Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadPulpit Commentary - Leviticus 11:1 - 11:47
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
PART III UNCLEANNESS, CEREMONIAL AND MORAL: ITS REMOVAL OR ITS PUNISHMENT
SECTION I
(1) by unclean food (Lev_11:1-47);
(2) by childbirth (Lev_12:1-8.);
(3) by the leprosy of man and of garments and of houses (Lev_13:1-59, Lev_14:1-57);
(4) by issues (Lev_15:1-33).
The second section deals with the uncleanness contracted every year by the whole congregation, to be annually atoned for on the great Day of Atonement (Lev_16:1-34), followed by a parenthetical chapter as to the place in which sacrifice is to be offered—sacrifice being the means by which purification from uncleanness is to be effected (Lev_17:1-16). The third section is on moral uncleanness, or sin (Lev_18:1-30, Lev_19:1-37), and its punishment (Lev_20:1-27). The fourth relates to the ceremonial and moral uncleanness of priests (Lev_21:1-24, Lev_22:1-33).
The idea underlying ceremonial uncleanness is not peculiar to the Jews. With the Greeks the idea of moral beauty was borrowed from physical beauty, and the standard of moral excellence was the beautiful. With the Hebrews physical ugliness is taken as the symbol of moral ugliness or deformity: whatever is foul is the type of what is evil. That which we have a natural admiration for is good, said the Greek; that which we have a natural repugnance for represents to us what is evil, said the Hebrew. In either case, taste appears to take the place of moral judgment; but in Greek philosophy, moral taste and moral judgment had come to be identical, while the Hebrew knew that what taste condemned was not therefore of itself evil, but only symbolical and representative of evil.
Another principle underlies the Hebrew theory of uncleanness. It is that whatever is itself foul, and therefore symbolical of sin, conveys the quality of foulness, and therefore of ceremonial uncleanness to any one it comes in contact with, and often to anything which it touches. Thus a dead body, quickly assuming a loathsome appearance in the East, where the setting in of corruption is very rapid, is unclean itself, and conveys uncleanness to those who touch it. The leper is unclean, and transmits uncleanness by his touch; and certain foul diseases and fluxes from the human body have the same effect. These and such like things, being always repulsive, always cause uncleanness; but there are others which, while in some associations they are utterly repellent, in others are not so. For example, there are some vermin and insects which are pretty to the eye, but the thought of eating them creates a natural feeling of disgust. These, in so far as they are not repulsive, that is, as creeping or flying creatures, are not unclean, nor does their touch produce uncleanness, but as objects of food they are "an abomination."
Hence we are able to explain the distinction of clean and unclean animals. It does not rest upon a sanitary basis, though the prohibition to eat carnivorous and other animals repulsive to the taste is probably in accordance with the rules of health. Nor is it based on political reasons, though it is probable that the distinction kept the Jews apart kern other nations, and so served an important political purpose. Nor is the injunction in the main theological, though we know that in later times the favourite interpretation was that the clean animals represented the Jews, and the unclean animals the Gentiles (Act_10:28). Rather it was that certain creatures were forbidden because they were offensive to the taste, and, being so offensive, they were symbolical of vicious things, which must be avoided, lest they make those that partake of them or touch them to become vicious like themselves.
Lev_15:2-8 contain the regulations relating to the eating of quadrupeds; Lev_15:9-12, those relating to fish; Lev_15:13-19, those relating to birds; Lev_15:20-23, those relating to flying insects; Lev_15:29, Lev_15:30, those relating to unwinged creeping things; verses 41-44, those relating to vermin. Lev_15:23-28 and Lev_15:31 -40 extend the defiling effect to the simple touch of the dead carouses of animals, whether edible or not.
Lev_11:1
The Lord spake unto Moses and to Aaron. Aaron, having now been consecrated high priest, is joined with Moses as the recipient of the laws on cleanness and uncleanness in Le Lev_11:1; Lev_13:1; Lev_14:33; Lev_15:1. His name is not mentioned in Le Lev_12:1; Lev_14:1; Lev_17:1; Lev_18:1; Lev_19:1; Lev_20:1; Lev_21:1, Lev_21:16; Lev_22:1, Lev_22:17, Lev_22:26. Probably there is no signification in these omissions.
Lev_11:2
These are the beasts that ye shall eat. In order that the Israelites might know how to avoid the uncleanness arising from the consumption of unclean flesh, plain rules are given them by which they may distinguish what flesh is clean and what is unclean. The first rule is that anything that dies of itself is unclean, whether it be beast, bird, or fish. The reasons of this are plain: for
(1) the flesh still retains the blood, which no Israelite might eat; and
(2) there is something loathsome in the idea of eating such flesh. Next, as to beasts, a class is marked off as edible by two plainly discernible characteristics, and instances are given to show that where there is any doubt owing to the animals possessing one of the characteristic marks only, the rule is to be construed strictly. As to fish and insects, equally plain rules, one in each case, are laid down; but as birds are not readily distinguished into large classes, the names of those that are unclean are given one by one, the remainder being all of them permissible. Thus the simple Israelite would run no risk of incurring uncleanness by inadvertently eating unclean food, whether of beast, bird, fish, or insect. The object of the regulations being to exclude all meats naturally offensive to the human taste, all carnivorous quadrupeds are shut out by the rule of chewing the cud (Lev_11:3), with the same purpose, birds of prey and birds that eat offal are prohibited (Lev_11:13-19), and scaleless fish on account of their repulsive appearance (Lev_11:9-12), as well as beetles, maggots, and vermin of all sorts. In the case of beasts and fish, the rules laid down to mark off those things that are offensive, being general in their application, are such as to include in the forbidden class some few which do not appear naturally loathsome. This is owing partly to the difficulty of classification, partly to a change of feeling which experience has wrought in the sentiments of mankind with regard to such edibles as swine's flesh and shell-fish.
Lev_11:3, Lev_11:4
Whatsoever parteth the hoof, and is clovenfooted, should rather be translated, Whatsoever parteth the hoof, and completely divides it, The camel parts but does not wholly divide the hoof, as there is ball at the back of the foot, of the nature of a heel.
Lev_11:5
The coney, Hebrew, shaphan; the Hyrax Syriacus, or wabr, still called in Southern Arabia tsofun, a little animal similar to but not identical with the rabbit. "They live in the natural caves and clefts of the rocks (Psa_104:18), are very gregarious, being often seen seated in troops before the openings of their caves, and extremely timid, as they are quite defenseless (Pro_30:26). They are about the size of rabbits, of a brownish-gray or brownish-yellow color, but white under the belly; they have bright eyes, round ears, and no tail. The Arabs eat them, but do not place them before their guests" (Keil).
Lev_11:6
The hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof, There is little doubt that the same animal as our hare is meant. Neither the hare, however, nor the hyrax chews the cud in the strict sense of the words. But they have the appearance of doing so. The rule respecting chewing the cud was given to and by Moses as a legislator, not as an anatomist, to serve as a sign by which animals might be known to be clean for food. Phenomenal not scientific language is used here, as in Jos_10:12, "as we might speak of whales and their congeners as fish, when there is no need of scientific accuracy" (Clark). "All these marks of distinction in the Levitical law are wisely and even necessarily made on the basis of popular observation and belief, not on that of anatomical exactness. Otherwise the people would have been continually liable to error. Scientifically, the camel would be said to divide the hoof, and the hare does not chew the cud. But laws for popular use must necessarily employ terms as they are popularly understood. These matters are often referred to as scientific errors; whereas they were simply descriptions, necessarily popular, for the understanding and enforcement of the law" (Gardiner).
