Leviticus

Leviticus - GENERAL REMARKS

Why did the Lord require sacrifices?  It seems that He could have chosen anything, or could He?  As I pondered this question, I remembered Ezekiel 18:20, "The soul that sins shall die."  Then I had the thought, "Would you rather die?  Wouldn't you rather have something (or someone - as in Jesus) else die in your place?"  Yes, I would.  All throughout the Torah, we see cattle, sheep, birds, etc. being substituted for human blood.  I am comfortable with a lesser life-form being killed in my place for my sins.  But think of how outlandish it is that Jesus, the Christ, the Son of God, should have been killed as a substitute for my sins.  How unfathomable is that truth!  

It was a merciful thing that God would count the death of an animal and the spilling of its blood as a covering for the sin of man.  That is a big jump to go from the man sinning and deserving death to offering a lower life-form (animal) to die in its place, and for God to look at it and say, "Okay, My justice is abated."  In reality, however, God's justice was never perfectly satisfied by those sacrifices (see Hebrews 10).  There needed to be a more perfect offering of human blood - Jesus the Christ.  God looked at that and said, "Now my justice is fully satisfied."  If the blood of cattle never really satisfied fully God's justice, then think of how much punishment Jesus must have felt when He died on the cross.  Not even an ounce of punishment was spared for all the sins of past, present, and future worshippers. It took a special soul to be able to handle all that punishment for sin and not fall into sin Himself (i.e., to sin by blaming God for unjust treatment, as we often easy do).  

Leviticus 1:3 - This animal had to be without defect as a symbol of innocence.  If it was not innocent, it would have to atone for its own sin and not be able to atone for another's.  Hence Jesus was without sin.  

Leviticus 1:4 - Furthermore, notice that the animal had to die in the worshiper's place.  Sin always requires the penalty of death ("...you will surely die.").  

Leviticus 2:3 - One handful of flour from the grain offering was sacrificed on the altar.  The rest of the flour was given to the priest to live on.  Here we see that only a little of what was brought as an offering actually is sacrificed for the Lord.  The rest is given to the priest to live on.  What does this tell us about the Lord?  (1) He is not greedy.  He is not looking to take everything and leave nothing for others.  (2) He mitigates the suffering of those who have already sacrificed so much to serve Him by giving to them a greater portion of that which was first given to Him.  (3) The Lord doesn't need what we give Him, per se, for Himself.  Some conceptions of idols say that the idol needs all these things.  The Lord doesn't.  He takes a small portion to satisfy Himself and gives the rest away.  Sounds like a good model for us humans aspiring to be like the Lord to follow.

Leviticus 2:8 - This is a clear example of the priest being the intermediary between God and the person.  Jesus has replaced the priesthood by becoming the great high priest.  Now we need no human as an intermediary.  We have Jesus.  However, the Levitical priesthood played an important part in reinforcing the concept of an intermediary in preparation for Jesus to come.  In this way, Jesus is a supplanter as also Jacob.  People often wonder how God could have blessed Jacob.  Well, Jacob was an unsanctified supplanter.  He went about his divine role in a sinful manner.  Had he sanctified his role, it would have looked much different.

Leviticus 2:13 - "...salt of the covenant of your God..." (NASB).  There is a lot of speculation about what it means to have a covenant of salt. The phrase occurs numerous times throughout the Bible.  Clearly salt is a symbol of something.  Modern Christianity parrots that "salt is a preservative."  But there must be something more.  I just don't know right now.

Leviticus 3:17 - "It is a perpetual statute throughout your generations in all your dwellings: you shall not eat any fat or any blood." (NASB)  The fat of the sacrifice belongs to the Lord as an offering.  And blood was forbidden to eat in another place (Lev. 7:26-27).  Even the Apostles forbade Gentile Christians from eating blood (Acts 15:29).

Leviticus 4:23 & 28 - Why do priests present a male and commoners present a female?

Leviticus 4:29 - Notice that the language suddenly changes between vs. 24 and here.  In vs. 24, the priest "lay his hand on the head of the male goat."  Here the priest "lay his hand on the head of the sin offering."  This is a powerful illustration of substitutionary atonement, i.e., Jesus took our place.  In the words of Paul, "He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him" (2 Cor 5:17, NASB).  In the Hebrew of Leviticus, instead of the word for "male goat" there is the word for sin, which is translated "sin offering."  Notice that Paul says of Jesus, "...to be sin on our behalf..."  This goat, during this ritual, was no longer a goat but sin, according to the literal language.

Leviticus 5:4 - Here we may recall the words of Jesus "But I tell you that every careless word that people speak, they shall give an accounting for it in the Day of Judgment." (Matthew 12:36, NASB)  In the present verse, it is not the content of the word, but the thoughtlessness of the word.  Notice that God says, "Whether good or bad."  If it is thoughtless and with an oath, it will bring guilt, regardless of intent.  There are several examples of people giving a thoughtless oath.  Saul gave an oath of death for who ate food before evening (1 Samuel 14:24ff).  Jonathan, his son, had not heard about the oath and ate some honey.  It was too late.  The Lord counted Jonathan's action as a sin (see vs. 44-45).  Jonathan died an early death in battle (1 Samuel 31).  For another instance, read Jephthah's Vow: Judges 11:29-40.  Yet another instance is when Jacob vows death to the person who stole Laban's idols (Gen 31:32).  He did not know it was his own wife Rachel that had taken them.  Not many years later, she dies an untimely death during child-birth (Gen 35:16-19).  Vows and oaths are not just forbidden because of what they can do to you, but what they can do to those around you.

Leviticus 5:17-19 - In Western law there is a general legal principle: "Ignorance is no excuse of the law."  In other words, if you break the law, you cannot claim ignorance and get away with the crime.  The Lord is making sure that the Israelites understand this principle as well.  Verse 19 is a proof positive of the Lord's intention: "He was certainly guilty before the Lord" (NASB) even though it was an unintentional sin, and he sinned unaware.

NOTE: In the BHL (Hebrew text - Biblia Hebraica Leningradensia), chapter 5 runs through the NASB chapter 6:1-7 and begins chapter 6 with the NASB 6:8.

I have one problem with the NASB rendering of the last word in this verse.  They write, "punishment."  However, the word in the Hebrew is really "guilt" or "iniquity."  This is particularly injurious because the phraseology in Hebrew is consistent with other passages and shows a common theme.  See comments on Leviticus 17:16 for more discussion.

Leviticus 5:20-26 - Principle of restitution: This is not a very fun aspect of the life devoted to the Lord, but it is necessary.  In Wales, during the revival of 1908-1909, many awakened souls were compelled by the Spirit of God to return goods that were stolen or to confess sins and make restitution.  After becoming a Christian, it is necessary to make restitution - as the Lord leads - for previous wrongs.  If something was stolen, it needs to be returned or paid for.  If another sin was committed, it needs to be confessed and reconciliation sought.  This is done as the Lord leads.  You will know when it is the Lord.  The thing will not go away.  It will keep coming back up.  You will read about it and see it in everything until you have followed through with the prompting of the Lord.

Leviticus 8:12 - Any anointing on a follower of Jesus is an anointing of holiness. "...anointed him to make him holy."  Many want an anointing on their life.  They will never have it on "their" life.  They must sacrifice their life to Jesus, consecrate themselves to His service, and then live an obedient life.  Perhaps once their character is established - the Lord sees they can be trusted - then the Lord will anoint them for particular service.

Leviticus 8:23 - From vs. 18 to now, there are two rams that are offered for the consecration of Aaron.  The first time a ram is slaughtered is verse 19.  The second time is verse 23.  The difference between the syntax of the two is that on the second instance there is a Shalshelet accent mark as opposed to an Athnah.  The former is a much greater (heavier) accent than the latter.  Why would they differentiate these two sacrifices with two different accent marks?  (You would normally expect to see the same accents.)  The first was a ram of "burnt offering."  This was an atonement offering for sin (see Lev 1:4 for explanation of burnt offerings) and thus rather routine.  The second, by contrast, was the offering of "ordination" (NASB & ESV) or "installation" (lit.) to the priest-hood.  This was a much more serious rite.  

There is some debate as to why the blood was applied to the ear, thumb, and toe.  Some say to consecrate Aaron to hear the Lord (hence the ear) and then to do what he is told (the hand and foot).  Others say it is entire sanctification: top of the body, middle section, and lower.  The key though is that the blood was applied to the body in consecration to the work of the ministry.

Leviticus 8:30 - Moses sprinkled the anointing oil and blood on Aaron and his sons who were with him.  Notice that the son had to be present to be anointed.  In the unlikely chance that a son was not there to be anointed at the time for anointing, then he would have had no part in the priest-hood.  In the same way, we must be present when anointing is taking place.  It is not something that happens in absentia.

Leviticus 8:33 - The Lord keeps them at the doorway of the tent of meeting for seven days to complete their ordination.  Moses says, "He will fill your hands" (lit., or "ordain you", NASB).  There was something about remaining for seven days.  Calvin comments thus, "One thing only is special, that God kept them in the tabernacle seven days that they might learn to subordinate all their domestic cares and worldly business to their sacred duties."  Matthew Henry comments, "The work lasted seven days; for it was a kind of creation."  The wording of the text indicates that the process of ordination was occurring every day of the seven days.  It is not that they waited six days for it to occur in the seventh.  During that time, the Lord was filling their hands.  For us to give something to people, we must have something in our hands to give.  Here, the Lord is putting something in their hands to give away, and thereby they may serve His people.

Leviticus 10:1 - What was their sin?  They offered the right incense with "strange" fire or fire that was kindled outside the sanctuary.  The Lord specifically said, "You shall not offer any strange incense on this altar" (Exodus 30:9, NASB).  But I cannot find where the Lord commanded against using strange fire.  In Leviticus 6:13 the Lord commands, "Fire shall be kept burning continually on the altar; it is not to go out" (NASB).  Perhaps the intention was that the fire from the altar was to always be kindled because it was the source of fire for all other activities.  Later there is a specific commandment that reads, "He shall take a fire pan full of coals of fire from upon the altar before the LORD" (Leviticus 16:12, NASB).  Only later are specific instructions given as to the source of the fire.  Perhaps the problem was the brothers treated the fire lightly.  Indeed in verse 3 the Lord says, "By those who come near me, I will be treated as holy" (NASB).  I imagine that the brothers were gathering their things for the sacrifice and grabbed fire from their camp.  They might have said, "Oh, we're supposed to use fire from the altar.  Ah, fire is fire.  Let's just use this."  Their sin was not in using strange fire but in treating God lightly.  That might give us pause as we go through our Christian lives not to treat lightly the things of God.

Leviticus 10:2 - What a picture!  The presence of the Lord over the mercy seat shoots fire out and consumes these two brothers.  Verse 5 has a very interesting observation: 

Leviticus 10:5 - It is a little unclear from the English and Hebrew who was still in their coats.  Was it the carriers or was it the dead?  John Gill's commentary cites Jewish sources that state the dead were still in their tunics.  So the reference in this verse to those in their coats was with reference to the dead and not the carriers.  What is the significance of that observation?  Verse 2 says that fire came from the altar and consumed them.  Fire burns fairly indiscriminately.  But this fire consumed the bodies of these brothers without harming their tunics!  Talk about strange fire!  This fire only burned their flesh, which was under the tunics, without burning their outer garments.  What an impression that would leave on the Israelites as word went round the camp!

Leviticus 10:7 - The anointing of the Lord makes things different for a person.  Aaron and his descendants were not allowed to mourn the two deaths.  They were not allowed to even leave their temple duties.  You are not your own.  You have been bought with a price.  If the Lord has something for you to do, you cannot let earthly concerns get in the way.  Jesus speaks of it this way, "Allow the dead to bury their own dead; but as for you, go and proclaim everywhere the kingdom of God" (Luke 9:60, NASB).

Leviticus 10:8 - It is significant that the Lord speaks directly to Aaron.  There are only three instances of this that I can find.  The first was when the Lord told Aaron to meet Moses in the desert (Exodus 4:27).  Then there is this verse.  The last time was in Numbers 18.  This must have been precious consolation, because if you look at the verbiage, it was either that "The Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron" or "The Lord spoke to Moses," and Moses relayed the message to Aaron.  The instructions the Lord gives Aaron here are telling about the circumstances surrounding the brothers' deaths.  He gives Aaron a prohibition about drinking alcohol when on duty and teaches him to make a distinction between that which is holy and profane.

Leviticus 10:16-20 - GENERAL REMARKS - Here we have a situation where on the day Aaron's sons are killed by God, his remaining two sons make a big mistake: They burn the sin offering instead of eat it.  John Gill parallels the priest eating the sin offering with Jesus bearing our sin.  By eating the sin offering, the priests are identifying with the sin the same way Jesus identified with our sins on the cross.  If the priests did not to eat the sin offering, it was a grievous sin! 

Leviticus 10:16 - The grammar of this verse in the Hebrew is significant.  (1) When it describes Moses searching for the offering, there is intensification on that action (adjectival intensifier).  The NASB translates this as "searched carefully."  But in English, this does not carry the full weight of the action.  More accurate would be the rendering, "searched intently" or "eagerly."  

This is quite a dramatic sentence because directly following this intense action is the statement "It had been burned!"  This again has great force in Hebrew.  It is set apart from the previous sentence, unlike the rendering in NASB, as its own phrase.  The word "behold" is an attention getting phrase.  It is like saying to the reader, "Listen up!  It was burned."  The word for burned has the most significant accent of the sentence on it.  The grammar and accenting indicates that the reader should pause slightly after reading, "It was burned!” as a type of dramatic pause to let the reality settle in to the listener.

The Scripture is telling us that not only was Moses angry at Aaron's sons, but when he addresses them in the next verse, he is actually "chewing them out."

One thing to notice is how careful Moses is with the details.  The person receiving the revelation is always more careful than the followers.  Just like the owner of the thing is more careful with it than the borrower.  Church members thus have two duties: (1) Live with their pastors and church leaders in understanding.  They feel responsible for how things are run.  It is very serious to them.  (2) Own the revelation yourself.  Don't just go along with what the pastors and teachers say.  Study it.  Learn it.  Make these truths your own.  It will be easier to live up to God's standards of righteousness if you own the revelation yourself.

Leviticus 10:17 - The first word right off in the Hebrew is "Why?"  There is an accent mark over this word (a Rebia) that indicates emphasis, "WHY did you not eat...?"  It was not enough that they just make the sacrifice; they had to eat it too.  Eating it was part of the expiation (= means by which sins are forgiven) process.  The ritual was not complete without them eating the meat.  Moses says it was given to them to (1) Bear the iniquity of the congregation and (2) make atonement on their behalf before the Lord.  That is an important meal!

Leviticus 10:19 - Then Aaron replies.  Jewish commentators have added that Aaron and his remaining sons had no appetite after the tragedy of the day.  Instead of leaving the meat to rot or to be stolen, they burned it.  

By way of application: The work of the Lord can be extremely rewarding, but when we fail in our duties, the feelings can be overwhelming and overpowering.  Surely Aaron was feeling not just grief but failure.  We must be aware that our failure in one point does not lead to a neglect of our known duty in another point.  The Lord was merciful with them that day, as was Moses.  However, they clearly broke yet another ordinance.  It shows how the Lord considers many factors in deciding punishments: (1) Circumstances that might lead to the offense, (2) Our conscience surrounding the offense, i.e., Did we go against our conscience to break the Law? (3) Did we do it by faith with an aim to please the Lord?  Things are not all cut and dry with the Lord and neither are they in human courts - hence we have courts and justices.

