would become defiled by them because they trusted in their words and predictions rather than in their one true Lord God.

(32) "‘You shall rise before the gray headed and honor the face of the old man, and fear your God; I am the LORD.'"

God commanded His people respect their elders, rising out of respect and honoring their wrinkled faces because of the blessed long life and experience and wisdom that it represented.  The Lord told them to fear their God who was the sovereign Lord who commanded this respect.  I believe there were reasons behind it that were more than just a demand of obedience.  In my post on The Ten Commandments, I spent some time studying the fifth command, to honor your father and mother.  The commandment promised that by honoring their parents the children of Israel would have a long life in a good land (Exodus 20:12).  It was the last commandment about filial respect, that is the respect for the parent in the parent/child relationship.  The first four commandments dealt with our honor and duty toward our Father God, and the fifth dealt with the honor and duty toward the ones who stand between us and God to teach us about Him and to teach us to respect all authority.  I believe this honor and respect for the aged represented a type of filial respect.  The second half of the commandments dealt with fraternal relationships, how we were to treat our brothers or neighbors.  As John Wesley put it, "This respect is due to such (elderly), if not for themselves, yet for God's sake, who requires this reverence, and whose singular blessing old age is."  The parenthetical word is mine.

(33) "‘And if a stranger dwells with you in your land, you shall not mistreat him. (34) But the stranger who dwells among you shall be to you as one born among you, and you shall love him as yourself; for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.'"

God commanded love for strangers dwelling among His people just as they were to love their neighbors and brothers.  They were to remember that they were once strangers themselves, and they should treat strangers as they would have wanted to be treated.  This tells us how we should treat the immigrants in our land now, with love and respect.  However, I don't believe it commands us to ignore our laws and shield lawbreakers from punishment.  The strangers who dwelt among the Israelites were commanded to assimilate and follow God's commandments.  However, I don't believe as some of the old commentators on the subject wrote, that this commandment only pertained to the strangers who were circumcised and proselytes, or converts.  I do believe that God commands us to love and not mistreat any person.  When Jesus was asked who was included among their neighbors when He had said to love their neighbor as themselves, He told the parable of the good Samaritan who helped someone who could have been considered an enemy.  Once again, I say that loving does not necessarily mean aiding and abetting in hiding from the law, but we love and help all people as our neighbors, our brothers, ourselves, within our means to provide that help.  Just as we show love and kindness to any sinner, as we all are sinners, so we show love to the stranger, but that never means condoning and enabling continued sin.  Yes, I know many strangers come here for a better life and many have hearts for them as they would for a man stealing a loaf of bread for his starving family.  However, encouraging someone to disobey laws and hide in the shadows is never the right way to help someone.  Do we not separate families when one member decides to sell illegal drugs?  It was that person's decision that resulted in the consequence of separating him from his family.  However, that does not mean that we don't show love and compassion for that family and for the prisoner, as Jesus said to do for the prisoner (Matthew 25:36-40).  I agree with some who say that we have created a bait and switch by a former administration which encouraged illegal immigrants and ignored immigration laws, and now we are adhering to the laws.  Again I compare this to drug laws that may have become lax, but then someone who was lured by easy money gets caught and suffers imprisonment.  That is the risk one takes when he breaks the law, and while some get away with it, some do not, and it is by their own risky action that they are separated from their families.

(35) "‘You shall do no unrighteousness in judgment, in measurement of length, weight, or volume.'"

The first part of the verse was repeated from verse 15:  "You shall do no unrighteousness in judgment."  Once again the people were commanded to judge fairly and righteously, this time with regard to measures.  The phrase "measurement of length" was translated from the original Hebrew word "middah", which pertained to measurements of length and surface.  "Mishqal" meant "weight or heaviness; and "mesurah" was a measure for liquids.

(36) "'Just balances, just weights, a just ephah, and a just hin, you shall have; I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt.'"

Continuing the command from verse 35, in order to measure and weigh fairly, they must have honest scales and weights to measure a fair ephah, which was understood to be representative of the standard of dry measure, and a fair hin, the standard for liquid measure.  Albert Barnes believed the last part of the verse actually belonged with the next and last verse in this chapter.  Once again God identified Himself as the people's Lord, this time adding that He was the One who brought them out of the land of Egypt, and...

(37) "‘Therefore you shall observe all My statutes and all My judgments, and do them; I am the LORD.’”

Because He was their one true God and Lord, the One who rescued them from Egypt and took them as His own people, the people were obliged to observe His statutes and judgments with great reverence and consideration, and were commanded to actually do them, as well, that is, they were to consciously obey their Lord God.  In the past I have read over the phrase "observe My statutes" as meaning to do them.  However, with the help of Matthew Henry's commentary, this time I really understand that God is making a distinction between observing and doing.  Quoting Mr. Henry, "We are not likely to do God's statutes, unless we observe them with great care and consideration," and, "Yet it is not enough barely to observe God's precepts, but we must make conscience of obeying them."  We cannot do one without the other.  It is not enough to know and "believe in" God and His commandments.  Satan knows and believes in God.  Neither can we become so legalistic that strict adherence to the laws is all that matters.  We respect and revere God for Who He is, our Creator, our merciful Lord Who is all good, completely just and trustworthy, and worthy of all praise and honor and obedience.  We understand that it is because He loves us and ultimately wants us to choose everlasting life with Him that He has given us laws that are in our best interests.  We love Him and others because He first loved us.  We obey with a heart toward God and His people to the best of our ability.  We are flawed humans who will positively fail:

"For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God." - Romans 3:23

"As it is written, 'There is none righteous, no, not one;'" - Romans 3:12

That is why just obeying and doing the laws is not enough.  It is also completely necessary to respect and observe God and His sovereign laws in our hearts:

"...For the LORD does not see as man sees; for man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart.” - 1 Samuel 16:7b

“I the LORD search the heart and test the mind, to give every man according to his ways, according to the fruit of his deeds.” - Jeremiah 17:10

Both "observe" God's laws and "do" them!