Lev_11:7
The swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted. Here, again, the description is not according to anatomical analysis, but to ordinary appearance. The pig appears to be cloven-footed, and it would be misleading to give any other account of his foot in ordinary speech, but scientifically speaking, he has four toes. The prohibition of the use of swine's flesh does not arise from the fear of trichinosis or other disease, but from the disgust caused by the carnivorous and filthy habits of the Eastern pig. The repulsion originally felt for swine's flesh was natural, and, where the animal is carnivorous, is still natural, but where its habits are changed, and it has become simply graminivorous, the feeling has ceased to exist.
Lev_11:8
Of their carcass shall ye not touch. This prohibition is founded upon the same feeling of disgust as the prohibition of eating their flesh. Whatever is foal must be avoided.
Lev_11:9-12
Whatsoever hath fins and scales. The absence of fins and scales, or their apparent absence—for phenomenal language is used, as before—gives to fish a repulsive look, on which is grounded the prohibition to eat them. Eels and shell-fish are thus forbidden, though a long course of experience has now taken away the feeling of repulsion with which they were once looked upon. The flesh of the beasts for, bidden to be eaten is only described as unclean, but that of the prohibited fish, birds, insects, and vermin, is designated as an abomination unto you.
Lev_11:13-19
The unclean birds are those which are gross feeders, devourers of flesh or offal, and therefore offensive to the taste, beginning with the eagle and vulture tribe. It is probable that the words translated owl (Lev_11:16), night hawk (Lev_11:16), cuckow (Lev_11:16) should be rendered, ostrich, owl, gull, and perhaps for swan (Lev_11:18), heron (Lev_11:19), lapwing (Lev_11:19), should be substituted ibis, great plover, hoopoe. In the case of the bat, we have again phenomenal language used. Being generally regarded as a bird, it is classed with birds.
Lev_11:20-23
All fowls that creep should rather be rendered all winged creeping things, that is, all flying insects. None are allowed except the Saltatoria, or locust family. The word translated beetle signifies a sort of locust, like the other three words. That the locust was a regular article of food in Palestine is amply proved. "It is well known that locusts were eaten by many of the nations of antiquity, both in Asia and Africa, and even the ancient Greek thought the cicadas very agreeable in flavour (Arist. 'Hist. An.,' 5:30). In Arabia they are sold in the market, sometimes strung upon cords, sometimes by measure, and they are also dried and kept in bags for winter use.… They are generally cooked over hot coals, or on a plate, or in an oven, or stewed in butter, and eaten either with salt or with spice and vinegar, the head, wings, and feet being thrown away. They are also boiled in salt and water, and eaten with salt or butter. Another process is to dry them thoroughly, and then grind them into meal, and make cakes of them" (Keil). (Cf. Mat_3:4.) The expression goeth upon all four, means groveling or going in a horizontal position, in contrast with two-legged birds, just spoken of.
Lev_11:24-28
These verses contain an expansion of the warning contained in Lev_11:8, to the effect that the touch of the dead bodies of the forbidden animals was defiling, as well as the consumption of their flesh. A further mark of an unclean animal is added in Lev_11:27. Whatsoever goeth upon his paws; that is, whatever has not hoofs, but goes stealthily, like beasts of prey of the eat kind. It includes also dogs.
Lev_11:29, Lev_11:30
The creeping things that creep upon the earth. This class contains things that go on their belly, but have not wings, like the previous class of creeping things (Lev_11:20-23). By the words translated tortoise, ferret, chameleon, lizard, snail, mole, different varieties of the lizard are probably meant. The mouse is joined by Isaiah with "eating swine's flesh and the abomination" (Isa_66:17).
Lev_11:31-38
As the little animals just mentioned—weasels, mice, and lizards—are more likely than those of a larger size to be found dead in domestic utensils and clothes, a further warning as to their defiling character is added, with tales for daily use. The words translated ranges for pots (Lev_11:35) should rather be rendered covered pots, that is, pots or kettles with lids to them. Seed which is to be sown, that is, seed corn, is not defiled by contact with these dead animals, unless it has been wetted by water being put on it, in which case the moisture would convey the corruption into the seeds.
Lev_11:39, Lev_11:40
The loathsomeness of the bodies of even clean animals that have died a natural death, makes them also the means of conveying defilement to any one who touches them.
Lev_11:41-43
The last class is that of vermin, which constitute a part of the un-winged creeping class already spoken of (Lev_11:29, Lev_11:30). Whatsoever goeth upon the belly indicates snakes, worms, maggots: whatsoever goeth upon all four, things that grovel, as moles, rats, hedgehogs; whatsoever hath more feet, or doth multiply feet, centipedes, caterpillars, spiders.
Lev_11:44-47
These concluding verses give a religious sanction to the previous regulations, and make them matters of sacred, not merely sanitary or political, obligation. They were to sanctify themselves, that is, to avoid uncleanness, because God is holy, and they were God's. They were thus taught that ceremonial cleanness of the body was a symbol of holiness of heart, and a means of attaining to the latter. For I am the Lord that bringeth you up out of the land of Egypt. It is possible that Egypt may be named as being the laud of animal-worship. To be your God; ye shall therefore be holy, for I am holy. The only way by which there can be communion between God and man is the way of holiness.
Jewish industry and care has counted the number of letters in the Pentateuch, and marked by the use of the letter å in larger type, in the word âÈÌçåÉï , which occurs in Lev_11:42, that that letter is the middle letter of the whole work from the beginning of Genesis to the end of Deuteronomy. It is easy to see what a protection to the text such minute and scrupulous care must be.
I. NATURE IS A REVELATION OF GOD IF WE ONLY HAD ITS KEY. It is too often forgotten that nature was the first revelation of God to his creatures. The Bible is the supplementary revelation necessitated by sin. To our first parents before the Fall, nature had a deeper meaning, most probably, than it has yet had to us. The interpretation of nature is most important, and there is no need that it should be "agnostic" or irreligious. Provided scientific fact be welcomed, there is no detriment, but rather there is gain, in looking at our surroundings in a religious spirit. Science is not bound to become a department of theology, and to be running up into theological statements; neither, on the other hand, is it bound to indulge in atheistic ones. The "argument of design" may not be a part of science, but it is just as true that the argument of chance, which is the only alternative, is no part of true science either. But while science is under no obligation to become theological, it is right that nature should be regarded religiously, Natural religion has its sphere just as well as supernatural religion.
II. WE INSTINCTIVELY USE ANIMATED NATURE TO ILLUSTRATE THE CHARACTERISTICS OF MANKIND. The animals become our picture alphabet, by whose help we spell out character. Indeed, so close are the affinities between the lower animals and the successive stages of human character, that one ingenious foreign writer points out an analogy between the development in nature and the development in individual human nature
"Man passes still today," says M. Secretan, £ "through the form of the ape, and he passes through it visibly; the embryonic evolution continues itself in the transformations of the first age, the spiritual development allies itself to the corporeal evolution, it is regulated by the same laws. Just as the human body reproduces in summary form the whole history of organized nature, the spirit of a civilized person reproduces in abridgment the whole history of the human spirit, and the two histories are inseparable. The characteristic of the ape, imitation without intelligence, is also the characteristic of the child when he is put in possession of his organs. This phase is essential; the child would not learn to eat, he would not learn to walk, he would not learn especially to speak, and by consequence to think, were he not, during some period and in certain respects, a little parrot and a little ape, Simian imitation is the process by which the acquisitions of the species are appropriated by the individual. Simian imitation, by which I mean the reproduction of movements of which the intention is not comprehended, is the normal and desired transition between instinct and the reflective intelligence, which is the properly human condition." There seems, therefore, to be a reason in the very nature of things for the illustration of moral or immoral qualities from the animals. Amid other uses served by the lower creation, there is certainly this one of furnishing illustrations of character. Our Lord's parables embody the principle of the spiritual significance of nature in its broadest applications.