Leviticus 11 - GENERAL REMARKS - The concept of clean and unclean animals pre-dates the law.  Like our discussion on Genesis 38:24, there were certain Laws given to Moses that were already written in creation order.  In Genesis 7:2-3, 8, you see that Noah made a distinction between clean and unclean animals.  In that passage, it was for the sole purpose of sacrifices, however.  Here, it is written into the Law of God not just for sacrifices but for food supply.  Later, the Lord repealed this Law when Peter was praying on the rooftop in Acts 10:9-32.  Modern Christianity makes much of the dietary laws of the Jews citing how much more healthy it is to live that way.  It will do the Christian well to remember that the Lord pronounced all creatures clean.  There are a great many distractions among Christians today, and concerns for diet and health are among the chief.  Other laws repealed would be like the killing of the adulterous recorded in John 8:1ff.

Leviticus 11:2 - I like the way this law is framed: Of all the millions of creatures on the earth, these are the ones you may eat.  It doesn't make them feel so badly that the Lord is restricting their diet when you consider just how many types of animals there are in the earth.  If someone were to complain, "Hey, there are only 100 different types of animals that fit these regulations!"  The Lord might easily reply, "Just how much variety do you need?  Is that not sufficient for you?"  It makes me think of where the Lord places restrictions on the extent of a woman's ministry in 1 Timothy 2:12.  The Lord does not permit a woman to teach a man or to exercise authority over a man.  We have spoken of laws written in creation order; this is also one of them.  Paul cites creation order as his reasons in the following two verses.  So a woman may complain, "Hey, why can't I teach man?"  The Lord might say, "There are over 3.3 billion women in the world.  When you are done ministering to them, then you can minister to men."

Leviticus 11:10-12 - Over these three verses, the Lord repeats three times that these fish are detestable.   He was not that adamant about the mammals.

Leviticus 11:21 - This is truly the world the Lord created.  Observe the specificity with which He speaks about creation.  He is able to differentiate between species in a way that only scientists can.  We must assume that His decisions are not arbitrary, so that He not only can differentiate anatomy, but also the health benefits or consequences of the species.

Leviticus 11:24 & 25 - Why until evening?  Because in the Jewish system, the next day starts in the evening.  They were unclean for the duration of the day.  

Consider creation: "And there was evening and morning, one day" (Genesis 1:5).  Observe how the start of the count was in the evening.  Also consider that the Sabbath for the Jewish people begins on Friday evening and runs until Saturday evening.  What is the significance of this?  It shows us that in God's world, the new day starts with light and ends with light.  Our days start with dark and end with dark.  I think I like God's way better.

Leviticus 11:36 - I offer a spiritualized lesson from this verse: We see that springs or cisterns that are constantly renewed do not become unclean by the things that make man unclean.  Why?  They are constantly renewed.  They are always fresh because of the constant infilling of water.  Jesus spoke to the woman at the well (John 4) telling her that those who accept Him would become like a "well of water springing up to eternal life."  This is how we may remain clean in a world that is constantly touching us with uncleanness.  If we are continually being renewed by the Spirit of God, we become this spring of water that remains clean.

Leviticus 11:44-45 - It is easy to miss the significance of these verses.  We are tempted to look at those verses and say, "Oh, that is just God telling us to be good people again."  No.  You are missing the point.  He wants us to be like Him!  Holy.  Pure.  He wants us to be different from the rest of the world.  Throughout Exodus and up till now in Leviticus, the Lord has described things in the temple or relating to worship as being holy.  This verse is the first time the Lord says, "I am holy" in the whole Bible.  That is significant.  He declared other things to be holy.  Now He declares that He himself is holy, and thus we should be holy too.

Leviticus 11:47 - Again we see the process of separation.  Separating light from darkness, land from sea, clean from unclean.  We separate health from disease.  Wheat from tares.  Goats from sheep.  The whole of the Christian life is about separation, also called sanctification or to make holy. 

Leviticus 12:2, 5 - There is a difference in the way Moses writes about the birthing of a male and female child.  For the male, he writes, "...a woman produces a seed and bears a male..."  By contrast, "If she bears a female..."  The "seed" of a family is obviously with the male.  To produce a seed to carry on the family name was a major emphasis.

Leviticus 12:2 - John Calvin rightly points out here that she was made unclean by child-bearing not for the act of sex, as some sects of Christianity have supposed.  It would do us well to note that sex took place in the Garden of Eden before Adam and Eve sinned.  Unfortunately, the mistaken notion that Christians can only enjoy the conjugal act when procreating still abounds - undoubtedly because some sects still teach that false doctrine.

Leviticus 12:1-5 - We must address the question of why the time of purification is double when a female is born compared to a male.  The answer is: No one really knows.  The best possible explanation I can find is according to John Gill: On the eighth day, the male child is circumcised.  The circumcision the child undergoes lessens the time of purification the mother must endure.  With the spilling of the child's blood, the child is bearing half of the purgation.  We may suppose then that the actual required time of cleansing is 80, as in the female.  But when the male child is circumcised, the time is cut in half.  Rather than viewing it the opposite; the time is doubled for the female.

Calvin makes an interesting observation that the male has the distinct privilege of bearing the sign of the covenant of God with Israel in his flesh.

Leviticus 12:7 - By this verse, it appears that the "sin" per se is related to the flow of blood rather than the actually bearing of a child.  The language of this verse links making atonement for sin and cleansing from the flow of blood.  This suggests that the flow of blood made her unclean and required cleansing.

Leviticus 12:8 - This verse is where the One True and Living God differs from all the other gods of this world.  The God of Israel does not despise the offerings of the poor, nor does He require elaborate offerings.  By contrast, other religions hold that the better the offering, the better the blessing from the god.

Leviticus 13 - GENERAL REMARKS - Strangely to me, the Lord gives the two long chapters (116 verses) to the subject of leprosy.  By contrast, other topics are covered much more briefly.  It is an interesting study to examine the OT teaching on leprosy, the Rabbinic teaching that developed from the OT, and then how Jesus handled lepers.  

Leviticus 13:13 - Why is he clean if he has leprosy all over him?  This is astonishing!  Gill suggests that he is clean because his body is purging the sickness adequately.  If the sores were only localized, then it would be a sign that the body was not purging.  Also, the fact that it is white means the sores are on their way out.  Verse 15 identifies raw flesh as being unclean and leprous.  Some have spiritualized this to say that when a person is aware of their utter and complete uncleanness and sin (covered with sores), it is only then that they have the chance to be declared clean by the Great High Priest (Jesus).

Leviticus 13:37 - Here we see that the priest is confirming something that is already a reality.  "He is clean; and the priest shall pronounce him clean" (NASB).  As ministers, our job is often to pronounce things that are already a reality.  At other times, the Lord uses ministers to proclaim something not yet a reality.  For example, Hannah is praying at the temple to conceive a child.  Eli, the priest, comes and says to her, "May the Lord grant the request you have asked of him" (1 Samuel 1:17).  Then she conceived.  Later, Eli blesses her again saying, "May the Lord give you [more] children..." (vs. 20).  And she goes on to have five more children (vs. 21).

Leviticus 13:45 - This is the verse with instructions that we are familiar to us.  The leper is to go about crying "Unclean.  Unclean."  A distance of 6 feet was to be kept, at minimum, from anyone with the disease.  In Edersheim's treatment of the subject of leprosy, he mentions one Rabbi who would not eat an egg from the street on which a leper walked.  Another Rabbi used to throw stones at lepers to keep them at bay.  Lepers were not allowed inside walled cities.  To touch a leper was similar to the defilement of touching something dead.  (Recall there are various degrees of defilements: Approaching a woman sexually during her cycle, child-bearing, contacting a dead carcass, etc.)  This gives more significance to the ministry of Jesus.  From the Talmudic Tractate (which is a type of Jewish commentary) of the Sanhedrin (98b), they call the Messiah, and I quote: "'the leper scholar,' as it is written, Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him a leper, smitten of God, and afflicted." (Quoted directly from the Talmud as cited in Edersheim.) This quote is very telling.  It references Isaiah 53:4.  But notice the difference.  This Jewish commentary is giving the sense or meaning of the passage.  The literal rendering of the passage does not include anything explicit about the Messiah being a leper.  However, the word used for "stricken" (NASB) is a particular Hebrew word (consonants are: NGF).  That word is used repeatedly to speak of someone who is stricken with leprosy.  Now, in the first part of Isaiah 53:4, it speaks of how Jesus carried our sorrow and grief.  Later, in verse 5, the Scripture says, "By his scourging we are healed" (NASB).  Matthew gives an account of Jesus healing someone, then he writes, "This was to fulfill what was spoken by the prophet Isaiah: "He took our illnesses and bore our diseases" (8:17) quoting from Isaiah 53:4.  Thus divine healing has its foundation in the atonement.  Here is the significance of this discussion: The Jews clearly understood that when the Hebrew word NGF was used in Isaiah 53:4, it was to denote "stricken with disease" (or specifically leprosy).  This resonates with what the Scripture says later of Jesus' ministry in Matthew 8:17.  It also sheds more light what Jesus accomplished on the cross.  He was not just bearing sin, but sickness and disease.  A purpose was to defeat death.  He didn't just deal with the root cause of death, i.e., sin, but also the secondary cause of death: sickness and disease.

Leviticus 13:47-59 - Scripture here indicates that leprosy can be spread through clothing.  This fact is acknowledged in modern textbook of dermatology.  It is not the only way the disease is spread, as the Scripture also hints in verses 45-46.

Leviticus 14 - GENERAL REMARKS - The fact that there are laws for the pronouncement of a former leper as clean demonstrates that there is room for miraculous divine intervention.  There is no remedy given in the Bible for leprosy.  We must assume that any cleansing was divine and miraculous.

Leviticus 14:2 - Notice the tense of the word "he shall be brought."  Someone else is to bring him to the priest.  Twice in the previous chapter the same word and tense is employed (13:2,9).  This tells us a little about how cases of leprosy should be treated.  They are village affairs.  The person is not to face the stress of diagnosis before the priest alone, and neither is he to rejoice in his healing alone.  The Apostle says, "Rejoice with those who rejoice, and weep with those who weep" (Romans 12:15).  The sense of community has been lost in the Western Christian world.  There is also the sense of adherence to the law of God.  Having someone there with the leper ensures that the leper will go through with what is required of him.  Thus, it is a measure of preservation for his soul.  As humans, we are all prone to leave the path of God when things get tough.  This means of preservation helps the leper to persevere in the path of God, which is also the path of life - even if it means suffering or physical death.  The warning passages in Hebrews are also means of preservation.  We read them and think, "I do not want to do this!"  So we will pay closer attention to our walk with God.  We will be diligent to avoid the errors.  Thus, we are preserved in our faith.

Leviticus 14:3 - The leper is still outside the city until his healing is confirmed by the priest.  Caution is still exhibited.

Leviticus 14:10ff - Notice the connection between leprosy and sin.  The Jewish leaders latched onto this connection to condemn those with the disease.  But Jesus forgave their sins and cleansed them from the disease.

Leviticus 14:17 & 28 - Here the Lord indicates that on top of the blood of the offering for guilt should be placed the oil.  The blood represents cleaning, and the oil is a symbol of the Spirit of God.  Thus, in the place that has been cleansed by the blood of Jesus, the Spirit of God is set.

Leviticus 14:34 - There are varying interpretations for the Lord putting a mark of leprosy on a house.  None are clear.

Leviticus 14:49 - Notice that the one whose house had to be torn down from leprosy did not have to make a sacrifice for cleansing.  Tearing down the house was a form of cleansing, however, the Lord judged that the loss of one's house was sacrifice enough for cleansing.

Leviticus 15 - GENERAL REMARKS - This chapter is not for the weak-stomached person.  If you are uncomfortable with body language, then I recommend you skip this chapter until a later date.

Leviticus 15:2-15 - Commentators on this passage are pretty certain that this is talking about seminal emissions either due to disease or normal nocturnal emissions.  But I am not so certain.  In the first case, seminal emissions are specifically addressed in vs. 16-19.  Secondly, the Lord is laying down pretty strict cleansing laws for a "healthy" bodily fluid - in a healthy male, the seminal fluid is clean and disease-free.  I believe the Lord has in mind here discharges due to disease.  Clearly, the discharge is coming from the pelvic area, because the Scripture refers to things a man would sit or lie down on (vs 4 & 6), whether it be rectal or penile.  Furthermore, healthy semen has nothing to do with spittle.  In verse 8, however, the one on whom this man spits is unclean.  This suggests that all the bodily fluids are contaminated, including spittle, which is suggestive of systemic disease.

In the case of disease, if the man has a disease that should produce a discharge and it doesn't, the man is still unclean (vs. 3).

Leviticus 15:12 - The verb form for "breaking" the clay pot is intensive, which is best translated "the clay pot the unclean man touches shall be shattered to little pieces".  The same verb form is used for cleansing the wooden vessel.  It should be "thoroughly washed out with water."  The NASB just says "rinsed", but there is more force attached to this action.

Leviticus 15:16-18 - The Lord differentiates between seminal emissions related to coitus and all other causes of seminal emissions (such as normal nocturnal).  Verses 16-17 deal with non-coital emissions, and one can see that provision for cleansing clothing is involved.  Verse 18 is specifically for coitus, and the command is to wash and be unclean until evening, no provision for washing clothing is specified.

Leviticus 15:19-24 - This passage speaks of menstrual cycles.

Leviticus 15:23 - There appears to be an instance where this law was in force before it was ever written down.  Remember when Jacob's wife Rachel had stolen her father's household gods.  She hid them in her saddle.  Laban comes to her and she says she cannot get off the saddle because she is having her cycle (see Genesis 31:34).  It could be that there was a prohibition understood that whatever a woman sits on during her cycle is unclean and a man should not touch.  We have already noted how several laws of God were written in creation order before they were ever written down by Moses.  This might be another instance.

Leviticus 15:24 - "If a man actually lies with her..." (NASB).  This construction in Hebrew is adjectival intensification.  The NASB translators are taking this construction as semi-outrageous.  "If he actually does this unclean thing...", as if no one would ever really want to do it.

Leviticus 16:1 - Moses resumes the calculation of time by indicating that the following was revealed after the death of Aaron's two sons (recorded in ch. 10).

Leviticus 16:2 - The way the English reads, one might think that Aaron was not supposed to come before the Mercy Seat ever.  But that is not the way the Hebrew reads.  It literally reads, "In [just] any season."  In other words, Aaron is not at liberty to come in and out of the Holy of Holies.  And the Lord will go on to prescribe just how Aaron may enter.

Leviticus 16:5 - The animals for sacrifice had to come from the "congregation of the sons of Israel" in general because this sacrifice was on behalf of the entire nation (vs. 16).

Leviticus 16:9-10 - There are many books and theologies written about these verses that I will not repeat here.

Leviticus 16:15 - "which is for the people."  To see that in plain Hebrew is striking.  The animal is killed for the people. It is interesting to note the preposition used to convey the idea "for the people."  In Hebrew, it is a lamed, which means simply to or for.  There are other words used to convey "on behalf of" or "on account of", but Moses did not use them.

Looking at the Septuagint (Greek translation of OT), can help us see what other scholars understood the Hebrew preposition to mean here.  The preposition in Greek is "peri" or "on account of," etc. This is actually very significant if you consider the prepositions used in the NT to describe Jesus' death on our behalf.  Compare these OT prepositions used in reference the death of an animal to those used in the NT referring to the death of Jesus.

In the NT Greek, there is a preposition (uper) that has a special meaning "in place of" (among other things).  In John 11:50, the high priest is giving a prophesy concerning Jesus: "It is better that one man should die on behalf of (uper) the people."  Notice the connotation is that this man should trade places with the rest of the people.  

I see a difference in the prepositions used in these passages.  In Leviticus, the animal is simply dying "for" the people.  It cannot die in place of the people, because "it is impossible for the blood of goats and bulls to take away sin" (Hebrews 10:4).  These animals were never meant to die "in place of" (GK uper) the death people were to die.  (Ezekiel 18:20, "The soul that sins shall die.")  Only when Jesus came did He die in place of humanity, hence we see a preposition change.  Thus, Jesus does not share any glory with animals.  If animals could actually die the death in place of people, then it would elevate them and lower Jesus.  However, animal sacrifices merely postponed the need for Jesus to come.  As the Scripture says, "And are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins" (Romans 3:24-25, ESV).  There is a difference in the way God handled sin with animal sacrifices and Jesus.  I think that difference is reflected even in the prepositions used.

This should also encourage us because of the specificity with which the Bible was written.  Leviticus was written in the 1400's B.C. and Romans after the death of Christ.  There is a difference of around 1500 years between the writing of these books and yet there is no conflict, even as minutely as prepositions used.  Truly, God is the author of this book.

Why sprinkle the blood in front of the Mercy Seat?  Perhaps it is because the priest would be standing on holy ground.  So the blood was to be an intermediary between the soiled feet of the priest and the holy ground beneath him.

Leviticus 16:16-17 - Here we have the purification of a place: The tent of meeting, on account of the sins of the people that frequent the place.  Everyone had to be out of the tent of meeting while the priest was making atonement for the place.  This demonstrates that sins can infect a place as much as righteousness can saturate a place.  There is a spiritual and material difference between places inhabited by the righteous and unrighteous.  The spiritual and material are connected.

Leviticus 16:19 - The NASB omits a word present in the Hebrew.  The rendering should be, "...and cleanse it and make it holy..."  The last verb is omitted from NASB but retained in the KJV.

Leviticus 16:22 - What happened to the scape-goat?  Did the Lord kill it in the wilderness?  I don't think so.  The other goat was killed, so there would be no need to kill this one.  I think the purpose of this is to graphically illustrate the concept, "...and their sin I will remember no more" (Jeremiah 31:34, NASB).

Leviticus 16:26 - The word translated, "Scape-goat" in NASB is really two words in the Hebrew, as I hyphenated it above.  The "scape" part of that word in Hebrew is interesting.  For students of Hebrew, its stem is a reduplicated form of a word meaning "go away" or "be gone."  It is not really used in the Bible in other contexts except in this chapter.

Leviticus 16:31 - This verse says, "statute forever."  The word for forever means "without stopping."  So did the Lord really mean "forever" or "perpetual"?  If it stopped at the cross, then it wouldn't be forever, would it?  Or is there something else we do not understand?  If you read the plain words of Scripture, it sounds like this observance is not supposed to have an end.  There are not many places where "statute forever" or "perpetual statute" is used.  Mainly they are found in the Pentateuch concerning the Laws.  Jesus said He came not to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it.  Modern gentile Christians read that as, Jesus fulfilled the Old Law, and now it is no longer in force.  Well, if the thing is no longer in force, then that would mean He abolished it, right?  I think we, as gentile Believers, have more thinking to do on this subject.

Leviticus 16:34 - It could be that Jesus has/is fulfilling the role of priest here making atonement for the sons of Israel.  Only, as the writer of Hebrews points out, He does not have to do it year after year, but only one time.  Thus, this law of atonement has been appeased once and for all.  It is not abolished, but Jesus has/is taking care of this requirement, acting as a priest on our behalf.

Leviticus 17:4 - The word for "reckoned" (NASB) or "considered" (NIV) or "imputed" (KJV) in Hebrew is the same word used for when Abraham believed God and it was "reckoned" to him as righteousness.  The concept of imputation of righteousness is very important for followers of Jesus.  Here, the word is used in the opposite sense.  The person who kills an animal (presumably to sacrifice to another god) and does not bring it to the LORD, it is as if he is guilty of murder (lit. "shedding of blood").  The same phrase "blood-guilty" or "blood-shed" is used also in reference to Joseph and his brothers.  They plotted to kill Joseph, but Reuben stepped in and said, "Let us not shed blood..."

It is interesting to see how the Lord views sacrifices to idols.  If a person kills an animal in order to present it to an idol, the act of killing the animal was enough to make him guilty of blood-shed.  I think the reason for this is because there is no such thing as "other gods" only demons (Deut 32:17).  To kill an animal for a demon is a waste of life.  If you waste a life, you are guilty of unnecessary blood-shed.

Leviticus 17:5 - In the Hebrew, the objects have special meaning: A person was to bring his offering to the Lord at a specific place (Tent of Meeting) and entrust it to a specific person (Priest as intermediary).

Leviticus 17:6 - I thought for a moment that "soothing" might also be applied to the anger of the Lord (as in to "sooth the anger of the Lord").  But after consulting a lexicon, it is clear that this word is only used on the context of sacrifices.

Leviticus 17:7 - This verse mentions "goat-demons." Some commentators call them "Satyrs", but after doing some research, I have a hard time believing it is really the mythological Satyr for a couple reasons: (1) The Satyr, as we know it now, did not appear until Greek literature several hundred years after Leviticus was written.  The Greeks could have borrowed the concept from the Ancient Near East and embellished it. (2) The Hebrew word has simply to do with being hairy or goat-like.  (3) I cannot find any Egyptian reference to a Satyr prior to the Greeks.  (Egypt existed the same time Leviticus was written.)

Most probable is this goat-demon concept has its origin in Arabic and Syrian legends where hairy demons (or monsters) would inhabit desolate places.  Apparently, some worship of these demons had crept into Hebrew practice, and the Lord is here putting a stop to it.  If you look up Satyr online, you will see all manner of graphic illustrations of Greek renderings.  These are not what the Bible depicts.  The Greeks painted that hundreds a years after this book was written.

Leviticus 17:1-9 - These verses are about preventing idolatry.  Any sacrifices the Israelites make, even in private, should be brought to the Lord.

Leviticus 17:10 - Notice how severe a punishment was for a person who ate blood compared with the punishment for sacrificing to idols.  In verse 9, a person was cut off by his own people for idolatry.  In verse 10, the Lord set His face against him and He Himself cut the offender off.  The reason for such severity is in the next verse.

Leviticus 17:11 - Blood is sacred to the Lord.  It represents life, and life is sacred.  The NASB rendering of part b of this verse is somewhat difficult to understand.  Here is my rendering, which is simpler, "Because it is the blood that makes atonement for the life."  The difficulty in the Hebrew is how to understand a pronoun for "it".  I am seeing it as a retrospective pronoun that emphasizes the main subject (blood). 

Leviticus 17:13 - This is describing an unofficial burial for the blood.  Just as we bury our dead out of respect (or don't bury in order to shame, see 2 Kings 9:10).

Leviticus 17:16 - "He shall bear his own guilt."  It appears as if the Lord is saying that this person cannot turn to a sacrifice to bear this guilt away.  There are few places in the Old Testament that share this same construction in Hebrew: Leviticus 5:1, 5:17, 20:17, 20:19; Numbers 30:15 (or vs. 16 in Hebrew).  The Numbers verse concerns a man that bears the guilt of his wife.

There are two places in the New Testament that resemble the above: Mark 3:28-29 (Blaspheme against the Holy Spirit) and Hebrews 10:26.  There seems to be some resemblance to Luke 12:48 as well. 

Modern Christianity does not know what to do with the two New Testament passages cited above.  They do not fit into our paradigm of "all sins are forgiven."  The only thing I wish to point out here is that the concept is not foreign to the Bible, but it indeed occurs several times in the Old Testament as well.  To explain these passages is beyond the scope of the present work.

Leviticus 18 - GENERAL REMARKS - If you place chapter 18 and 20 side by side, you will see remarkable similarities.  They cover many of the same topics: human sacrifice to Molech, immoral relations, call to be holy, and a prohibition of intercourse during a woman's menstrual cycle.  Chapter 20 has a few things chapter 18 does not: laws against necromancers and mediums, and laws concerning clean or unclean animals.  Where the two overlap, it seems that chapter 20 prescribes the punishment where chapter 18 only addresses the prohibition.  

Leviticus 18:3 - The following things were practiced throughout the Ancient Near East.  They were practically the rule of the day, as the Lord says, "you shall not walk in their statutes" (NASB).  Acceptable practices of the day do not make it right with God, if it goes against His word.

Leviticus 18:4 - The NASB misses the force of this verse.  The words "my judgments" and "my statutes" are put before the verbs, which is out of normal order and signifies emphasis on the direct object.  The Lord emphasizes, "My judgments you will do.  My statutes you will keep; to walk in them."  Then there is an major accent mark before the next phrase (an Athnah was used), which also places emphasis on what follows: "I am YAHWEH (the divine name) your God."

Leviticus 18:9 - The NASB translates this verse literally, but does not accurately convey the sense.  The literal location of birth is not in view (born inside the house or outside).  It has to do with whether the girl is a step-sister or full sister.  A step-sister is not technically a blood relative.  However, in either case, it is wrong.  Why?  Because to have relations with a close relation (blood relative or not) would upset the fabric of society.  It would also be occasion for others to stumble who did not know the girl was a step-sister.  It could be a slippery-slope for the society.  Once it accepted relations between step-children, it would soon accept relations between blood children.

Leviticus 18:17 - If a man marries a woman who already has a daughter, he may not marry the daughter or any of the grandchildren after his wife passes away.  He may not marry kin.

Leviticus 18:18 - It is permitted, however, to marry a sister only after his wife has died.  You may marry women from the same family, if the first wife has died.  Jacob's uncle Laban caused Jacob to transgress this law, though Jacob was guiltless because the law had not yet been written.  Perhaps the Lord saw the distress caused to the sisters by having the same husband, and He was careful to write this law.

Leviticus 18:19 - A woman's menstrual cycle was a time of uncleanness, which is why a man should not have intercourse with her at that time.  There is no further comment in this passage, but in chapter 20:18, the Lord says if a man lies with a woman in her cycle, they both should be cut off from the people.

Leviticus 18:20 - The Hebrew of this verse is a little complicated.  I think Young's Literal Translation is best: "And unto the wife of thy fellow thou dost not give thy seed of copulation, for uncleanness with her."

Leviticus 18:21 - Sacrificing children to Molech was strictly prohibited.  And the Lord adds to the prohibition, "nor shall you profane the name of your God" (NASB).  Why would He add this?  Because according to some Jewish scholars, the Israelites would sacrifice their children, as the other nations did, in times of great distress thinking that by making the ultimate sacrifice, God would help them.  That action profanes the name of the Lord.

Leviticus 18:22 - Homosexuality is called an abomination.  The Hebrew word is specifically "abomination."  In the next verse, Moses uses a different word.

Leviticus 18:23 - The NASB renders it "perversion," but the word has the connotation of confusion of creation or divine order. It would be an error to say the difference in the words means a difference in the degree of sin (e.g., to say abomination is worse than perversion).  In the analogous chapter (20), both sex with animals and homosexuality are punishable by death.  Thus, both are equally sinful in the eyes of God.

Leviticus 18:25 - This is not the only place where an inanimate object (such as land or stones) are spoken of as if they had thoughts and feelings.  At Jesus' triumphal entry, He said even the rocks would cry out.  Paul said in Romans 8:19 that all creation is waiting eagerly for the revelation of the sons of God.  Here, God punished the land because of the inhabitants, so the land was eager to eject the inhabitants.

Leviticus 18:30 - It strikes me what the Lord says, "I am the LORD, your God."  In English, "Lord" is a generic word for someone who is over another.  Hence we say, "Don't lord it over me."  The way it comes across in English is as if the Lord were using two (2) generic names for Himself: Lord and God.  But LORD is actually using His specific divine name, which He gave to Moses, when He says, "LORD."  I think the effect is supposed to be something like this:

"You see all those other nations?  They commit these abominations in the name of their gods.  I don't want you to do that.  I am the One, True, Living God.  My name is Yahweh, and I am your God.  You will listen to Me and not them."

That has much more force when understood thus.  This happens all over in the OT, and whenever you see "LORD" in capitalized letters, you know the specific divine name is involved.  Following an ancient Jewish custom, we do not vocalize the divine name, so we just say "Lord."

Leviticus 19:2 - Holiness is separateness.  It is being different from the others around you.  It is having an air of the divine.  There is an "other-worldliness" to your demeanor, like you somehow belong but don't belong on earth.  The Lord is making a people for Himself that look like Him - a real family of God.

Leviticus 19:3 - Top on the list: Commandment number four and five out of the ten.  Then it is followed by the divine name again.

Leviticus 19:4 - The next two commandments are reiterations of one and two.  And they again are followed by the divine name.

Leviticus 19:9-10 - The "gleanings" of the field are the things that have fallen on the ground after they have been cut or picked.  E.g., a man reaps a sheaf of wheat, but taking it to the cart, he drops a few on the ground.  He's not to pick it back up.  There are no accidents with God.  That wheat that fell was meant to fall for sake of the poor.  Ruth took advantage of this law when gleaning from Boaz's fields (Ruth 2).  From Ruth's story, we learn that the reapers used to treat harshly the poor that came to the fields to glean (2:16).  That would be a normal human reaction when you are trying to work, and someone is standing around waiting for you to drop something so he can pick it up and claim it for himself.  You've worked hard, and he hasn't.  Now he is getting profit from your labor.  But that is how the Lord takes care of the poor.  The rich always resent it - unless they have understanding.  The key to understanding is in verse 10 "you shall abandon them" (NASB says "leave").  Whatever falls behind, you are to abandon.  That is, you are to think no more about it.  The problem arises when we keep thinking about what we've left behind for others to take.  If we let it go and stop thinking about it, giving it up to the Lord, then we have understanding.

In our society, we have the same tension between those on "welfare" and those who fund it (taxpayers).  But think about the life of those needing welfare.  While they are benefiting from your work, you wouldn't want to live their life: never knowing where your meals are coming from, being always on the brink of destitution.  The little they get from you is not sufficient to make their lives secure like yours.  It also teaches us that being on welfare is not a place to stay.  No one in their right mind would want to always live like that.  The tension does serve a good person: It makes one on welfare uncomfortable and hopefully desire to make a better life for himself.  Thus God does not waste any opportunity at shaping a person's life for the better.

Leviticus 19:11 - Here you have repetition of the 8 and 9 commandment with an expansion on their meaning to include dealing falsely with someone.  There is a preposition (beyth) in front of "another" that has the connotation of acting against someone.  When we lie, steal or deal falsely, we are harming the other person, even if there is no physical damage.  

Leviticus 19:12 - Here is repetition and expansion of the 3 commandment.  By swearing falsely in the name of the Lord, God says it is taking His name in vain, which is a sin that will not go unpunished.