III. BY THE DIVISION OF THE ANIMALS HERE PROPOSED IMPORTANT MORAL QUALITIES ARE COMMENDED AND IMMORAL ONES CONDEMNED. A scientific division was not needed for a religious purpose. A popular division, easily apprehended, would serve infinitely better. The distinctions drawn are such as may be seen at a glance.
1. Quadrupeds. The clean are those who divide the hoof and chew the cud. In other words, the ruminants are to be regarded as the clean. All other quadrupeds are to be accounted unclean. That there may be no mistake, the camel, coney, hare, and swine are emphasized as unclean, because possessing only one of the required characteristics. The flesh of the ruminants is generally considered as more wholesome than that of the other quadrupeds; but this would scarcely determine the division. Let the fact, however, be noted that reflection finds its fitting illustration in the rumination of these animals, and that they are justly regarded as both sure-footed and cleanly; then we see a moral purpose in the distinction. If the Lord's people were to associate with these animals and use them for food, while the other quadrupeds were to be avoided, it was to teach them to reflect faithfully upon what God gave them, to be steadfast in running the race he sets before them, and to be pure in their walk and conversation. That such moral ideas were associated with the clean animals is corroborated by such passages as 2Sa_22:34; Psa_18:33; Heb_3:19; with which may be compared 1Sa_2:9.
2. Fishes. Here, again, the clean ones are those which have both fins and scales. All that have not these two characteristics are to be deemed an abomination, such as sharks, eels, and the swarmers generally ( ùÆÑøÆõ ). That moral characteristics are illustrated in fish as well as in quadrupeds is acknowledged by the common usage of language. Do we not call men of a rapacious disposition "sharks;" and say of men of uncertain and cunning ways that they "wriggle like eels"? It seems certain, therefore, that the distinction here made, while perhaps having some foundation in the quality of the flesh, is primarily to illustrate disposition, and to guard the Jews against the selfishness and rapacity associated with the unclean fishes.
It could hardly be locomotion which is referred to in this animal kingdom, since some of the unclean fishes, for example, the sharks, are remarkable for their speed. Moreover, the fact of sharks and some other fishes having scales, though of almost microscopic character, is no argument against the fidelity of the record. The Law was given primarily to a people of simple and not scientific habits—not to microscopists. Its popular style and adaptation to common life are among its highest recommendations.
3. Birds. Here, again, when the words are looked carefully into, the distinction seems to be that clean birds are such as feed. on grain and grasses, while the carnivorous birds are excluded as unclean. In no more striking way could unholy appetites be illustrated and condemned. Restraint and purity were thus inculcated.
4. Reptiles. Of these permission is given to eat four kinds of locust, all of which are distinguished as leapers, and not runners. Locomotion in this case, rather than food, is the ground of the distinction. When besides, we remember the migratory character of these insects, there is conveyed an excellent illustration of the stranger spirit, which alights on earth only so far as is needful, and takes more kindly to the air. If God's people should be "strangers and pilgrims upon earth," if they should be setting their affections on things above, the locust tribes, which the Jews were allowed to eat, most admirably illustrated the required spirit.
On the other hand, the mole, the mouse, the lizard ( öÈá , not "tortoise," as in English 'Version), gecko ( àÇâÈ÷Èä , not "the ferret," as in English Version), monitor ( ëÉçÇ , from its great strength—not "the chameleon"), lizard and sand-lizard ( çÉîÆè , from lying on the ground—not "snail," for they are eaten by Jews and Orientals, as not unclean), and. chameleon are to be regarded as unclean. Earthliness and ugliness—in one word, the repulsiveness of sin—seem indicated by this distinction.
We have thus inculcated, by this easy, popular division of the animals, important moral qualities to be cultivated and immoral qualities to be avoided. Animated nature became thus a mirror for human nature. The living world around man was thus made to take up a parabolic language and promote his sanctification.
IV. THE DEFILING CHARACTER OF DEATH THROUGH NATURAL CAUSES WAS TO BE CONSTANTLY RECOGNIZED. Even a clean animal which had died of itself was not to be eaten or touched with impunity. Defilement was the result of such contact. The lesson of mortality as the penalty of sin was thus illustrated. Men might devote an animal to death for sacrificial purposes or for their own use, but when death came as the debt of nature, at once its defiling character must be realized, and purification sought accordingly.
The laws of this chapter entailed constant watchfulness. No careless living was possible under the Jewish regime. In the same spirit surely should we "watch and. pray, lest we enter into temptation." In the same spirit should we ask ourselves, What spiritual lessons is surrounding nature communicating to our spirits? Not in vain, and not for mere utility, has such an environment been thrown around us.—R.M.E.
I. THE LAW DISTRIBUTES THEM INTO TWO CLASSES.
1. The clean. The marks of cleanness are:
(1) That they "divide the hoof." By the division of the hoof, as in the ox and sheep, the animal is able so to order its steps as not to throw up the mud upon itself, as the horse does whose hoof is not cloven.
(2) They "chew the cud." So their food is more perfectly prepared for digestion. The manner in which this is done, while the creature rests, is so suggestive of thoughtfulness and meditation that it is described as ruminating.
(3) The clean animals were therefore chosen to represent the Israelites, who were a holy nation. They were ceremonially holy:
(a) So walking in the ways of God's commandments as not to be polluted with the abominations of idolatry.
(b) So meditating upon the Law as inwardly to digest it to their nourishment (see Psa_1:2; 1Ti_4:13-15).
(c) Thus also they became morally greatly superior to the nations around them.
2. The unclean.
(1) The Gentiles in contrast to the Jews were so, ceremonially, and were therefore shut out from communion with the Jews. But it was competent to them to be made holy by becoming proselytes.
(2) They were in general idolaters, and so morally abominable. It was mainly to keep the Israelites from being contaminated with the idolatries of their neighbours, that these laws were instituted (see Lev_11:45; Lev_20:23-25; Deu_14:1-3).
3. There are but two classes of men.
(1) Though some animals divide the hoof, they are not clean unless they also chew the cud. The hog is of this order, and is filthy to a proverb (2Pe_1:1-21 :22). So it does not make men clean to have the faculty for walking cleanly when their disposition otherwise leads them to wallow in the mire of sin.
(2) Though some chew the cud, yet if they divide not the hoof they are unclean. The "camel," the "coney," and the "hare," or whatever creature, the word àøðáú may describe, are of this order. For what good is the semblance of meditation and repentance, if the walk of the life be not clean (Jas_1:20)?
(3) As there are varieties of clean and also of unclean animals, so are there varieties and degrees of goodness, on the one hand, and of wickedness on the other, amongst men. Still the classes are but two. The one is led by Christ, the other by Satan (Mat_12:30; Mat_25:2, Mat_25:32, Mat_25:33). To which class do you belong?
II. THE LAW IN THE LETTER IS NOW CHANGED.
1. The gospel is freely preached to the Gentiles.
(1) They are not now under obligation to be proselyted to Judaism. This subject was debated in the early Church, and settled at the Council of Jerusalem.
(2) The same decision, which was at the instance of Peter to whom the Lord had assigned that distinction (see Mat_16:19), released the Jews also from the yoke of the Law (see Act_15:1-41).
2. This was according to prophetic indication.
(1) Under the figure of the unclean wolf dwelling with the lamb, etc; (Isa_11:1-16) describes the Gentile and Jew as to be wonderfully reconciled in the days of Messiah.
(2) To show that the Jew must have no fellowship with the Gentile, the Law forbade the yoking together of the clean ox with the unclean ass (Deu_22:10). But prophecy anticipates the blessedness of the time when the seed, viz. of the gospel, should be sewn beside all waters—not those of Judea only, but of the wide world; and that in this business the ox and the ass—the Jew and the Gentile—should become fellow-workers (see Isa_32:20; comp. also Deu_25:4; 1Co_9:9-11; 1Ti_5:18).
3. Peter's vision instructed him that this lime was come.
(1) The animals contained in the sheet were those described as unclean in the Law, and represented the Gentiles. Peter, therefore, when commanded to kill and eat, hesitated, for that he "had never eaten anything that was common or unclean." He therefore held that "it was an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company or come unto one of another nation."
(2) But the linen sheet which enclosed the animals was the emblem of purity; and they were thrice lifted into the heavens. To these symbols agreed also the voice which said, "What God hath cleansed that call not thou common."
(3) When therefore Peter had all this corroborated by the counter-vision of Cornelius, he was convinced that henceforth he "should not call any man common or unclean." For the universality of the mercy of the gospel had been testified in that the sheet was knit at the four corners, showing that the Gentiles were to be gathered together from the four quarters of the world.
III. THE LAW IN ITS SPIRIT STILL ABIDES.
1. For the gospel is that spirit.
(1) The glory on the face of Moses was veiled to the Jews. So concerned were they with the letter that they could not steadfastly look upon the true glory of their own Law. Moses therefore put a vail upon his face, viz. the vail of the letter. This vail is still upon their hearts, and must so remain until they turn to the Lord, or become converted to Christ.
(2) When Moses turned to the Lord, from whom he derived his glory, he took off the vail; and it is the same glory which falls upon us. The only difference is that in the spirit of the Law we see the glory of the Lord reflected from the face of Moses; but in the spirit of the gospel we see the same glory as Moses himself saw it, immediately, in the face of Jesus.
(3) Thus passing from the Law to the gospel, a spiritual person is changed from glory to glory. This brightening transfiguration is effected "by the Spirit of the Lord," or, as the margin construes it, "by the Lord who is the Spirit," viz. of the Law. The Spirit of the Lord is the Spirit of the Law.
2. The gospel insists upon moral purity.
(1) We have seen that the law of yoking together the ox and the ass is repealed under the gospel. This was as to the letter. But we shall find it still insisted upon, viz. as to the spirit. For Paul clearly refers to it (2Co_6:14) when he forbids the unequal yoking together of Christians and infidels.
(2) In the spirit of it Christ came not to destroy, but to fulfill, the Law, and that to the jot and tittle (Mat_5:17-20). What a rebuke is here to the antinomian! What a stumbling-block to the Jew is the antinomianism in false theories of Christianity! Christians who neglect the study of the Law miss the benefit of many glorious views of precious gospel truth. How just is the remark of Augustine, that "the Old Testament, when rightly understood, is one great prophecy of the Sew"!—J.A.M.
Lev_11:9-12
I. THE MYSTERY OF THE WATERS.
1. They denote multitudes of peoples.
(1) This is expressed in such passages as Isa_55:5 and Rev_17:15.
(2) The reason, perhaps, is that they lave the shores of the earth and are the highway of commerce. At all times they sustain a multitude of navigators; and at one time, in the ark of Noah, the entire population of the world was afloat.
(3) In the text the waters are distributed into "seas" and "rivers."
2. The sea may be diversely considered,
(1) Before the formation of light, when its consistency was muddy, it was called the deep, or the abyss, and was the symbol of hell (Gen_1:2; Luk_8:31; Rom_10:7; Rev_20:3).
(2) Under the action of light, the earthy particles precipitated, and the upper portion became gradually clearer and more liquid. Then the mass received the name of "seas" (Gen_1:10), In this condition the waters became stocked with living creatures and capable of supporting fleets, when it became a figure of the peoples of the world.
(3) When disturbed by fierce winds, and the sediment from the bottom worked up, as if the abyss of hell had been moved, the state of the wicked is described (see Isa_57:20). The winds by which the wicked are stirred are their passions, and the effects am turbulence and insurrection (see Psa_65:7; Psa_107:26; Jud 1:13).
(4) We carry waves and storms within us; they threaten to drown us (Jas_1:6); none can save us from ourselves but that Jesus who miraculously stilled the tempest (Mat_8:26).
3. Rivers also may be variously considered.
(1) They are taken in a good sense when they keep their channels, for then they are sources of blessing. The river of Eden represented the covenant of God, which, branching into "four heads," showed how the blessings of the gospel were to be carried to the four quarters of the world (Gen_2:10; Psa_36:8; Psa_46:4; Psa_65:9; Rev_22:1). The peaceful people of the covenant would also be represented.
(2) Rivers are taken in a bad sense when they overflow their banks, in which case they become muddy, and carry desolation where they rush. Hence they are compared to invading armies and to ungodly men moved to violence (Jdg_5:21; Psa_69:15; Isa_8:7, Isa_8:18; Isa_59:19; Rev_12:15).
II. THE INHABITANTS OF THE WATERS.
1. The clean are distinguished by fins and scales.
(1) The fins are their instruments of locomotion. By means of these they rise to the surface and swim in purer water under the clearer light of the heavens. Thus they teach us that a holy people should be active, not in the darkness of sin and ignorance, but in the day of goodness and truth (Joh_3:21; Joh_8:12; Joh_9:4, Joh_9:5).
(2) The scales, which have a beautiful metallic luster, suggest the idea of armour; and, when the creature swims near the surface, these brilliantly reflect the glories of the sun. They teach us to "put on the armour of light" (Rom_13:12; Eph_6:7).
2. The unclean are those without fins and scales.
(1) Those destitute of both, like the eel, shun the light, and bury themselves in the mud at the bottom. They teach us to avoid the corresponding habits of the wicked, who rush into sin and ignorance and wallow in moral filth (Job_24:13-17; Joh_3:19, Joh_3:20; Eph_5:13).
(2) Those who have fins but no scales are covered with a thick glutinous matter, which in appearance contrasts unfavourably with the silver and golden armour in which the clean creatures are clad. If they use their fins to rise out of their depths, it is to make havoc upon shoals of brighter creatures. So are the wicked bloodthirsty and voracious, who therefore should be shunned.
(3) In the imagery of the prophets, anti-Christian kingdoms are sometimes described as great sea-monsters (see Dan_7:2, Dan_7:3; Rev_13:1). Such kingdoms must be held in abomination by the thoughtful student of the Law, and the time, earnestly longed for, when the Lamb will appear on Mount Sion.—J.A.M.
Lev_11:13-25
I. THE UNCLEAN ARE IN GENERAL BINDS OF PREY.
1. Conspicuous amongst these are the eagles.
(1) There is little doubt that first name ( ðùø ) is truly rendered "eagle." The term expresses the propensity of that creature for lacerating and tearing in pieces the flesh of its prey.
(2) Its associates in the group (Lev_11:13, Lev_11:14) are similar in nature. The "ossifrage," or bone-breaker, is probably the sea-eagle, whose habit is to break bones to get at the marrow. The "ospray" has its name in the Hebrew from its strength, and is generally understood to be the black eagle. The "vulture "—if that truly renders the original—is one of the largest and most formidable of the eagle kind. And what is construed the "kite," being in the same group, is probably some other description of eagle.
2. These are emblems of evil spirits.
(1) This, indeed, is true of all unclean birds, in proof of which see Mat_13:4, compared with 19, and Rev_18:2. They are so:
(2) From their traversing the air (see Eph_2:2). This is eminently the case with eagles, whose flight is towering, and whose nests even are in inaccessible mountain heights.
(3) From the formidableness of their attacks. From dizzy heights they swoop down upon their prey. They are armed with powerful talons, and strong, sharp, hooked beaks fitted to inflict dreadful wounds, tearing as they grip the flesh of their quivering victims (Job_39:30).
3. They also represent wicked men.
(1) Wicked men are the "children of Satan," and naturally exhibit the family likeness. The kings of Babylon and Tyre are compared to the eagle (Eze_17:3, Eze_17:7). The persecutors of the people of God are likewise so compared (Lam_4:19). The Roman armies, whose standards were eagles, are called eagles by our Lord (Mat_24:28).
(2) The lesson for us is to avoid the disposition of the wicked, and to beware of their relentless voracity and diabolical cruelty. God is stronger than the "powers of the air."