Leviticus 19:13 – This is a repetition and expansion of the 8th commandment.  The verse begins with not oppressing your neighbor or literally your friend.  This command is the over-arching concept for the verse.  Stealing from him or withholding his wages would be a form of oppression.  Throughout the book of Judges, the Bible talks about nations that would oppress Israel in the form of stealing from them or destroying their means of livelihood.  If you withhold a person’s wages, they might not eat that night.  

Leviticus 19:14 - This verse could also fall under the general prohibition against oppressing another person.

Leviticus 19:15 - The Lord is equitable.  He indicates that we should show no favoritism to the poor or to the rich.  Matthew Henry says regarding the poor, "Whatever may be given to a poor man as alms, yet let nothing be awarded him as his right but what he is legally entitled to, nor let his poverty excuse him from any just punishment for a fault."  We all know intuitively that the rich tend to be favored.  But the Lord says neither the rich nor the poor should be favored.  There are political parties in the USA that are built much upon showing favoritism to the poor (and parties built on favoring the rich too).  The Lord says laws and decisions should be made fairly.

Leviticus 19:17 - The Hebrew grammar in this verse is significant.  Moses uses an adjectival intensifier to give the meaning, "You may certainly rebuke your neighbor..."  In other words, you may rebuke them for a wrong, but you may not harbor ill feelings toward them.  "Let it flow, let it go."  Matthew Henry has a wonderful explanation of this verse, and it is worth quoting in full: "Rather rebuke him than hate him for an injury done to thyself. If we apprehend that our neighbor has any way wronged us, we must not conceive a secret grudge against him, and estrange ourselves from him, speaking to him neither bad nor good, as the manner of some is, who have the art of concealing their displeasure till they have an opportunity of a full revenge (2 Sa. 13:22); but we must rather give vent to our resentments with the meekness of wisdom, endeavor to convince our brother of the injury, reason the case fairly with him, and so put an end to the disgust conceived: this is the rule our Saviour gives in this case, Lu. 17:3. 2. Therefore rebuke him for his sin against God, because thou lovest him; endeavor to bring him to repentance, that his sin may be pardoned, and he may turn from it, and it may not be suffered to lie upon him.

M. Henry is not giving us license to act in the flesh or flare up our anger when someone does us wrong.  Notice that he says, "vent...with the meekness of wisdom...rebuke him...because thou lovest him, endeavor to bring him to repentance..."  This is not lashing out at someone for wronging you.  This is restoring someone who has sinned against you by gentle and loving confrontation.

The last part of the verse, "Shall not incur sin because of him," is teaching that we should not allow someone's sin against us to drive us to sin against them by holding a grudge, not confronting the sin, or taking revenge.  In other words, do the two things prescribed previously and you won't fall into sin on account of him.

Leviticus 19:18 - Verses 17 and 18 belong together.  You can see the theme in the two verses: Don't hate (17), don't bear grudges (18).  Verse 18 has a summary statement of what we should do: Love our neighbors as ourselves.

Leviticus 19:19 - This verse is a prohibition of mixing things that would not normally be mixed: Mules don't normally mate with horses.  Wolves don't normally mate with dogs, etc.  Commentators are at a loss as to exactly why the Lord would make these prohibitions.  The above mentioned one seems logical enough.  However, sowing a field with two kinds seems to be a practical consideration (hard to separate wheat from rye if sown together).  And the last seems to be symbolic of a higher reality.  I can only take a stab at the meaning: In the Trinity, the Three Persons (Father, Son, and Spirit) are of the same substance, yet they are distinct in personality, and have wills that are unmixed and unconfused.  Furthermore, God is pure through and through.  So, with the garments, we are to take a pure but distinct thread and weave it together without mixing and without confusing it with other substances.  

Are these regulations still in force today?  I say, don't mix animal species.  Farmers would probably tell you not to sow your field with two types of seed for practical reasons.  What to do with the last one?  Let's think about it more.

Leviticus 19:23 - This verse employs a rare phrase.  Literally, the Hebrew reads, "It's uncircumcision you will consider as uncircumcised."  In the first instance uncircumcision refers to "fruit" and in the other it means "consider as prohibited."  When Moses tells God he is unable to speak, he literally says, "I am uncircumcised of lips" (Exodus 6:12).  

Gill gives a good explanation for why the Israelites could not eat the fruit the first three years: (1) Gardeners recommend that newly planted trees have their fruit picked off early - before it is ripe.  This will help the tree establish better roots and be more fruitful later.  In Israel's earnestness to cultivate the land and bring forth food, they were not to sacrifice the long-term sustainability of their sojourn in the promise land.  Fruit trees don't last forever.  So if the existing trees die, and the Israelites didn't properly care for the newly planted trees, then they will really suffer.  Following God's plan will ensure food for years to come.  We can be too eager to reap the benefits of our labor and thus jeopardize the long-term outcomes by our short sightedness.  (2) Gill cites Aben Ezra as saying the 3rd year fruit is actually harmful to humans to eat.  Notice that the Lord didn't even want the fruit in the first 3 years.  It was only in the 4th year that He wanted it dedicated to Him.  The fourth year is the first year the Lord saw the fruit as beneficial to eat.

This may seem restrictive, but note all the things they were permitted to eat: Any tree that was planted before they came there.  And the Israelites said that if a tree was not chiefly planted for food (so to make a hedge or for timber), it was free to eat from.  If a tree grew up by itself, i.e., it was not intentionally planted, then they could eat of its fruit any time.  Thus, we should not imagine that the Lord was putting an undue hardship on His people.  In actuality, He was looking out for their long-term ability to remain in the land.

Leviticus 19:24 - This verse has interesting accenting.  There is a major accent break after the words, "its fruit shall be..."  But then it picks up after the break with "holy."  It is as if the Moses is trying to keep the reader in suspense. "The fruit shall be...yes, yes,...what shall it be?"  "It shall be HOLY."  Notice too that it is an offering or praise to the LORD.  It is not a guilt offering, a peace offering, a wave offering, or any other thing but a praise offering.  I can find no other place in the Bible where the phrase "offering of praise" occurs.  I think that is significant.  Why was the fourth year's fruit an offering of praise?  If the tree survived into the fourth year, and if the Israelites kept the law and picked the fruit off the tree early, then this fourth year's fruit should look beautiful.  It was a praise offering because the Lord had made them able to sustain life in the Promised Land.  It was a praise offering because it linked to their ability to stay in the Promised Land.

Leviticus 19:25 - The promise of increase was given after 4 years of deprivation.  This does not directly apply to Christians today who need increase in finances.  Some may say, "I've been deprived for longer than 4 years, where's my increase?"  There are a few possible reasons for your deprivation: (1) I believe that some receive all the money from God they need to live comfortably.  However, their poor spending habits and far-reaching lifestyle requires more money.  If they learn to live more modestly and humbly and spend more wisely what they are given, they would not feel any deprivation.  This was our experience.  (2) It is possible that because of one's own sin, a family may suffer deprivation.  A father may have turned from following the Lord, may be lazy, and may be prone to dissipation (spending on costly vanities like alcohol or tobacco).  Notice in the text that the Israelites had to obey a specific command of the Lord to deprive themselves of possible increase for 4 years.  I may be presumptuous, but most Americans do not deprive themselves of possible increase for anyone, let alone God.  Notice also the amount of faith the Israelites would have to have to agree to this.  It wasn't just a year but four years!  Think also of the perseverance in faith and obedience they must have had.  I'm sure there were bad years when the fruit looked so good on those trees while some of the pre-existing trees they could eat from did not have such good fruit.  Do you see the parallel to the Garden of Eden temptation?  It is implied here.  Though we do not know how the Israelites faired compared with Adam and Eve.

Leviticus 19:27 - The hair cutting pattern prohibited here was practiced by pagans in the worship of their gods.  This verse is followed by other prohibitions about pagan worship.

Leviticus 19:30 - Notice the "Sabbaths" are plural, which is meant to include not just Sabbath days but years as well (e.g., Ex 23:10).  This command is a repetition of verse 3, chapter 19.

Leviticus 19:32 - It was the custom of the Israelites, and the Gentile nations at the time as well, to rise before those who were 70+ years old.  It was also the custom for a boy to rise before a man with a beard.  The question is: Does this apply to us now?  It follows the principle of deference.  The aged deserve respect from the younger.  It is a morally despicable society that does not treat with deference the aged.  But do we need to stand up, really?  Your body follows your heart, and your heart will follow your body.  Some think it is a one-way street.  But it is not so.  Even some of our modern sages have said, "Fake it until you make it."  That means, even if you don't *feel* like it (in your heart), do it anyway (your actions).  Your feelings will follow your actions.  They use this principle in marriage counseling as well.  Ever heard of the "Love Dare"?

I think it is a good practice to stand before the aged.  I would recommend it especially to those who do not respect their elders enough.

Leviticus 20 - GENERAL REMARKS - I find it interesting that not every offense was worthy of death, however, in some instances, the Lord even specifies the type of death. Furthermore, if you put chapter 18 next to chapter 20, you will find remarkable similarities. The main difference is that chapter 20 gives the punishment for sins mentioned in both chapters.

In what follows, I name the punishment followed by those whom should receive it:

-Cut off from the people: Those who seek necromancers; those who do not put to death people who sacrifice their children to Molech; intercourse during menstrual cycle; sex with sister-in-law;

-Stoned: Mediums and necromancers;

-Put to death (general): One cursing father or mother; sacrificing children to Molech; adultery with neighbor's wife; sex with mother-in-law; sex with daughter-in-law; homosexuality; sex with animals;

-Burned alive: A man that marries mother and daughter (see note on Lev. 20:14)

-Die childless: Sex with deceased uncle's wife; Sex with deceased brother's wife (unless it is to fulfill the law of propagating your dead brother's family line, which is within bodes of marriage and not fornication);

-Unspecified punishment: Sex with an aunt.

Leviticus 20:2 - It is significant that the Lord includes sojourners in the land in the prohibition of sacrificing to Molech. Later in the verse, God instructs that "the people of the land" should stone the offender. Note that He did not say just the Israelites, but that even the sojourners should take up stones to kill the ones polluting the land with such horrible practices. Can you see it? A sojourner would pick up stones against an Israelite to kill him for sacrificing to Molech.

Why include sojourners in the prohibition and execution? Such evil pollutes the land, which the sojourner must live in as well. This gives Christians living as a religious minority in countries the right to speak out against atrocities. Evil pollutes a land, and as Christians we must stand up against it, because we will suffer along with the rest of the land.

Another reason to include sojourners is because they might influence the Israelites to the practice. Thus, no one was allowed to sacrifice to Molech to prevent pollution of the land or leading astray the Israelites.

Leviticus 20:3 - "I will set my face against that man..." There is an emphatic inclusion of the personal pronoun "I" that is meant to convey, "I, yes, even I will set me face..." The Lord does not often say this. As best as I can tell, it occurs: 5 - Leviticus; 2 - Jeremiah; 2 - Ezekiel. In every instance, there is some grave sin involved. There is no worse punishment in this life than the Lord setting His face against you.

Leviticus 20:4-5 - The greatest service the people of the land could do to a family whose member sacrificed to Molech is to kill the offending person. If they did not kill that person, then look what the Lord will do: He will not only set His face against the offender but also the entire family.

Leviticus 20:8 - "I am the Lord who sanctifies you" (NASB). That is to say, "I am the One who makes you different from everyone else."

Leviticus 20:9 - The word "curse" in the Hebrew is different from "curse" in English. If someone says a four-letter word in English, they have "cursed." But in Hebrew, to curse someone is to call on some spiritual power (either God or devils) to ruin the life of another person. God says this sin is the ultimate of depravity, and the person deserves to die.

Leviticus 20:13 - God specifically says that in the homosexual act, both parties (passive and active) are guilty of committing an abomination and should die. In the Greco-Roman world, they differentiated between the active and passive partners. There were rules governing who could take which role. Only if someone violated those laws could guilt be imputed. But the homosexual act was not considered a sin unless it violated regulatory laws. Here, God says any homosexual act is an abomination and both violators deserve to die.

Leviticus 20:14 - The Targum of Jonathan actually prescribes that the three of them should be killed by pouring molten lead into their mouths (Section 30, Kedoshim). It should be noted that the Israelites were not very good at following through with capital punishment.

Leviticus 20:23 - There is a nuance in this verse that you have to look to the footnotes of the English translation to see. The word "customs" (NASB) is literally the word "statutes" that is used also in the previous verse. The significance is this: In verse 22, the Lord says, "You must keep all my statutes." Then in verse 23 He says, "Do not walk in the statutes of the pagan nations." He is saying they have a choice of statutes to follow, but they are to follow His only.

The Lord says, "I loathed them." This is a very strong statement in the Hebrew. There is a preposition Bet (second letter of the Hebrew alphabet) in front of "them", which is used in extreme circumstances. My Hebrew professor always said, "You never want to see a Bet in front of your name! If you did, that meant you were in big trouble."

Leviticus 21:1-4 - This law seems to reduce the number of people who would become ceremonially unclean in the instance of death.  People outside the family were not to become involved in handling the body.  When a person was made unclean, there were certain offerings and ceremonies he would have to go through.  This would cost money and time for both the unclean and the priests on duty.  Rather than "clog" the system unnecessarily, it seems the Lord is trying to contain the uncleanness.  It is not a sin to become unclean, but there is a purification that must be undertaken after the fact.

Leviticus 21:5 - These were practices of pagan priests.  When the Lord says, "...nor make any cuts in their flesh" (NASB), that phrase "any cuts" is an adjectival intensifier, which can be translated more emphatically than the NASB as "any cuts at all" or "not a single cut."

Leviticus 21:6 - The phraseology of this verse is different than one might expect based on the English rendering.  The English translations tend to homogenize (or smooth out) variations in the Hebrew text, which makes it more readable, but it also loses the significance of the original Hebrew.  That is why it is important to learn the original languages or to read the writings of people who know them.  Back to the verse:

"They shall be holy..."  In Hebrew, the word "holy" is thrown forward to the front of the sentence to give emphasis on the fact that God expects the priests to be different.  "They shall not profane (or pollute) the name of their God."  There is a heavy accent mark over "profane", which is meant to indicate to the reader to pause slightly and let the listener feel the gravity of what is to be said.  Then there is a major break after "name of their God," which splits the sentence in two parts and gives the most emphasis on not profaning the name of the Lord.  The last part of this verse is best rendered, "because the offerings of God (which is the bread of their God) they are bringing near, and they are holy."  In the beginning, God calls the priests holy.  At the end, He calls the offerings holy.

You can see from how I translated the verse that I understand "offerings of God" and "bread of God" to be equative.  That is, I believe Moses is saying the offerings the priests bring are like bread to God.  I don't believe he is referring to the "show bread" that was offered as another type of offering to God.  I cannot find another instance of the phrase "the bread of their God" in the Bible outside of this chapter (except one in the next chapter 22:25).  I believe Moses is saying that your sacrifices are to God what bread is to humanity.

Leviticus 21:7 - The NASB renders it: "They shall not take a woman profaned by harlotry."  The Hebrew is a little more precise than that.  It reads more literally, "A woman [who is] a harlot or a profaned [woman], they will not take."  The word for "harlot" is a noun, so it cannot be translated as "harlotry".  By harlot, Moses means a promiscuous woman (for money or not).  The main idea in view is a woman who *willingly* gave herself up.  By profaned, Moses means a woman who *unwillingly* was "ravished".  For example, Tamar was raped by her half brother (2 Sam 13).  She would be unavailable for marriage to a priest, but she could be married by any other Israelite, as with a harlot (see Hosea).