II. SOME UNCLEAN BIRDS ARE PROWLERS OF THE NIGHT.
1. This characterizes the next group (Rev_18:15-19).
(1) The Hebrew name for the "raven" ( òøá ) is that commonly used for evening. Our name "raven" probably comes from their ravening. The raven Noah sent forth from the ark, which wandered to and fro, and resting upon floating carcasses or what dry thing it could find, was an emblem of an unclean dark spirit, which is cast out from the Church of God, and from the hearts of his people, and wanders among the moral carcasses, the dead in trespasses and sins (comp. Zec_13:2; Mat_12:43).
(2) Keep close to Jesus, lest, departing from him, we may invite this unclean spirit to return with seven others more wicked than himself.
2. With the raven owls are associated (Rev_18:16-19).
(1) These are creatures whose vision will not endure the blaze of day, but who have wonderful sight in the dark. That rendered "hawk" has its name here ( ãàä ) from the swiftness of its flight; but in Daniel 14:13 ( øàä ) from the sharpness of its sight.
(2) They are distinguished from each other by particular habits. That in our version called the "night hawk" ( úçîñ ) is the screech-owl. Its screams arc violent; and these birds in general make fearful and doleful sounds in the night. This does not argue favourably for the happiness of evil spirits.
(3) Wicked men also, like owls, hate the light. When honest people of the day are sleeping, these prowlers are plotting mischief. Witness the burglaries, the murders, the prostitutions, the debaucheries, practiced by them under the cover of darkness.
III. UNCLEAN BIRDS ARE GROVELLING IN THEIR HABITS.
1. Such are the "fowls that creep going upon all four."
(1) The bat is a creature of this class. It has claws attached to its leathern wings, which serve it instead of feet to crawl by.
(2) This description includes also insects from which exceptions are taken in the verse following.
2. They are types of wicked intelligences.
(1) Some devils have a passion for enshrining themselves in organic bodies. The incarnation of Satan in the serpent was not the last attempt. There were demoniacal possessions in our Lord's day; and when expelled from human beings, they preferred the bodies of swine to having no organic habitation.
(2) Wicked men grovel in the most revolting moral filth.
3. In what contrast to these are the flood!
(1) The dove sent forth by Noah is a figure of the Spirit of God, the gracious Messenger and Dispenser of peace to the Church; but who is often grieved by the impurities of men (Mat_3:16). The fruit of the Spirit, is peace; and those who exemplify it are called doves (Mat_10:16).
(2) The lark also is a clean creature, who soars high and sings gloriously in the light of the morning. How angelical! how saintly!
(3) While winged insects that could not leap from the ground were unclean, to show that those men are morally so who are wholly given to the cares of this world; those with benders above their feet, in our version called "legs," those with crouching joints to stoop and spring with, as locusts and grasshoppers, for the opposite reason are clean. The Baptist lived principally upon locusts in the wilderness.—J.A.M.
Lev_11:26-47
I. THE UNCLEAN CHEEPING THINGS THAT CREEP. These are opposed to creeping things that leap, some of which are clean (see Lev_11:21, Lev_11:22). Their steady attachment to the earth, never rising above it, represents an inveterate worldliness which a holy people must hold in abhorrence. Samples are given under the following groupings (see Lev_11:42), viz.:
1. Those that have no feet, "Whatsoever goeth upon the belly."
(1) Serpents, snakes, vipers, and worms of all kinds are included under this description. The serpent has given its name to Satan ever since he enshrined himself in a creature of that kind (see Gen_3:1; 2Co_11:3; Rev_12:9; Rev_20:2). And wicked men are the "children of the devil," and so are described as the "seed of the serpent," and a "generation of vipers" (Gen_3:15; Mat_3:7).
(2) Serpents are abominable for their unclean habits, lurking in the dust or mire, and eating their meat from the dust (Gen_3:14; Isa_65:25; Mic_7:17). Worms are bred in corruption and feast upon carrion (Exo_16:20; Job_7:5; Job_19:24; Act_12:23). What a picture of those who wallow in sin! Serpents are double-tongued (Psa_140:3), teaching us to abhor deception. They nourish poison, which is deadly (Num_21:9), teaching us to detest malignity. The worm of the damned dieth not.
2. Those that have four feet, "Whatsoever goeth upon all four."
(1) The weasel and the ferret are remarkable for their stealthy sliding motion in closing upon their prey. They teach us that slyness and treachery arc an aggravation of violence, which should be held in abomination. The" mouse" (Lev_11:29) is to be taken as the representative of everything of the mus kind; but it is difficult to say what animal is meant by the word ( éæç ) rendered" tortoise." By some it is thought to be the crocodile; by others the toad. Its name indicates some habit of swelling, and may teach us to abominate all impudence, ostentation, and vanity.
(2) The animal called "chameleon" (Lev_11:30) is by some thought to be the mongoose, a creature which eats snakes, rats, mice, and other vermin; while Bochart concludes that the chameleon is intended by the word we translate "mole." Creatures of the lizard kind, excepting the aquatic sort, such as the crocodile, live on flies. God makes some unclean creatures useful in exterminating others; so he deals amongst wicked nations, punishing them by one another in their turn.
3. Those that have more feet.
(1) Under this description we have centipedes, caterpillars, perhaps, and innumerable creatures, with legs more in number than four. Amongst these there is scope for naturalists to describe qualities all which will convey moral lessons.
(2) The one thing we mark in creatures that "multiply feet," as the Hebrew expresses it, is the slowness yet steadiness and stillness of their progress. The stealthy, insinuating false teachers who troubled the early Churches, and who have their representatives ha modern times, are compared to these creeping things (see 2Ti_3:6; Jud 2Ti_1:4).
II. THE LAWS OF CONTAMINATION. These are ranged under two heads:
1. The polluting of persons.
(1) This is done by their touching the carcass of an unclean creature. Whatsoever is unfit for food must not be touched (see Gen_3:3). Whom we cannot commune with we must avoid.
(2) It may be done by their touching the carcass of a creature originally clean that has died of itself. Because in this case it could not be a type of Christ, who died voluntarily, for he had no sin of his own to doom him to die. All intercourse of Christians should be in Christ, who is our life.
2. The polluting of things.
(1) Vessels of any sort are rendered unclean by contact with the carcass of an unclean thing. These represent human beings in the capacity of servants, whether to God or man (Rom_9:21; 2Ti_2:20, 2Ti_2:21). Some being polluted are to be broken, to show that sin leads to destruction (Rom_9:22). Others may be purified by water, to show that sin may be removed by the sanctifying grace of the Spirit of God. There is a happy time coming (see Zec_14:20, Zec_14:21).
(2) Clean meat may become polluted by contact with anything unclean. This law teaches that "evil communications corrupt good manners."
(3) If an unclean thing fall into a fountain or well in which there is plenty of water, it does not render the water unclean (Lev_11:36). The living water is an emblem of the Holy Spirit, who cannot be rendered unholy by anything that sinners may do. For a like reason, perhaps, seed that is to be sown, which is a figure of Christ, cannot be rendered impure (Lev_11:37). But if water be put upon the seed for any other purpose, the figure is changed and the case is altered (Lev_11:38).—J.A.M.
I. AS A THING WHICH HE HATES UTTERLY, "It is even an abomination unto him," it is "that abominable thing which he hates." He is "of purer eyes than to behold evil, and cannot look on iniquity." The falseness, the impurity, the grossness, the oppression, the selfishness, the profanity, the ingratitude of human nature, are as unendurable in God's sight—things from which he turns with as pained and troubled an eye—as are the most revolting actions of the unclean among the beasts of the field or the reptiles that crawl on the earth, in our esteem. Language fails to express the idea; the vilest habits of the lowest creatures will alone convey the thought of the repulsiveness of sin in the sight of God.