Priests were also not allowed to marry a divorced woman.  At the time, there was a great stigma against a woman that was divorced (not a man though).  It was a cultural thing.  A man could divorce his wife for any reason at all.  (Commentator John Gill tells us that many times adultery was feigned as a reason.)  But usually, a divorced woman had a suspicious shadow cast over her.  

By these commands, the Lord is trying to protect the priests from being wrapped up in any scandals, either real or imagined.  Their lives were to be protected from unnecessary strife so they could focus more fully on the Lord and their duties.  There were eleven other tribes these women could marry from, so the Lord was not reducing significantly the number of eligible men.

Another point to be made is that the primary reason for prohibiting the marriage was to prevent scandal.  One might think that these women who were profaned or harlots or divorced were somehow made irreversibly unclean.  That is not true.  They could be made clean, even under the Mosaic Law.  

Thus, women today who have been divorced, sold themselves, or have been "profaned" should not faint at this verse.  Furthermore, these regulations should not be imposed on modern-day ministers of the Gospel.  Moses says, "Tell Aaron and his sons..." (Lev 22:2).  These laws were specifically intended for the Levitical priesthood.  Though the principle does have wisdom to be applied today: Servants of the Lord should steer clear of any appearance of scandal.

Leviticus 21:8 - The priests are to be "set apart" by the people.  And they are to be set apart from the rest of the people.  They are dedicated to the task of serving God.  We also see another reference to "bread of our God."  

Not only were the people to set apart the priests but they were to consider them as holy (one who is set apart).  In other words, don't forget that they are different than the rest of the Israelites.  The last part of the verse is the last phase of what appears to be a cycle: People set apart a priest --> priest serves God --> as he serves God, he helps the Lord to --> set apart the people.

Leviticus 21:9 - As with verse 7, by "harlot" (NASB) Moses means any sexually promiscuous woman (whether it involves money or not).  The key is that she willingly engages in sexual intercourse outside of marriage.  When this woman is the daughter of a priest, there is a special punishment prescribed for her: She is to be burned alive.  The Bible does not specify whether she is married, betrothed (as good as married, but not technically), or single.  A punishment is already prescribed for an unmarried, un-betrothed woman who engages in sexual activity in Deut 22:20-21: She is to be stoned to death.  The same punishment holds for a married or betrothed woman.  The purpose of this verse is to prescribe a different punishment for promiscuity by a daughter of a priest: Burned alive, which is a more terrible way to die.  The reason for a greater punishment, it is supposed, is because of the shame and disgrace she has brought on her father as a priest.  She has opened him up to ridicule and scandal.  His reputation will be marred forever, and his ability to serve the people in such a capacity will be severely diminished.

Leviticus 21:10 - These are regulations for the high priest.  NASB obscures the significance of the original Hebrew (though it does give a literal translation in the margin).  The Hebrew reads, "Whose hands have been filled."  This is a reference to the consecration ceremony prescribed in Exodus 29:22-25.  Different parts of offerings were to be put in the hands of the high priest.  Thus, his "hands have been filled."

Leviticus 21:12 - It is supposed that this regulation concerns leaving the temple on account of the dead.  He may certainly not leave the temple while on duty.  It was acceptable for the High Priest to leave the temple at night to go back to his home.  He had an apartment, however, in the temple itself.

Leviticus 21:13 - While polygamy was accepted at this time, the High Priest was not permitted more than one wife.  Bishops or overseers, as Paul teaches in the New Testament, should be husbands of only one wife also (1 Tim 3:2).

Leviticus 21:15 - The concern about "his seed" or children was that if the High Priest were to marry a woman with a bad reputation, his children might be reproached and unfit to succeed him in his office.

Leviticus 21:16-24 - These verses are concerned with blemishes of the priests themselves.  As you have read, there are many with physical deformities that are excluded from service.  There are a couple things to note: (1) Exclusion from service did not mean exclusion from eating the priestly food (vs. 22).  The Hebrew wording is significant.  Directly after "he may not offer the bread of His God" comes "[but] he may eat the bread of His God."  Thus we see how careful the Lord is to give the deformed encouragement that though they may not serve God directly, they may directly benefit from Him; (2) Most of these defects would shorten the life-expectancy of the person.  The Lord is careful to choose people that are capable of giving a full lifetime of service.  It would be an added hardship to train someone in a duty only to have him die unexpectedly leaving a vacancy to be hastily filled; (3) Matthew Henry sees no problem with God choosing the best fit for service and excluding those with deformities; (4) The priests were representatives of God, and since humanity is so apt to judge by appearances, God was ensuring no insult may be cast on Him or His servants; (5) Some are only temporary injuries: broken limbs, scabs, or eczema, in which case the exclusion is only temporary; (6) Other deformities would limit the capabilities of a man to perform a meaningful function, such as blindness, dwarfishness, etc.  To work around the deformed men's limitations would be an added burden to the rest, and it would cause problems in the very strict division of labor.  The conclusion is that God is not unjust to exclude those with deformities.  We see Him withholding service rights with one hand and yet giving the same blessings of service with the other.  

Those with "blemishes" were not to be idle.  According to Jewish writers, these men, while not permitted to do priestly duties, they were employed in the wood storage rooms (separating worm-eaten wood from the altar wood) and in other duties in service of the priests and tabernacle.

Leviticus 22:3-9 - Here we have a warning issued by God: "that person shall be cut off from before Me" (NASB).  It is a sad fact that modern doctrine has been so imprecise concerning salvation.  The modern understanding of salvation leans two ways: Eternally secure and one can lose his salvation.  So, when we come to a passage like this, the eternal security people don't know what to do but see discontinuity between Old and New Testament teaching.  While those believing we are insecure rise up and say, "See!  I told you!"  The doctrine of salvation is too grand a subject to deal with thoroughly here, but suffice to say I believe in eternal security and passages like this are warnings.  Those genuinely born again will never do anything to be "cut off."  God will enable them to persevere in doing what is right.  And where they sin, they will always repent.  But not all Israel is truly Israel (Romans 9:6).  So it is possible for men to be priests and not belong to the True Israel (such as Hophni and Phinehas, 1 Samuel 2:12ff).  The warning was meant to preserve the true saints and to forewarn the reprobate.  This understanding, I think, preserves the continuity of Scriptural teachings.

Leviticus 23 - GENERAL REMARKS - The following are the festivals the Lord instituted.  I believe that there is a place for observance of these festivals.  Messianic (or completed) Jewish believers can help us gentiles to understand how to apply them in our context.  But I believe they should be integrated into our lives.  Why do I think that?  The times I feel very little motivation to attend church are: Memorial Day, Independence Day, and other secular holidays.  They are all integrated into the life of the Church in the USA.  Why?  I believe it is because as humans, we want special days to give us a reason for pleasure and enjoyment.  Special days belong in the church.  I just don't think secular holidays belong there.  If I were to say any holidays (or festivals) belong in the church it is the ones the God instituted here in Leviticus.  (The book of Ester also has a holiday that the Jews began at that time and is continued today.) 

This will go contrary to the modern beliefs about the place of Christianity and Judaism.  But I am bound to believe the Bible when it says that gentiles, "[are] grafted...into the cultivated olive tree," which is Judaism.  Jesus' own words were, "Salvation is from the Jews" (John 4:22).  I know people will say, "Well, Jesus was a Jew talking to Jews and that was before Calvary.  So it doesn't apply to us now."  I would respond: You have just given yourself license to pick and choose what you will believe.  I would not go there if I were you.  You either believe Jesus' own words, or you throw the whole Bible away.

Someone else might say, "This sounds like religion and works based faith."  I respond: No it isn't.  You already celebrate holidays in church - and secular ones at that!  I'm just saying, holidays are good and right.  But we need to be careful what holidays we celebrate in our Christian gatherings.  I think we should take the holidays God establish and apply them to our "church calendars" and get rid of all secular observances in church.  What about that doesn't sound biblical?

Leviticus 23:2 - "These are *My* appointed times."  That is significant.  Labor Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, those are the United States of America's appointed times.  But what follows are God's appointed times.  

Leviticus 23:3 - What is the first of God's appointed times?  The Sabbath Day.  The first thing on God's mind when He was instructing them about religious observances was the Sabbath day.  Do you see the significance?  Not only was the Sabbath day the fourth commandment, but it is reiterated time and time again and in particular here under religious observances.  People don't want to observe the Sabbath day because they think that it is too religious or works oriented.  I say, "Why would you not want a full 24 hours off of work?"  Some might say, "I'm too busy to get things done around the house during the week, so I have to work on Saturday and Sunday."  Well, perhaps you are just too busy then.  Maybe you need to buy a smaller house.  Get rid of one of those cars.  Cut up a few Credit Cards and live more humbly.  Then you'll have more time.  Maybe you need to tell your wife to stay home instead of working a job too (she'll probably thank you).  You might even end up happier in the end for it!

Leviticus 23:4 - PASSOVER - This festival is celebrated in the first month of the Jewish calendar on the 14th day at sunset.  (Sunset marks the official start of the next day in ancient Hebrew tradition.  "And there was evening and there was morning, one day" (Genesis 1:5).)

Leviticus 23:5-8 - FEAST OF UNLEAVENED BREAD - This fest begins right after Passover (the 15th day of the first month).  From the Hebrew, it sounds to me that on the first and last day (the 7th day) of this feast, the Hebrews were to do no laborious work.  It was not a complete prohibition like the Sabbath.  But it is clear that they were not to go about their normal work day on the first and last days of the feast.  This feast commemorates the fact that the Hebrews did not have time to leaven their bread, because they were on the run (bread baking without commercial yeast can take up to 6 hrs from start to finish).

Leviticus 23:10 - I like the nuance in the Hebrew, "When you enter the land...and reap her harvest..."  The nuance is that the harvest belongs to the land at first.  Then the land turns it over to us as a gift from God.  The possessive changes from "hers" to "yours": "bring in the sheaf...of your harvest..." (NASB).  The Lord says, "When you enter the land..." The Israelites could not now keep this command because there was no planting or harvesting in the wilderness.

Leviticus 23:11 - This verse is a little difficult to understand the precise meaning.  But I believe the best understanding is that the worshipper brings his sheaf of first fruits to the priest (vs. 10).  Then the priest waves the offering before the Lord.  This act of waving seems to be an appeal to the Lord to accept both the offering and the worshipper.  

The Sabbath day referred to here is not the seventh day, but rather the day the feast of unleavened bread began, which was considered a type of Sabbath.  So this act of waving was to take place on the second day of the feast of unleavened bread.

Leviticus 23:14 - The people were forbidden to eat of the fruit of the new harvest until they had presented their offering from the harvest to the Lord.

Leviticus 23:15 - FEAST OF WEEKS - or - PENTECOST - This feast occurs on the day the Lord gave the Israelites the Torah.  It also coincides with the beginning of the wheat harvest and the end of the barley harvest.  It is calculated by counting 50 days, beginning with the first day after the Feast of Unleavened Bread begins, which ends up being the sixth day of the month of Sivan, according to the Hebrew calendar.  This is the day the Lord gave the Torah.  And this is also the day the Lord poured out the Holy Spirit on the disciples, which marked a new era for followers of Jesus (see Acts 2).  There is great significance that these two events occurred on the same day.

(Some writers claim that King David was born and died on this day.  Others say he only died on this day.  They cite the Targum of Jerusalem. However, I searched the whole of this Targum as was unable to verify this claim.  Furthermore, the Targum of Jerusalem is not considered reliable.  In fact, it is only used where other Targums are silent.)

Leviticus 23:18-21 - These offerings were not to be offered by each person.  They were offered one time on behalf of all Israel.  The bread and animals were to come from the public.  According to Maimonides, each loaf of wheat bread was 4 hand's width wide, 7 hand's width long, and 4 fingers high.  A loaf of that size would weigh approximately 10lbs.

Leviticus 23:22 - A repetition of the law given in Lev. 19:9-10.

Leviticus 23:23-25 - FEAST OF TRUMPETS - This feast is not actually named in the Bible.  Properly, the Bible refers to it at the "day of blowing" (Numbers 29:1).  The Bible also does not tell us the purpose of this feast.  However, we may surmise that it is connected with the very solemn Day of Atonement, which will occur 10 days later.  The Bible only indicates that the Israelites were not to do laborious work (but not a complete Sabbath, as expected weekly), and they were to blow the trumpets.

The Israelites later added meaning to this day by marking it as the first day of their civil calendar (as opposed to religious calendar).  This is so recognized because of the exile in Babylon.  The seventh month to the Israelites was the first month to the Babylonians.  Thus, the Feast of Trumpets coincides with the Jewish civil New Year.  It is therefore also called, "Rosh Hashanah."  

This day also begins the "10 days of awe" in which the Israelites were to begin preparing for Yom Kippur, or the Day of Atonement.  It was prescribed by the priests to be joyous and introspective.  It was said that the trumpet blasts were to inspire fear and awe toward God and also sorrow for sin.

This is a very important day in the Jewish year, though the Bible gives little comment or explanation comparatively.

There is talk of the connection between the rapture and the feast of trumpets.  First Corinthians 15:52 reads, "at the last trumpet...the dead will be raised...and we shall be changed."  This speaks of an end-times reality.  Some say that the last trumpet here refers to the last trumpet sounded for the Feast of Trumpets.  I commend this study to the reader.

Some also see a connection with end-time realities because this festival occurs on the first day of the seventh month - seven being the number of completion. 

Others suppose that time is passing along a great Jewish calendar.  The outpouring of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost (or Feast of Weeks) was a particular point in time.  We are now living, they say, in the intervening time between the Feast of Weeks and the Feast of Trumpets.  When the Feast of Trumpets arrives, sometime in the future, and the last trumpet is sounded, the rapture will occur.  The Church Age, as it is called, is that intervening time between the Feast of Weeks and the Feast of Trumpets.  Again, I commend this study to the reader.

Leviticus 23:26-32 - DAY OF ATONEMENT - We have given this day the name, "Day of Atonement."  The sense in the Hebrew is not a name, but description of a purpose, "A day for atonement."  The phrase uses a retrospective pronoun to emphasize the purpose of this day - to atone for sin.  It is not a day a person celebrates like Independence Day.  It is a day in which a transaction occurs between the person and God.

Leviticus 23:27 - "...Humble your souls..."  The Hebrew word for "soul" here is a very loaded term.  It can be used in a variety of contexts to mean "man (in totality), seat of emotions and desires, and other similar meanings.  It seems to me that this word actually encompasses man in the raw.  I.e., it refers to man with all his hungers, desires, and emotions.  So when God would say, "Humble your souls," it is significant.  In another place, God tells the Israelites, "Humble yourselves" (2 Chron 7:14).  Why didn't He phrase it that way here in Leviticus (using "yourself" instead of "your soul")?  I believe that God was asking the worshipper to reach down to a deeper place inside to humble himself on a different level.  Imagine the hardship the Israelites were facing: Hunger, deprivation, lack of comforts, and an unimaginable stress to the western mind.  Now imagine what those hardships might do to the spirit of the man.  All he can think about is sitting down to a good meal and eating as much as he wants, drinking cold water fresh from a spring, eating some succulent figs right from the tree, having a good night sleep in his own home with wife and children.  But, here he is wandering the wilderness, or suffering oppression in the Promised Land.  Think of the strife in his heart.  Think of the how his soulish desires for comfort would be raging wildly.  What is God asking him to do?  Humble his soul.  Lay down those desires.  Cool his flesh.  Focus on God completely for one day.  This is a significant day for the worshipper.