II. As A THING WHICH THE HOLY HATE. Holy angels, the "spirits of just men made perfect," holy men on earth,—all holy spirits, like the Holy One himself, hate sin, shrink from the sight of it, regard it "even as an abomination." David records for us his intolerance of iniquity (Psa_101:1-8). Peter tells us of the vexation of Lot's righteous soul with the unlawful deeds and filthy conversation of the wicked (2Pe_2:7, 2Pe_2:8). The message that comes from the attitude of the holy is, "Ye that love the Lord, hate evil" (Psa_97:10).
III. AS A THING WHICH WE MUST LEARN TO HATE.
1. If we are numbered among the holy, we are hating sin; as far as our spirit is sanctified by the truth and by the Spirit of God, so far sin is to us "that abominable thing."
2. But we need to learn more of its hideousness, and to shrink from it with more of Divine repugnance.
3. And if we are practicing any evil habit, and therefore cherishing it, and not only enduring but even loving it, there must come a time of disenchantment when the evil thing will assume to our eye its own hateful aspect. It is
(1) a painful thing to consider that we may be, with so many others, liking that which we should be loathing; choosing and cherishing that which we should be indignantly repelling or expelling.
(2) A needful thing to keep an open eye to see that to which we may now be blind; to be willing to learn that which our true friends may have to teach us; to be ready and eager to receive enlightenment from God (Psa_139:23).
(3) A fearful thine to think how many live and die in the love of that which is loathsome, and will only learn in retributive scenes what an abominable thing is sin.—C.
Lev_11:3
Health is the greatest of earthly blessings. Without it we can do little and enjoy nothing. With it we can accomplish much and triumph over almost every obstacle in our way. A sound constitution is a thing to be profoundly thankful for. But it is for us not only to accept this great gift thankfully, but also to guard it diligently and religiously, There are four reasons why we should regard it as a sacred duty to preserve the health of our body by those obvious means which are within our reach (activity, moderation, cleanliness, contentedness, etc.).
I. BECAUSE THE HUMAN BODY IS THE FAIR WORKMANSHIP OF GOD. That which our heavenly Father has made so exquisitely (Psa_139:14) we should treat as a thing to be protected, to be preserved in its excellency. "Everything is beautiful in its season;" every period and phase of our humanity—smiling infancy, blithe childhood, sunny youth, vigorous young manhood, grave prime, headed-headed age, etc.
II. BECAUSE THE HUMAN BODY IS THE HOME AND ORGAN OF THE HUMAN SPIRIT. In our bodies we ourselves dwell—our thinking, reasoning, loving, hoping, striving selves. Our bodily faculties are the organs of our spiritual activities; therefore they are sacred.
III. BECAUSE THE HUMAN BODY IS THE DWELLING-PLACE OF THE HOLY GHOST. (1Co_3:16, 1Co_3:17; 1Co_6:19, 1Co_6:20; 2Co_6:16).
IV. BECAUSE HEALTH IS A CONDITION OF USEFULNESS. It is true that men have been found (like Richard Baxter) to work for years in sickness and pain, but it is only a few rare spirits that can triumph thus over bodily infirmity. If we desire to bear the fullest possible witness and to do the noblest possible work for our God and our generation, we must not be indifferent to the state of our body. The stronger and healthier we are in our physical frame the more cheerful will be the tone of our spirit, the more attractive will be the aspect of our life, the more strenuous and the longer continued gill be the labours of our hand.—C.
Lev_11:4-47
I. AN EARLY LESSON IN A RELIGIOUS SCHOOL. The people of God were in process of spiritual cultivation; they were being thus trained for our benefit, that they might give to all lands and times a body of sacred truth which it took them long to learn. God would, with this end in view, implant within them, deeply rooted, the idea of holiness. This distinction of clean from unclean was a daily lesson in sanctity, in the conception of separateness of the pure from the impure, of that which might be partaken of from that which might not be touched, of that which could be liked and chosen from that which was to be detested and avoided. They could not fail to understand, they could not fail to be profoundly impressed with the thought, that all around them were things which, for God's sake, in obedience to his plain commandment, they must shrink from and shun. So the idea of holiness, of sacred separation, of freedom from that which defiles (Lev_11:44), was planted within the soul, and grew in the nation; and it was ready when the time came for the great redeeming purpose of God to be revealed. There was a people well schooled in the essential idea of holiness.
II. A REMINDER OF THE PREVALENCE OF SIN. Connecting uncleanness, defilement, with so many living creatures, there would be before their eyes continual reminders of that which was evil; they would be constantly or frequently put in rememb
PART III UNCLEANNESS, CEREMONIAL AND MORAL: ITS REMOVAL OR ITS PUNISHMENT
SECTION I
(1) by unclean food (Lev_11:1-47);
(2) by childbirth (Lev_12:1-8.);
(3) by the leprosy of man and of garments and of houses (Lev_13:1-59, Lev_14:1-57);
(4) by issues (Lev_15:1-33).
The second section deals with the uncleanness contracted every year by the whole congregation, to be annually atoned for on the great Day of Atonement (Lev_16:1-34), followed by a parenthetical chapter as to the place in which sacrifice is to be offered—sacrifice being the means by which purification from uncleanness is to be effected (Lev_17:1-16). The third section is on moral uncleanness, or sin (Lev_18:1-30, Lev_19:1-37), and its punishment (Lev_20:1-27). The fourth relates to the ceremonial and moral uncleanness of priests (Lev_21:1-24, Lev_22:1-33).
The idea underlying ceremonial uncleanness is not peculiar to the Jews. With the Greeks the idea of moral beauty was borrowed from physical beauty, and the standard of moral excellence was the beautiful. With the Hebrews physical ugliness is taken as the symbol of moral ugliness or deformity: whatever is foul is the type of what is evil. That which we have a natural admiration for is good, said the Greek; that which we have a natural repugnance for represents to us what is evil, said the Hebrew. In either case, taste appears to take the place of moral judgment; but in Greek philosophy, moral taste and moral judgment had come to be identical, while the Hebrew knew that what taste condemned was not therefore of itself evil, but only symbolical and representative of evil.
Another principle underlies the Hebrew theory of uncleanness. It is that whatever is itself foul, and therefore symbolical of sin, conveys the quality of foulness, and therefore of ceremonial uncleanness to any one it comes in contact with, and often to anything which it touches. Thus a dead body, quickly assuming a loathsome appearance in the East, where the setting in of corruption is very rapid, is unclean itself, and conveys uncleanness to those who touch it. The leper is unclean, and transmits uncleanness by his touch; and certain foul diseases and fluxes from the human body have the same effect. These and such like things, being always repulsive, always cause uncleanness; but there are others which, while in some associations they are utterly repellent, in others are not so. For example, there are some vermin and insects which are pretty to the eye, but the thought of eating them creates a natural feeling of disgust. These, in so far as they are not repulsive, that is, as creeping or flying creatures, are not unclean, nor does their touch produce uncleanness, but as objects of food they are "an abomination."
Hence we are able to explain the distinction of clean and unclean animals. It does not rest upon a sanitary basis, though the prohibition to eat carnivorous and other animals repulsive to the taste is probably in accordance with the rules of health. Nor is it based on political reasons, though it is probable that the distinction kept the Jews apart kern other nations, and so served an important political purpose. Nor is the injunction in the main theological, though we know that in later times the favourite interpretation was that the clean animals represented the Jews, and the unclean animals the Gentiles (Act_10:28). Rather it was that certain creatures were forbidden because they were offensive to the taste, and, being so offensive, they were symbolical of vicious things, which must be avoided, lest they make those that partake of them or touch them to become vicious like themselves.