The Targum of Jonathan instructs the Jewish people to fast from food and drink, not to bathe or sleep in their bed or wear sandals.  This would show the person's mastery over physical comforts.

Leviticus 23:29 - Here again the Targum of Jonathan interprets "humble" as fasting.  However, we need to understand that to humble, as the Bible uses the word, is not the same thing as fasting.  The Psalmist puts it beautifully using the same Hebrew word, "I humbled my soul with fasting..." (Ps 35:13).  Fasting is seen as a tool to humble one's soul.  But fasting alone is not sufficient to gain anything, as Paul says, "These are matters which have, to be sure, the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and self-abasement and severe treatment of the body, but are of no value against fleshly indulgence" (Colossians 2:23, NASB).

Our verse continues with the declaration that if any man does not humble himself, he will be cut off from his people (experience an untimely death).  We know better now than assume a man would be cut off for not fasting.  There is a deeper work God wanted from a man than abstinence.  He wanted humility.  

Leviticus 23:30-32 - On this day, an Israelite was to do no work period - just like a regular Sabbath Day.  Other feasts would not permit laborious work, but menial labor was okay.  That is not so with the Day for Atonement.  No work was to be done period.

Leviticus 23:27&32 - There is a nuanced distinction between these two verses.  Vs. 27, the Lord says that the 10th day is to be treated as the Day of Atonement.  But the "Sabbath"-like observance is to go from sundown on the 9th day until the same on the 10th.  In the Jewish understanding, a day began at sundown and ended the next sundown.  This was because in creation God said, "And there was evening, and there was morning, one day" (Gen. 1:5).  Often, the Rabbis would have to interpret the laws to know exactly when something was supposed to start; sundown on the previous day or sun-up on the same day.  In this case, there is no room for interpretation.  God is very clear.

Leviticus 23:33-36; 39-44 - FEAST OF BOOTHS (or Tabernacles) - This feast was partly to celebrate the completion of harvesting, but primarily to commemorate the Israelites living in temporary dwellings during the 40 years after the Exodus from Egypt.

The second part of this passage (vs. 39-44) adds another dimension of detail to the Feast of Booths observance.  Here we see that (1) It was a celebration of the completion of the harvest (as it was now autumn and harvesting in general was complete for fruits and vegetables); (2) They were to gather palm branches or other branches and use them to celebrate before the Lord.  There is an obvious correlation between this custom and Palm Sunday, when palm branches were laid down before Jesus as He made His Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem and the people all rejoiced in the Lord.  Though the Triumphal Entry did not take place during this feast, the use of palm branches does signify rejoicing in the Lord, and others would say it signifies victory as well; (3) They were to live in booths constructed of branches and other light-weight bramble to commemorate Israel's living conditions coming out of Egypt.  The Hebrew is very distinct when it reads that *God* brought Israel out of Egypt.  A causative is used to express that "God caused Israel to come out of Egypt."  God acted on Israel and Israel had little to do with the effect.

Leviticus 24:1-4 - The lamps were to burn continually, and they were to be a perpetual statute.  Some would say that Jesus replaced the lamps, but I think that is mixing metaphors.  The lamps that burn in the temple were a representative of the light of God in Heaven.  As it is written, "they shall not have need of the light of a lamp...because the Lord God shall illumine them..." (Revelations 22:5, NASB).  There is a light continually given off by the Lord in Heaven.  They need no lamps or sun.  The continually burning lamps in the temple were a shadow of the radiant light of God in Heaven. Perhaps in a manner, Jesus replaces the lamps, as John says, "In Him was life, and the life was the light of men.  And the light shines in the darkness..." (John 1:4-5, NASB), but it is not as directly related as the former.

Leviticus 24:5 - Here is the first instance of "Challah" (or Hallah, with a hard guttural "H") as bread.  This is not the Challah bread we know today.  There is a rather interesting story about the Challah bread today that I commend to the reader.  

Leviticus 24:6 - If one wished to make his own challah bread after the modern fashion with the most biblical accuracy, he would not weave three strands of bread together to form 12 humps.  He would weave two strands together so that there were 2 rows and 6 humps in each row.  (As opposed to the modern version that has 3 rows and 4 humps each row.)

Leviticus 24:8 - This bread was supposed to last for 7 days.  Our modern bread would not last this long.  Commercial yeast, enriched flour, and all the additives reduce the shelf-life.  This bread was undoubtedly sourdough, as there was no commercial yeast sold in packets!  Sourdough bread has a longer shelf life.  Plus, the freshness of the ingredients also prolongs the life.  God would not want stale bread in His temple.  

The grammar of this verse has some interesting features.  The first sentence literally reads, "In the day - the Sabbath; In the day - the Sabbath..."  This is intended to be understood as "Every Sabbath day..."  The grammatical feature uses repetition as a means of giving force to the statement, which we translate: "Every."

Leviticus 24:10ff - This is the first instance (and perhaps the only) in Leviticus where a law is explained based on a real-life incident.  A man had an Egyptian father and a Hebrew mother.  He fights with a full-blooded Israelite.  He "curses the Name" (of the Lord) and he "makes it contemptible".  (He probably learned this behavior toward the Lord from his association with the Egyptians.)  He is made an example of in the chapter.

We infer from this story that perhaps his mother was a servant in an Egyptians house.  When the Lord brought out the Hebrews, she left that house and took her son with her.  The father was probably not interested in the son - it was only relations with the Hebrew woman he wanted.  The son carried a grudge as a result of his family situation, and to spite the Israelites, he curses their God (the Lord).

Leviticus 24:11 - The Scripture records the rebellious man using two types of curses. One was a proper curse (or as NASB "blaspheme").  Then the last word for curse is more accurately "to taunt" or "to make light or contemptible."  In the English translations, one might have difficulty understanding the differences between blaspheme and curse.  It is apparent from the Hebrew that the first word used is a proper curse on the Lord.  The second word was more like a taunt or an effort to bring down the people's esteem of the Lord.

"So they brought him to Moses."  The emphasis is clearly on the fact that they brought the man to Moses and not on the fact that he had blasphemed God.  By placing the emphasis on Moses, it demonstrates that he was the authority on God's justice in civil matters.  And it emphasizes the purpose of the present book: Religious, civil, and moral laws are given and demonstrated.

Just why were the people so keen on bringing this man to justice?  They had only lately become acquainted with the Lord.  One could not say that the people were completely zealous for the Lord.  Was there also a personal vendetta toward him that drove the people to expose his sin?  Even if a vendetta pushed the people on to prosecute him, God still found him guilty and worthy of death.

Leviticus 24:14 - "lay their hands on his head."  This, we suppose, was to in demonstration that they witnessed the man's sin, and his punishment was "on his own head."  They were not guilty of his blood.

Why stoning?  It is like an ancient firing squad.  In firing squads, some rifles fire blanks.  Others have live rounds.  No one knows which is firing which, so no one person carries the guilt on his conscience for the death.  In stoning, maybe 50 people or more throw stones.  Whose stone actually killed him?  No one knows.  It was an action done by the whole congregation, and in the presence of them all.  Thus the feeling of personal guilt for the killing is removed from the situation.

Leviticus 24:16 - This verse contains very emphatic grammar.  In two places, adjectival intensifiers are used to mean, "surely put to death" and "certainly stone him."  Another grammatical feature of this verse is the preposition Bet in front of the direct object "him".  The sentence reads, "[They] shall certainly stone him."  The Bet appears before "him".  This is not a normal market of the direct object.  As my Hebrew professor puts it, "You don't want a Bet before your name!"  The use of Bet usually signifies some kind of violence toward the direct object.  "When he blasphemes the name, he will die."  In the 10 Commandments, the Lord had indicated that He would not let the one who blasphemes His name go unpunished.  There was no indication at the time exactly what would happen and how.  Here there is a clear punishment for the sin: Death by stoning.

Leviticus 24:17-22 - GENERAL REMARKS - "Eye for an Eye" - People have misused this passage to justify the following: "You broke my arm.  I'll break yours!"  That is not at all the meaning of the passage.  It is intended to mean *equitable punishment*.  I.e., you don't kill a man for only injuring another.  You don't take everything a man owns for knocking out another man's tooth.  It prescribes equitable compensation for the damages incurred.

In verse 17, a man that killed is killed.  In the verse 18, a man that kills the animal of another must replace that animal.  It wasn't that the offended man would kill an animal of the killer.  That is absurd.  Then both are without animals.  He was to "make peace" (literal translation from the Hebrew of "make it good", NASB) by giving the injured party one from his own flock or paying for a replacement.

Leviticus 24:23 - I find it interesting that on the heels of "equitable punishment" a man is killed for blaspheming the Lord.  If a man kills another man, the killer is to die.  Break a limb, and the offender must pay accordingly.  There is equality in punishment.  If a man blasphemes God, he must die.  It must be equitable, because that is how God works.  But, in what way is it equitable?  If a man kills a beast, he does not die.  If he kills a human he dies.  It seems that the punishment depends upon the injured party.  An animal is less important that a human.  The average person is less important than a king or prince.  The human is less important that God.  As one goes up on the scale of importance, offences become more sensitized and punishments become greater.  For example, if a person only conspires to kill the president of the U.S.A, he will spend a long time in jail.  If he conspires to kill someone else, he won't even see a judge - as long as he doesn't actually do it.  God is the highest being of all that claim existence.  Thus what would be a little offense against another human is a capital offense against God.

Leviticus 25:2-4 - Sound odd?  "Give the land a rest," the Lord says.  This is recognized today as sound agricultural technique.  Crops take nutrients out of the soil.  By resting for a year, the field has a chance to replenish the soil.  Farmers will let cattle graze the field.  The manure and the rest combined replenish the nutrients.

Leviticus 25:5 - There is an interesting word in Hebrew translated, "untrimmed vines" (NASB).  That word literally means Nazirite.  The base meaning for Nazirite is "consecrated one."  Typically, a Nazirite did not cut his hair.  (Samuel, Samson, and John the Baptist were life-long Nazirites.)  Here we see the meaning of "untrimmed" or "un-cut" conveyed with the word Nazirite.

Leviticus 25:6-7 - The Lord assures the Israelites that there would still be plenty to eat in spite of the Sabbath year.  This rest was not only good for the land, but good for the people as well.  This year of rest, Jewish commentators say, gave the Israelites extra time to study the Law of God and for religious exercise.  Wouldn't you like a year of reduced responsibilities to rest and cultivate your own mind and heart?  Think how refreshing that would be.

The New Living Translation gives the most understandable rendering of this passage: One was allowed to gather crops as they grew of their own accord during the Sabbath year.  However, it was not permitted to store those crops.  They were to go from the field to the table with no storage in between.  Some say this was to give everyone a taste of what it was like to be poor and live from day to day.  I believe that it is a natural consequence of such a law, and it is also a very healthy thing for society.  "Walk in someone else’s shoes" for a while.

Leviticus 25:9ff - The "Year of Jubilee" is properly called, "The Year of the Rams Horn," according to the literal Hebrew word.  There is not a separate word in Hebrew that means Jubilee.  That word means "ram's horn."  (John Gill, however, derives the name from the Hebrew word "lybwh, [meaning] to bring back, restore, return, because at this time men were returned to their liberty, estates, and families...")

The year of Jubilee sounds remarkably similar to Jesus' mission.  It seems to me that the mission of Jesus described in Luke 4:18-19 is actually describing what takes place in the year of Jubilee.  Most of what Isaiah said in 61:1 has to do with economic troubles.  Only one place does it indicate healing of the blind.  Preach "Good News" to the *poor*.  (Jubilee was good news because property was restored to rightful owners.)  Proclaim release to *captives*.  (Any Hebrew sold into slavery had to be released in Jubilee.)  Set free those who are *downtrodden*.  (Those who had fallen on hard times due to economic conditions.)  Proclaim the favorable year of the Lord.  (Jubilee was a year long period of favor where things were restored.)  Matthew Henry also notes a similar parallel.

Leviticus 25:10 - Property sold or lost was restored to the family to whom God originally gave it.

Leviticus 25:11-12 - The year of Jubilee was a regular Sabbath year for the land.  Thus, the same rules are in force as earlier in the chapter.

Leviticus 25:13 - In this verse, the emphasis is on "the same" as in "in this same year of Jubilee..."  Why would Moses emphasize the fact that each person would return to his own property in the *same* year as Jubilee?  Surely it wasn't because the rightful owners would be reluctant to go back to their property.  Perhaps it was because the present owners might be reluctant to give up the property they have enjoyed for decades.  They might invent new interpretations of this passage to suit their own desires ("Did God really mean you should take possession in the year of Jubilee?  You can't even plant during this year.  Let's wait until the year of Jubilee is over, and then I'll give it back.")  and cheat not just the rightful family but also God.  Thus, God safeguards the rightful family in this verse.  Reading the NASB one would completely miss the subtlety of the meaning.

Leviticus 25:14 - Fair trade.  You should not take advantage of someone's distress and try to reduce the asking price beyond what is fair.  Nor should you increase the price of goods just because "they can afford it."

Leviticus 25:15-16 - Thus God sets a measure of value for property.  Since the property must go back to the original family in the year of Jubilee, the purchaser is only required to pay for the years of harvest on the land before the next Jubilee.

Leviticus 25:17 - A man should not wrong his neighbor.  "But *you all* should fear God."  The original Hebrew has the plural form of the verb for fear.  Not just the one whom might do harm, but also the innocent.  The Lord takes a specific situation and makes a global statement.  

Leviticus 25:18 - Many scholars believe that Israel went into captivity either in part or in whole because they did not keep the Sabbath years or years of Jubilee.  The main text is 2 Chronicles 36:21.  Attesting to the fact of a seventy year captivity, I appeal to: Daniel 9:2, Jeremiah 25:11, 20:10, and Zechariah 7:5.  Note: What the Israelites would not do willingly, God forced upon them.

Moreover, the rule of Manasseh was so heinous, so vile (he sacrificed children to Molech on top of many other wicked things, see 2 Kings 21) that God absolutely had enough.  He tells them that He will send the remnant into captivity as well (only the tribes of Judah and Benjamin were left in the land, as the Northern Kingdom was already in captivity).  This was fulfilled in the chapters of 2 Kings that followed Manasseh's rule.  The duration of this captivity was set at 70 years, corresponding to the number of Jubilee's Israel neglected.

Leviticus 25:19-22 - God ordered such a blessing for obedience that even those of weak faith that would say, "What are we going to eat in the seventh year, if we don't plant?" will have their fill for years to come.

Leviticus 25:23- "...you are sojourners with Me."  This is a startling statement.  God's inhabitation on this world is seen as temporary by Him, and thus the Israelites should also feel the temporary nature of their stay - even in the Promised Land.  Why?  Because even the Millennial Kingdom is temporary compared with the vastness of eternity in the new Heavens and the new Earth.  This should alter our own perspective of time.  The bulk of our conscience "lives" will be spent in the new Heavens and Earth.

Leviticus 25:24-28 - The Law already made provision for the automatic return of property to the original owners during the year of Jubilee.  This law builds upon the former to indicate how a man might redeem his property before the year of Jubilee.

There is a lot of talk about Jesus being our Kinsman Redeemer.  While this is theologically accurate, I cannot find specific Scripture that identifies Jesus as such.  It is, I believe, correctly inferred that Jesus is our Kinsman Redeemer.