Lev_15:2-8 contain the regulations relating to the eating of quadrupeds; Lev_15:9-12, those relating to fish; Lev_15:13-19, those relating to birds; Lev_15:20-23, those relating to flying insects; Lev_15:29, Lev_15:30, those relating to unwinged creeping things; verses 41-44, those relating to vermin. Lev_15:23-28 and Lev_15:31 -40 extend the defiling effect to the simple touch of the dead carouses of animals, whether edible or not.
Lev_11:1
The Lord spake unto Moses and to Aaron. Aaron, having now been consecrated high priest, is joined with Moses as the recipient of the laws on cleanness and uncleanness in Le Lev_11:1; Lev_13:1; Lev_14:33; Lev_15:1. His name is not mentioned in Le Lev_12:1; Lev_14:1; Lev_17:1; Lev_18:1; Lev_19:1; Lev_20:1; Lev_21:1, Lev_21:16; Lev_22:1, Lev_22:17, Lev_22:26. Probably there is no signification in these omissions.
Lev_11:2
These are the beasts that ye shall eat. In order that the Israelites might know how to avoid the uncleanness arising from the consumption of unclean flesh, plain rules are given them by which they may distinguish what flesh is clean and what is unclean. The first rule is that anything that dies of itself is unclean, whether it be beast, bird, or fish. The reasons of this are plain: for
(1) the flesh still retains the blood, which no Israelite might eat; and
(2) there is something loathsome in the idea of eating such flesh. Next, as to beasts, a class is marked off as edible by two plainly discernible characteristics, and instances are given to show that where there is any doubt owing to the animals possessing one of the characteristic marks only, the rule is to be construed strictly. As to fish and insects, equally plain rules, one in each case, are laid down; but as birds are not readily distinguished into large classes, the names of those that are unclean are given one by one, the remainder being all of them permissible. Thus the simple Israelite would run no risk of incurring uncleanness by inadvertently eating unclean food, whether of beast, bird, fish, or insect. The object of the regulations being to exclude all meats naturally offensive to the human taste, all carnivorous quadrupeds are shut out by the rule of chewing the cud (Lev_11:3), with the same purpose, birds of prey and birds that eat offal are prohibited (Lev_11:13-19), and scaleless fish on account of their repulsive appearance (Lev_11:9-12), as well as beetles, maggots, and vermin of all sorts. In the case of beasts and fish, the rules laid down to mark off those things that are offensive, being general in their application, are such as to include in the forbidden class some few which do not appear naturally loathsome. This is owing partly to the difficulty of classification, partly to a change of feeling which experience has wrought in the sentiments of mankind with regard to such edibles as swine's flesh and shell-fish.
Lev_11:3, Lev_11:4
Whatsoever parteth the hoof, and is clovenfooted, should rather be translated, Whatsoever parteth the hoof, and completely divides it, The camel parts but does not wholly divide the hoof, as there is ball at the back of the foot, of the nature of a heel.
Lev_11:5
The coney, Hebrew, shaphan; the Hyrax Syriacus, or wabr, still called in Southern Arabia tsofun, a little animal similar to but not identical with the rabbit. "They live in the natural caves and clefts of the rocks (Psa_104:18), are very gregarious, being often seen seated in troops before the openings of their caves, and extremely timid, as they are quite defenseless (Pro_30:26). They are about the size of rabbits, of a brownish-gray or brownish-yellow color, but white under the belly; they have bright eyes, round ears, and no tail. The Arabs eat them, but do not place them before their guests" (Keil).
Lev_11:6
The hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof, There is little doubt that the same animal as our hare is meant. Neither the hare, however, nor the hyrax chews the cud in the strict sense of the words. But they have the appearance of doing so. The rule respecting chewing the cud was given to and by Moses as a legislator, not as an anatomist, to serve as a sign by which animals might be known to be clean for food. Phenomenal not scientific language is used here, as in Jos_10:12, "as we might speak of whales and their congeners as fish, when there is no need of scientific accuracy" (Clark). "All these marks of distinction in the Levitical law are wisely and even necessarily made on the basis of popular observation and belief, not on that of anatomical exactness. Otherwise the people would have been continually liable to error. Scientifically, the camel would be said to divide the hoof, and the hare does not chew the cud. But laws for popular use must necessarily employ terms as they are popularly understood. These matters are often referred to as scientific errors; whereas they were simply descriptions, necessarily popular, for the understanding and enforcement of the law" (Gardiner).
Lev_11:7
The swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted. Here, again, the description is not according to anatomical analysis, but to ordinary appearance. The pig appears to be cloven-footed, and it would be misleading to give any other account of his foot in ordinary speech, but scientifically speaking, he has four toes. The prohibition of the use of swine's flesh does not arise from the fear of trichinosis or other disease, but from the disgust caused by the carnivorous and filthy habits of the Eastern pig. The repulsion originally felt for swine's flesh was natural, and, where the animal is carnivorous, is still natural, but where its habits are changed, and it has become simply graminivorous, the feeling has ceased to exist.
Lev_11:8
Of their carcass shall ye not touch. This prohibition is founded upon the same feeling of disgust as the prohibition of eating their flesh. Whatever is foal must be avoided.
Lev_11:9-12
Whatsoever hath fins and scales. The absence of fins and scales, or their apparent absence—for phenomenal language is used, as before—gives to fish a repulsive look, on which is grounded the prohibition to eat them. Eels and shell-fish are thus forbidden, though a long course of experience has now taken away the feeling of repulsion with which they were once looked upon. The flesh of the beasts for, bidden to be eaten is only described as unclean, but that of the prohibited fish, birds, insects, and vermin, is designated as an abomination unto you.
Lev_11:13-19
The unclean birds are those which are gross feeders, devourers of flesh or offal, and therefore offensive to the taste, beginning with the eagle and vulture tribe. It is probable that the words translated owl (Lev_11:16), night hawk (Lev_11:16), cuckow (Lev_11:16) should be rendered, ostrich, owl, gull, and perhaps for swan (Lev_11:18), heron (Lev_11:19), lapwing (Lev_11:19), should be substituted ibis, great plover, hoopoe. In the case of the bat, we have again phenomenal language used. Being generally regarded as a bird, it is classed with birds.
Lev_11:20-23
All fowls that creep should rather be rendered all winged creeping things, that is, all flying insects. None are allowed except the Saltatoria, or locust family. The word translated beetle signifies a sort of locust, like the other three words. That the locust was a regular article of food in Palestine is amply proved. "It is well known that locusts were eaten by many of the nations of antiquity, both in Asia and Africa, and even the ancient Greek thought the cicadas very agreeable in flavour (Arist. 'Hist. An.,' 5:30). In Arabia they are sold in the market, sometimes strung upon cords, sometimes by measure, and they are also dried and kept in bags for winter use.… They are generally cooked over hot coals, or on a plate, or in an oven, or stewed in butter, and eaten either with salt or with spice and vinegar, the head, wings, and feet being thrown away. They are also boiled in salt and water, and eaten with salt or butter. Another process is to dry them thoroughly, and then grind them into meal, and make cakes of them" (Keil). (Cf. Mat_3:4.) The expression goeth upon all four, means groveling or going in a horizontal position, in contrast with two-legged birds, just spoken of.
Lev_11:24-28
These verses contain an expansion of the warning contained in Lev_11:8, to the effect that the touch of the dead bodies of the forbidden animals was defiling, as well as the consumption of their flesh. A further mark of an unclean animal is added in Lev_11:27. Whatsoever goeth upon his paws; that is, whatever has not hoofs, but goes stealthily, like beasts of prey of the eat kind. It includes also dogs.
Lev_11:29, Lev_11:30
The creeping things that creep upon the earth. This class contains things that go on their belly, but have not wings, like the previous class of creeping things (Lev_11:20-23). By the words translated tortoise, ferret, chameleon, lizard, snail, mole, different varieties of the lizard are probably meant. The mouse is joined by Isaiah with "eating swine's flesh and the abomination" (Isa_66:17).