Leviticus 25:29-31 - The key to understanding vs. 29-30 is in vs. 31.  A house in a walled city was not considered family inheritance property originally given by God.  Also, houses within a city usually do not have land attached for planting and harvesting.  Therefore, they were not seen as means of income.  Thus, the sale of such a home was permanent.  Homes in villages were to be considered inheritance property.  And most likely there was farm land attached that could provide income.  We see in this passage God setting laws that protected a family's ability to provide for itself.

There is an interesting word used in vs. 31 "consider" (NASB) or "recon".  This is the same word used in Genesis 15:6 when Abraham believed God, and God "reckoned it righteousness."  The use of this word in the present context gives us a greater understanding of its use elsewhere.  To say the houses in unwalled villages were to be looked at (considered, reckoned) as open fields, is to take something that is only a partial reality and declare that it is another more full reality.  By making that declaration, it is indeed so.  And will thus be treated for eternity.  The village house is not properly an open field.  But God said it should be considered as such.  And it was so.  Abraham believing God is not necessarily complete righteousness.  But God said it would be looked on as such.  And it was so.

Leviticus 25:32-34 - The Levites had slightly different laws.  When the land of Israel was divided, the Levites did not receive a proper inheritance of their own.  Their provision was to come from the sacrifices, not directly from the land.  However, Joshua 21 tells us that God had commanded the Israelites to give to the Levites cities and pasture lands from their own inheritance for them to inhabit.  So while the Levites did not receive their own inheritance, they did receive cites and land through their brothers' inheritance.  God is making the provision here that any city and land given to them originally was to belong only to them.  It could not be taken away.  That makes sense because God is guarding what little the Levites have in the way of property.

Leviticus 25:35-38 - This passage illustrates the general principle, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

"You will strengthen him," as the Hebrew reads.  I.e., you must do what you can to keep him from falling completely or going to ruin.  See to it that he has either opportunity to earn money for food, or supply the thing directly that is needed.  

And do not take advantage of his position to charge him interest on loans.  (This is unlike Title-Pawns of our day!)  Nehemiah was outraged by the people of Jerusalem charging interest.  He shook his garments and said, "Thus may God shake out every man from his house and from his possessions who does not fulfill this promise" (not to charge interest; NASB, Neh. 5:13).  This law the Lord laid down was very serious.  Israelites could charge foreigners interest, but not each other or converts to Judaism.

NOTE: God does not discriminate between people who have fallen on hard times due to their own mistakes or conspiring circumstances (e.g., illness, crop failure).  And neither should we discriminate.  We are to be deliverers not judges.

Leviticus 25:39-43 - Man was never meant to rule over each other.  He was meant to rule over creation.  As mankind went astray, God redeemed a people to embody His own intent for the earth.  Thus, Israelites were not to be lord over another Israelite.

If he does "sell" himself to another Israelite, the laws of Jubilee apply to him.  Thus, the Lord indicates that he should be set free (with any other kin) in the year of Jubilee.

The Lord gives the Israelites a great perspective by saying, "They are My servants."  The Lord redeemed them out of slavery as His own possession.  Thus, they were not to be treated as someone else's possession.  In the same way, Christians have been redeemed through Jesus to be God's own possession.  Thus, there are certain rules governing the way we treat other Christians.

Leviticus 25:44-46 - It was permitted to have slaves of foreigners not converts to Judaism.  They could be bought, sold, and passed down as an inheritance.  Even if a foreigner comes to live in Israel, and he becomes destitute, an Israelite may buy him as a slave without the same restrictions as a fellow countryman.

Leviticus 25:47ff - An impoverished Hebrew may sell himself to a foreigner living in Israel.  And in spite of being "owned" by a foreigner, he still has the right of redemption according to the usual laws of Jubilee and redemption set forth in previous passages.

Leviticus 25:52 - This is an important clause.  The other Israelites were supposed to keep an eye on the treatment of their "brother" by the foreigner.  The foreigner was not to treat him harshly.  Notice that the Lord makes the Israelites judge over his treatment and does not subject him to the judgment of the foreigner, who would certainly twist things in his own favor.

Leviticus 25:55 - This is a precious declaration "They are My servants..." by God.  This passage is the first time the Lord refers to Israelites as such.  There are two times in 2 Kings (9:7, 17:13) where the Lord calls the prophets "My servants."  But the next time He calls Israel as a whole His servants is in Isaiah.  Repeatedly in Jeremiah the Lord refers to the prophets as His servants, but Israel as a whole.

Leviticus 26 - GENERAL REMARKS - In every covenant in the Ancient Near East there are stipulations, witnesses to be called, blessings for observing the covenant and curses for breaking it.  Here we move out of the stipulations of God's covenant with Israel and into the blessings and curses.  The last chapter of Leviticus will serve as an addendum to the stipulations concerning valuation.

Leviticus 26:1-13 - This passage constitutes the blessings of obedience.  Some highlights: (1) Rain and abundant produce, (2) Peace in the land, (3) Victory over enemies, (4) Be fruitful and multiply, (5) God will make His dwelling among them.

Leviticus 26:1-3 - The Lord starts off indicating exactly what He wants the Israelites to obey.  Verse 1 - No idols.  Verse 2 - Keep the Sabbaths (plural), which means not just Sabbath days but also Sabbath years.  Isn't it interesting how many times the Lord repeats the law of the Sabbath?  It is extremely important to Him.  Also in this verse is reverencing the Temple. Verse 3 - A general and all-inclusive statement about previous laws set down. 

Leviticus 26:4 - When rain is withheld, it is typically seen as a divine judgment.  (See 2 Chron. 7:13-14)  Thus when rains come, it is a blessing.

Leviticus 26:5 - The point of this verse is to say that there will be so much harvest that harvesting for different things will actually overlap, when normally they do not overlap.

Leviticus 26:6-8 - Contrast this blessing with what happens in Judges.  Gideon is hiding while threshing grain so the Midianites don't steal it (chapter 6).  The Israelites disobeyed the Lord and thus lived in constant fear.  Spirits of fear can take hold of us as we give the devil a foot-hold in our lives.  Sin opens the door for such a foot-hold.  We live holy lives not just because God wants us to, but also for our own good - to prevent bondage by the devil.

Leviticus 26:9 - Here the Lord promises that there will be no barrenness among the women of Israel.  And He will "confirm" (NASB) or "establish" His covenant with them.  That is, the covenant was already made.  But their obedience will bring such blessing that the covenant blessings will be visible to everyone.  Even if they break the covenant, God will still act in accordance with the covenant, you must understand.  The curses are part of the covenant.  However, to see a people living with such curses for their disobedience will not entice anyone to join them or convert.  They live with sufficient curses by their own idolatry; they don't need the added hardships.  It is kind of like Christianity in the Western World.  By and large, it is living under some curses (or you might soft-petal it by saying consequences).  People are not converting because they don't see the blessings.  Divorce is just as prevalent.  Immorality.  Materialism.  Gossip.  Manipulation. The church is just like the world is many respects, except that the church should know better.  M.L. Jones in the prologue to "Spiritual Depression" says that there is no greater witnessing tool than joyful Christians.  Where does joy come from?  It is a fruit of the Spirit, which means we must be consistently walking in the Spirit and putting to death the deeds of the flesh.

Leviticus 26:11 - "My soul will not abhor you."  NASB soft-petals this word "abhor" by replacing it with "reject."  It is every bit as strong as "abhor" in the original Hebrew.  That may seem like a harsh contrast.  One might infer that if the Israelites disobeyed, then God would abhor them.  Quite so.  But remember that the higher the being, the greater a crime sins are against that being.  Previously I gave the example of conspiring to kill the president.  You can conspire all day long to kill anyone.  But if you do so against the president, you will go to prison for a long time.  Why?  The president is at a higher level than anyone else.  The Israelites sin against God, and He will abhor them.  And notice that the Lord doesn't say He will abhor "the sin not the sinner" - or so the church's pithy saying goes.  No, He will abhor the person, because the person is corrupted.  But that is God's prerogative.  For us, we are not judges but rather deliverers.

Leviticus 26:12 - Genesis 3:8 uses the same construction as here for "walking about."  (In Hebrew it is a hithpael form of HLK.)  Its literal meaning is similar to "taking a stroll" or "walking about" with no particular direction or course in mind.  Yahweh used to do this on the earth in the Garden of Eden.  (Perhaps He still does walk in the Garden of Eden today.)  This passage tells us that He will again walk among them as He did in Eden, if they keep the covenant.  By keeping the covenant, they make the land a pure place for God to inhabit.  And He can have a feeling a freedom to "walk about" there.

Leviticus 26:13 - He finishes the blessings with a statement of identity.

Leviticus 26:14ff - GENERAL REMAKRS - This passage covers the curses or penalties of disobedience.  With regard to covenant curses, we must bear in mind that when God afflicted the Israelites, with-held rain, sent the Philistines or Midianites to destroy their crops, or in general made their lives miserable, it was most emphatically not a sign that God had forsaken His covenant with them.  Rather, He is fulfilling the covenant by bringing down the curses for disobedience laid out in the covenant.

Furthermore, we will see a progression of penalties or judgments.  Israel disobeys, and God afflicts them with one thing.  If Israel does not repent with the first thing but continues to reject God, then He will afflict them with a second thing.  If they do not repent and continue to reject God, then He will afflict them with a third, and so forth until finally they go into captivity.

Leviticus 26:15 - To reject God's statutes would be to determine, "I don't want to do that."  For one's soul to abhor God's commandments would be to say, "This is too much for me to do!  I hate all these requirements!"  The first is a lesser degree than the second, but both end in a violation of the covenant.

Notice also that the slightest infraction was considered breaking the covenant.  "So as not to carry out all My commandments, and so break my covenant" (NASB).  James says a similar thing in the New Testament.  "Whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all" (2:10, NASB).  I like this to placing a vase on a mantle.  The vase falls down and gets a crack in it.  It is only once crack, but what do you say about that vase?  It is broken.  The perfection of the vase is shattered.  You break one law and your perfection is shattered.  The only thing that can put you back together is the mercy and grace offered through Jesus.  Such mercy, we will shortly see is offered in this chapter of Leviticus (vs. 40ff).  Many people do not see grace in the OT because they see God punishing Israel so much.  However, there is plenty of grace in the OT and plenty of punishment in the NT (e.g., Ananias and Sapphira were instantly killed for lying - without mercy. Acts 5:1-11).

Leviticus 26:16 - PHASE 1 - The phraseology of the first part of this verse is significant because the Lord draws attention to Himself.  In Hebrew, a writer can use the personal pronoun or not because the personal pronoun is also inherent in the form of the verb.  When the personal pronoun is used with the verb, many times it signifies emphasis.  When a disjunctive accent (an accent that signals to the chanters to pause a moment for emphasis or effect) is used in addition to the personal pronoun, then it is certain the emphasis is being drawn on the person doing the action.  In this case, there is also a disjunctive accent.  The Lord is drawing attention to Himself as the one acting on the Israelites in response to their sin.

The Lord goes on to tell them all the things that will happen to them: Terror, fever, consumption, vision problems, foreign thieves (NASB).

Leviticus 26:17 - If you have been following along, you will know by now that you never want the preposition "Bet" in front of your name.  It usually signals something bad against you.  In this case, the Lord says, "I will turn against you."  When He says, "against you", God employs the "Bet" with "you" (plural).  Translation: The Israelites will be in big trouble.

"The ones hating you will have dominion over you."  Sin always puts us in that position.  In Colossians 1:13, the same phraseology is used of the devil's "dominion" over sinners.  When we sin, we give the devil, who hates us, dominion over us.  Through grace in Jesus Christ, we are delivered from the devil's domain.  In order for a king to have dominion over you, you must be in his domain or realm.  Since the devil is the chief of sinners, by sinning, you put yourself into his realm, where he rules.  You make yourself his slave.

Leviticus 26:18 - God tells them if they don't respond to the first phase of discipline, He will add seven times to it in the next phase.

Leviticus 26:19-20 - PHASE 2 - "I will break down the pride of your strength."  The NASB renders "strength" as "power", but the point here is that in Phase 1, the Israelites were able to use their strength to carry them through the hard times God inflicted on them to break them down to the point of repentance.  So here, God will break their strength to bring them to repentance.  Humans are pretty good at pulling themselves up by the boot straps when hardship hits.  As Christians, we need to ask the question, "God, are You opposing me for some reason?  Or is this just normal hardship?"  If we don't, then we might find ourselves in Phase 2 too.

Leviticus 26:20 - Here God attacks their "strength."  This is a different word in the Hebrew, but with the same meaning.  No rain will fall and no crops produced.

Leviticus 26:21-22 - PHASE 3 - If Israel still doesn't repent, the Lord will increase the intensity seven times.  The NASB reads, "...increase the plague..." but in the Hebrew it literally reads, "...increase the slaughter...” which makes more sense in light of the next verse.  Lions, bears and other beasts will kill their children and their livestock.  David had to fight off bears and lions from attacking his flock (1 Samuel 17:37).  Samson also had to kill a lion that came after him on the road (Judges 14:5).  This judgment was already in effect at those times.

Leviticus 26:23-26 - PHASE 4 - Up until now, the only thing the Lord said to Israel was that He would increase the judgment seven fold.  But now, the Lord says, if you act with hostility toward me, "I will act with hostility against you" (NASB).  Verse 24 literally reads, "I will also act with hostility against you."  Thus, if Israel will act with hostility, then so will God.

Leviticus 26:34-35 - Later in Israelite history, they were sent into captivity.  2 Chronicles 36:21 (among other passages) tells us that they went into captivity because they did not keep the Sabbath years (Jubilee) of rest for the land.  Here in these two verses, the Lord predicts that captivity would come so the land could enjoy its Sabbath rest. (See my comments on Lev. 25:18.)

Leviticus 26:36 - This is a terrible judgment on the people.  It is a spirit of "weakness", a lack of courage, or fear that will come upon the people.  One can see the destructive power of such a spirit in the story of Gideon (Judges 6:13-14).  "They will flee as the fleeing from the sword."  That is the exact rendering from Hebrew of "They will flee as though from the sword" (NASB).  "And they will fall.  But no one is pursuing them."  They will fall on account of their fears only.

Leviticus 26:37 - The picture painted here is a group of people huddled together and an enemy with a sword lashing at the group.  People are falling over each other trying to avoid the sword.  Except in this case, there is no sword.  This is a profound spirit of fear that has come to the people.

Leviticus 26:38 - "You will perish among the Gentiles or nations."  You will be utterly kicked out of the Promised Land and die.  The land of your enemies will "eat" [literally] you.  This makes me think of the rebellion of Korah (Numbers 16).  The Lord actually uses this same word ("eat") to describe how the ground will open up and consume the rebellious (vs. 16).

Leviticus 26:39 - This verse shows how the previous verses speak of sudden death coming upon many of the people.  And those who did not die suddenly or tragically will slowly waste away in the land of their enemies.

Leviticus 26:40ff - It is typical of ancient near east treaties and covenants to have segments containing curses for breaking the covenant.  However, it is not normal to have a means of restitution if the covenant is broken.  This is where our God goes above and beyond what we might expect.  Typically, if the covenant was broken, curses of death or terrible tragedy were laid upon the offender with no remedy.  In the Akkadian-Hittite Treaty, this curse is laid, "should Duppi-Tessub not honor these words of the treaty and the oath, may these gods of the oath destroy Duppi-Tessub together with his person, his wife, his son, his grandson, his house, his land and together with everything that he owns."  The Vassal-Treaty of Esaraddon contains multiple curses ranging from: "May you eat in your hunger the flesh of your brothers, your sons, and your daughters," to "Just as this bedbug stinks, so may your breath stink before god, king, and men." 

The Lord may lay out severe consequences for breaking His covenant, but He graciously offers a remedy, which no other Ancient Near East Treaty I surveyed does.  People wrongly assert that the OT is all about God's Law and the NT is all about God's grace.  This is a gross over-simplification as well as an error.  Jesus and the Apostles gave many laws in the NT, and this passage is just one example of many where God shows grace in the OT.

Leviticus 26:40 - Why did the Israelites have to confess both their iniquity and the iniquity of their fathers?  Logically, for the children to carry on the sins of the father, they must have all the while ignored the fact that what their fathers did was wrong and rather accepted their wrongs as righteous.  To confess their father's sins would be to no longer make excuses or turn a blind eye to it.  Rather they were to confess or "say the same thing" about such sins that God has said.  They were expected to say something to the effect of: "We and our fathers acted wrongly and sinfully."  Indeed in Nehemiah 1:6, Nehemiah follows this formula for covenantal restoration and confesses the sins of his father, "I and my father's house have sinned" (NASB).

"In their unfaithfulness, which they committed against me..." (NASB).  This is much more forceful in the Hebrew, "In their treachery, which they acted treacherously against me."  Notice the repetition of "treacherous".  This reinforces the heinousness of the crime.  The preposition (called "Bet") used in conjunction with this word carries the connotation of "violence against" someone.  For example, this phraseology is used to communicate marital unfaithfulness, in which the relationship is done violence.

"In their acting with hostility against Me" (NASB).  This is not exactly how the Hebrew reads.  Rather, "which they walk with Me in opposition."  (This same phraseology is in verse 21 and 24.)  In our Christian vernacular, we say, "I'm walking with God" or "I'm not walking with God."  God's choice of words tells us something.  Once we become a Christian, there is no such thing as "not walking with God."  Even if we are in opposition to God and His word, we are still walking with Him, which is to say "He is still near me."  So Psalm 139:7 reads, "Where can I go from Thy Spirit, or where can I flee from Thy presence?" (NASB)

Leviticus 26:41 - "I also walked in opposition to them, and I brought them into the land of their enemies", so the Hebrew reads literally.

God refers to their hearts as being "uncircumcised".  It does not mean that their hearts were never circumcised in the OT. It just means that if a person is walking in opposition to God, his or her heart must not be circumcised.  Take King David for example.  God says he was a man after His own heart.  Tell me, was David's heart circumcised or uncircumcised?  His heart must have been the former, lest we attribute uncircumcision to God.  Those that say people in the OT did not have circumcised hearts are in error.  Gill comments about the uncircumcised heart and writes, "their foolish proud heart, as the Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan; it signifies a sinful, wicked, hard, and impenitent heart."  Thus we see how Jewish scholars understand the "uncircumcised heart."

What follows are successive events: First, "If the Israelites humble their uncircumcised hearts..."  Second, "And if they accept the punishment for their iniquity."  Before one can accept the punishment for something, one must have a humble heart.  I prefer the rendering "accept the punishment for their iniquity" (KJV and Young's Literal Translation, John Gill also agrees with this translation) as opposed to "make amends..." (NASB).  The Hebrew word for "accept" used in this passage simply does not mean "make amends". 

Leviticus 26:42 - When God says, "remember" it is not just the act of calling something back to mind.  It always has the additional component of resolving to do something as a result of the memory.  For example, Hannah wanted a child.  The priest told her that her prayer would be answered.  She had relations with her husband, and 1 Samuel 1:19 reads, "The Lord remembered her", and she conceived a child that day.  So for God to pledge that He will remember the covenant with Jacob, Isaac and Abraham means that He will restore the nation Israel to her land.

"I will also remember the land."  The concept of "the land" is also very important in the OT.  You will find throughout your reading of the OT "the land" will be a center piece.  You must understand that there are two parts to the covenant of God with Israel: (1) Israel will be God's own special people (and the Gentiles will be grafted into this favor), and (2) Israel will inhabit a specific region of land.  Jesus will rule the earth from Jerusalem during the Millennial Kingdom.  It won't be from just any place He can set up His throne.  "The land" is an integral part of the covenant.

Leviticus 26:43 - Again the Lord promises Sabbath rest to "the land", as He did in verse 34 and elsewhere.  As in verse 41, the Israelites will "accept the punishment for their iniquity" and not "make amends" as the NASB translates it.

Leviticus 26:44 - The Lord also promises that in spite of sending them into captivity, He will not destroy them and break His covenant with them.  Then He uses His covenantal name to seal the promise, "I am Yahweh, their God."

Leviticus 26:45 - Again, the Lord pledges to remember His covenant that He made "at first" (translated "with their ancestors" by NASB).  The fact that He brought them out in plain sight of all the nations binds Him even more to the covenant.  Moses took advantage of this fact when He pleaded with the Lord not to destroy the Israelites.  Moses said, "Why should the Egyptians speak, saying, 'With evil intent He brought them out to kill them in the mountains and to destroy them from the face of the earth'?"(Exodus 32:11-13)  

Leviticus 26:46 - The Lord established a covenant with the people of Israel "through the hand of Moses."  Here we see the role of a mediator between God and Man.  Moses filled that role in the beginning.  Then God raised up a prophet from among Israel like Moses to take over that role.  His name is Jesus.

Leviticus 27 - GENERAL REMARKS - One would think that the Book of Leviticus should end at chapter 26 by the way Moses concludes.  But we have in chapter 27 an addendum concerning how to assign value to property.

Leviticus 27:2 - "...makes a difficult vow..."  In English, we use "difficult" as an adverb of "to vow".  For what it's worth, the verb in Hebrew is "to be wonderful", and "vow" is used to modify that verb.  So the grammar is opposite in Hebrew.

The vows a man might make were free-will vows.  They were not obligatory. 

What follows will be guidelines on how to set the value of human life.  A man, in his great zeal for the Lord, might dedicate himself, his children, or his slave to the Lord.  

Leviticus 27:3 - Males from 20-60 were valued the highest price.  This tells us something about God's expectation of a man near 60.  He should be able to perform and produce on par with men in their twenties.  Having been raised in a family of carpenters, I have seen both my grandfather and my father out-perform younger men even while they were over sixty.  The human body has a far greater capacity for work than our modern society grants it.

Leviticus 27:4 - Females will be valued between 1/2 and 2/3 that of males.  This was based on their capacity to do profitable work.  A tractor that can do 5 things is not as valuable as a tractor that can do 10 things.

Leviticus 27:5 - The value is less here only because their life-span is more uncertain at these younger ages.  More people die in the 5-20 age range than the 20-60 range.

Leviticus 27:6 - Again, the value is less here to because the infant mortality rate is so high.

Leviticus 27:7 - Beyond sixty, mortality rates increase again, so the value drops again, and the capacity for profitable work decreases.

Leviticus 27:8 - This verse concerns a poor man that wishes to vow a man to the Lord, but he cannot afford the normal valuation standards.  The Hebrew reads, "according to that which the hand of him who is vowing doth reach doth the priest value him" (Young's Literal Translation).  So according to the means of the poor man will the vow be valued.

Leviticus 27:9-13 - These verses concern gifts of animals a man presents to the Lord as a free-will offering.

Leviticus 27:9 - This verse concerns itself with the type of animals that are fit for offering as sacrifices (e.g., sheep, goats, rams).

Leviticus 27:10 - Some take the two words in the phrase, "He shall not replace it or exchange it" (NASB) as referring to the same thing.  However, Jewish commentators believe that to "replace" is to substitute for another type of animal.  And "exchange" refers to the same type of animal, just a different one from the herd.

Any kind of exchanging or replacing was not to be done.  If someone did try to change out the offering, he was not to receive back the original animal.  Both animals become holy, and they were not to go back to ordinary life.  John Gill reports on this verse that the man whom tried to change out an offering was to be beaten - so the Jewish custom was at one time.

The purpose and application of this verse is to make us cautious and thoughtful before we present something to the Lord as an offering, lest we become fickle and regret our free-will offering.  Ecclesiastes 5:2 has similar advice.  It instructs us not to be "hasty in word or impulsive in thought to bring up a matter in the presence of God" (NASB).

Leviticus 27:11-13 - These verses concern animals that are not fit for sacrificing, such as swine.  The priest is to make a valuation of the animal.  If the man changes his mind, he is permitted to redeem the animal (contrasting with the former) by adding a fifth to the valuation.

Leviticus 27:14-15 - This passage concerns a man consecrating his house to the Lord.  Yet the Hebrew explicitly states that only the one devoting it to the Lord may redeem the house.  Other laws permitted the next nearest relation to redeem property.  (See Ruth chapter 4 for an example.)

Leviticus 27:16 - The field "of his own property" (NASB) or "in his grasp" (literal Hebrew) refers to property inherited from his father.  God distinguishes inherited property in this verse from acquired property, which is covered in verse 22.  A man may only consecrate a portion of the inherited field, lest his own family suffer.  The value of the land depends upon how much seed it took to plant it.  The amount of seed to plant the field is a gauge of the size of the field.  If it takes more seed, then it is a larger field, and therefore it has greater the value.

Leviticus 27:17 - If a man sanctifies his field in the year of Jubilee, then the priest will name a price, and so it shall be.

Leviticus 27:18 - In determining the value of the land, the number of years left until Jubilee must be considered.  For all property reverts back to the owner in that year.  In this way, the families' land is preserved.  I personally really like the idea of the Year of Jubilee.  Decisions are not so permanent, and if you make a mistake, you can always wait it out until Jubilee, and start over.  Our society has bankruptcy as a means of starting over.  But going that route is extremely painful and costly.  Not to mention it has stigmas and consequences that will follow you for years after.

Leviticus 27:19 - The Hebrew grammar here employs the familiar "adjectival intensification."  However, in this instance, it is not meant to intensify the action, but rather to communicate a wish, desire, or even a subjunctive (meaning "might or possibly") sense.  Thus we read, "If the one who consecrates it should ever wish to redeem the field" (NASB).  This is not a typical use of this grammatical device.

Leviticus 27:20 - "if he will not redeem it..."  There is some discussion about who "he" is.  Is it the priest or the original owner?  In either case, when the field changes hands and passes on to the next person, it is not redeemable.  This is, to be sure, a way to prevent defrauding the system.  If a man could devote a field to the Lord and receive some spiritual blessing according to the value, then the priest sells the field to another man.  If the original owner could then redeem the same property for a lesser cost, then the system would be defrauded.

Leviticus 27:21 - This verse continues the above situation: In the year of Jubilee, the field was to pass back to the original owner, but it wouldn't in this case because it has changed hands again.  It reverts back to the Lord, and the priests must pay for it.

Leviticus 27:22-24 - These verses concern a man that purchases a field (not of his inherited possession) and then dedicates it to the Lord.  The field will be valued the same way according to the number of years left until Jubilee.  Then in Jubilee, the field goes back to the original owner.

Leviticus 27:25 - The Lord gives instruction as to the currency of the valuation.  One temple shekel equals 20 gerahs.  There are good websites that discuss in more detail the currency systems found in the Bible.

Leviticus 27:26 - An Israelite may not consecrate a first born of his beasts, because the first born are already consecrated to the Lord by virtue of their birth order.  

Leviticus 27:27 - We understand "unclean" to mean any of the beasts that are not first born.  According to previous laws, an "unclean" beast in the proper sense (like swine) could not be offered to the temple.  Thus God is referring to beasts not born first.  

Why must the one whom consecrated the animal pay an additional one-fifth over the priest's valuation, if when the animal is sold to another person, he only need pay the price of the valuation?  Because when the person consecrates an animal to the Lord, there is a spiritual blessing that attaches to that person.  If, after consecrating the animal and receiving such a blessing, he were to redeem the animal for the same price as the valuation, he would have received more than he gave.  The scales would be tipped in his favor.  He would have received the blessing essentially for nothing.  So the Lord commands that if he redeems the animal, he must add to it a fifth of the valuation to keep the scales balanced on account the spiritual blessing he received by dedicating the animal.  Do you see how equitable the Lord is?  Do you also see how savvy He is with men's hearts?  He knows that men will try to get something for nothing.

You ask, "It sounds like the spiritual blessing isn't worth much if it is only valued at 20% of the valuation."  If you have traveled over-seas or even shopped at Aldi foods in the USA, you know that you have to put a coin deposit for your shopping carts.  Why?  It is a deterrent from having shopping carts strewn all over the parking lot.  Sometimes it is as little as a quarter deposit.  However, people always return their cart and walk the extra distance just to get their quarter back.  Now, one cannot justly place a monetary value on a spiritual blessing.  However, by requiring an additional 20% from the one consecrating the animal in order to redeem it, God is essentially placing a deterrent for redemption.  It is extremely unlikely that the man will redeem the animal that he knows someone else can purchase for less.  He would rather go and purchase a different animal than redeem the one consecrated.  That is exactly what the Lord wants.

Leviticus 27:28 - Here the NASB obscures the translation.  In the beginning of the verse, they translate, "anything which a man sets apart to the Lord."  That phrase "sets apart" is one word in Hebrew meaning "to devote to the ban."  It is used throughout the verse.  It is more than "to set apart", which could include consecration, however, we've already seen that things consecrated to the Lord can be redeemed.  So the NASB does not make sense.  However, if you read according to the Hebrew, "anything which a man devotes to the ban" and read it that way throughout, it totally makes sense.  Things devoted to the ban cannot be redeemed, whereas most things consecrated to the Lord can be redeemed.

To "devote to the ban" is a different kind of consecration than we have previously encountered.  This word is often used with property taken from conquest of gentile nations or even used regarding gentile cities themselves.  Inherent in the meaning of this word is the connotation that the things "devoted to the ban" may not be redeemed.  Any Israelite reading this verse would instantly know the difference between consecration as discussed previously and this word for devoting.

Leviticus 27:29 - This word "devote to the ban" shows up again, this time with specific respect to persons.  Those devoted in this way "will surely die" (the Hebrew uses the adjectival intensifier to bring more force and certainty to the death).  These are people that have broken a Law deserving death, and have justly received a sentence of death.  They cannot be redeemed.  This can be an Israelite or a foreigner.  In Numbers 21:2, entire gentile cities are devoted to destruction.  According to this law, they must all die.

Leviticus 27:30 - The tithe of the produce of the ground belonged to the Lord.

Leviticus 27:31 - Again, we see 20% added to the value, if the man wants to redeem his tithe.  This too is a deterrent.

Leviticus 27:32 - This law only concerns cattle or sheep.  Again, the NASB obscures this point by translating, "herd or flock", because it was only clean beasts that were tithed.  Unclean animals could be redeemed, as previously seen.

Leviticus 27:33 - The man is not to distinguish between good or bad animals when devoting them to the Lord as a tithe.  As a punishment, if he exchanges the animal for another, he will lose both animals.  The two will become holy to the Lord.  According to the Jewish Mishna entitled "Temurah" (Chapter 1, sections 2-3), the man breaking this law would receive the 39 lashes as a punishment.

Leviticus 27:34 - Here we have a repetition of the closing remarks (see also 26:46) that identify this book as the Laws God gave to Moses on Mount Sinai.