Lev_11:31-38
As the little animals just mentioned—weasels, mice, and lizards—are more likely than those of a larger size to be found dead in domestic utensils and clothes, a further warning as to their defiling character is added, with tales for daily use. The words translated ranges for pots (Lev_11:35) should rather be rendered covered pots, that is, pots or kettles with lids to them. Seed which is to be sown, that is, seed corn, is not defiled by contact with these dead animals, unless it has been wetted by water being put on it, in which case the moisture would convey the corruption into the seeds.
Lev_11:39, Lev_11:40
The loathsomeness of the bodies of even clean animals that have died a natural death, makes them also the means of conveying defilement to any one who touches them.
Lev_11:41-43
The last class is that of vermin, which constitute a part of the un-winged creeping class already spoken of (Lev_11:29, Lev_11:30). Whatsoever goeth upon the belly indicates snakes, worms, maggots: whatsoever goeth upon all four, things that grovel, as moles, rats, hedgehogs; whatsoever hath more feet, or doth multiply feet, centipedes, caterpillars, spiders.
Lev_11:44-47
These concluding verses give a religious sanction to the previous regulations, and make them matters of sacred, not merely sanitary or political, obligation. They were to sanctify themselves, that is, to avoid uncleanness, because God is holy, and they were God's. They were thus taught that ceremonial cleanness of the body was a symbol of holiness of heart, and a means of attaining to the latter. For I am the Lord that bringeth you up out of the land of Egypt. It is possible that Egypt may be named as being the laud of animal-worship. To be your God; ye shall therefore be holy, for I am holy. The only way by which there can be communion between God and man is the way of holiness.
Jewish industry and care has counted the number of letters in the Pentateuch, and marked by the use of the letter å in larger type, in the word âÈÌçåÉï , which occurs in Lev_11:42, that that letter is the middle letter of the whole work from the beginning of Genesis to the end of Deuteronomy. It is easy to see what a protection to the text such minute and scrupulous care must be.
Generation, conception, and birth, not having anything sinful necessarily connected with them, the sin offering in this case is rather an intimation of original sin than an atonement for actual sin; the "sorrow" attached to childbirth being especially connected with the fall of man as a result of Eve's share in bringing it about (Gen_3:16). There is nothing in the Bible to countenance ascetic or Manichaean views of marriage intercourse. Where any prohibitory injunctions are given on the subject, the purpose is to avoid ceremonial, not moral, uncleanness (Exo_19:15; 1Sa_21:4; cf. Le 1Sa_15:18).
Lev_12:8
Some fifteen hundred years after this law of purification after childbirth had been given to and by Moses, a man child was born in a country which did not at the time of the legislation of Moses belong to the Israelites, and which those whom Moses addressed had never seen. The country was Palestine, the city Bethlehem. The birth took place in a stable, for the mother was poor. For eight days she remained unclean, and on the eighth day the child was circumcised, and "his name was called Jesus" (Luk_2:21). For thirty-three days longer she continued "in the blood of her purifying" (Lev_12:4), and then "when the days of their purification according to the Law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord, and to offer a sacrifice, according to that which is said in the Law of the Lord" (Luk_2:22, Luk_2:24). Had the mother been wealthy, she would have offered a lamb for a burnt offering, and a young pigeon, or turtle-dove, for a sin offering, but though of the house and lineage of David, she was poor, and her sacrifice was therefore "a pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons"—one of the birds being for a burnt offering, betokening the devotion of her life afresh to God after the peril that she had gone through; the other for a sin offering, recognizing her share in the penalty of Eve as partaker in original sin. "On bringing her offering, she would enter the temple through 'the gate of the firstborn,' and stand in waiting at the gate of Nicanor, from the time that the incense was kindled on the golden altar. Behind her, in the court of the women, was the crowd of worshippers, while she herself, at the top of the Levites' steps, which led up to the great court, would witness all that passed in the sanctuary. At last one of the officiating priests would come to her at the gate of Nicanor, and take from her hand the poor's offering, which she had brought. The morning sacrifice was ended, and but few would linger behind while the offering for her purification was actually made. She who brought it mingled prayer and thanksgiving with the service. And now the priest once more approached her, and, sprinkling her with the sacrificial blood, declared her cleansed. Her 'firstborn' was next redeemed at the hand of the priest with five shekels of silver; two benedictions being at the same time pronounced—one for the happy event which had enriched the family with a firstborn, the other for the law of redemption" (Edersheim, 'Temple Service '). It was probably as she descended the steps that Simeon took the babe from her arms, and blessed God and them, and that Anna "gave thanks likewise unto the Lord, and spake of him to all them that looked for redemption in Jerusalem" (Luk_2:38). "And when they had performed all things according to the Law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth" (Luk_2:39). Thus obediently did the virgin mother of the Lord submit herself to the regulations of the Levitical Law, and thus humbly and graciously did the infant Saviour begin from the day of his birth to "fulfill all righteousness'' (Mat_3:15) in his own person, though by the hands of others.
Lessons—
1. To obey the positive laws and to submit to the positive institutions of the religious community to which we belong,
2. To take measures, when we have even involuntarily and without sin on our part ceased to be in open communion with God and God's people, to recover that communion.
3. To see that the measures which we take with this end are appointed by God or by his authority, and are in accordance with his will.
4. To be sure that such steps as we take be accompanied by an acknowledgment of sin and a throwing ourselves for acceptance on the merits of the sacrifice of the cross (which is our sin offering), and a consecration of ourselves to God's service (which is our burnt offering).
I. DISTRIBUTIVELY CONSIDERED. The necessity of the spiritual birth may be collected:
1. From the impurity of the natural.
(1) This is expressed in the ceremonial uncleanness of the mother. In case of the birth of a son, she had to remain forty days in a state of impurity. During this period she must not touch any hallowed thing, else it became polluted; and she must not enter the holy place of the temple. In case her child were a daughter, the term of this uncleanness was doubled. "Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean?"
(2) Her uncleanness is in her blood, which is the same as saying it is in her nature. To be "born of blood" is therefore a periphrasis for a natural birth in depravity, and it is consequently opposed to the spiritual birth (see Joh_1:13).
(3) This maternal uncleanness is also described as her "infirmity," in allusion to the pain, sorrow, and weakness through which she passes; and calls to remembrance the curse upon the original offense (Gen_3:16). The birth amidst this "infirmity" shows the utter helplessness and sorrowfulness of our moral state by nature.
(4) No wonder, then, that the child also should be accounted unclean. Until the eighth day he had no sign of the covenant upon him. But an infant could not have "sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression;" therefore this exclusion from the covenant from the birth evinces hereditary depravity and guilt (Psa_51:5; Eph_2:3).
2. From the rite of circumcision.
(1) It was the sign of introduction into the covenant of God (Gen_17:9-14). This supposes a spiritual birth, since the pollutions of the natural birth excluded the child from the favour of God.
(2) The sign expressed this moral change to be the cutting off all that was forward in fleshly desires (see Deu_10:16; Rom_2:28, Rom_2:29; Php_3:3). These, however necessary to the natural man, must not rule us here; for when the seven days of the world are over, they will be no more (see Mat_22:30; 1Co_15:50; 2Co_5:2-4; see also Homiletic notes on 2Co_9:1-7).
(3) Hence, the "baptism of the Holy Spirit" is another way for expressing the "circumcision of the heart," and therefore it is called the "circumcision of Christ," or of Christianity (Col_2:11, Col_2:12). By parity of reason, the "baptism of water" corresponds to the "circumcision which is outward in the flesh."
(4) Circumcision was proper to express the necessity of a spiritual birth in the dispensation of the covenant before Christ came, as it figured his sacrificial death (the "cutting off" of the" Holy Seed"), through which we claim the blessings of salvation. Now he has come, the type is fittingly abolished, and the baptismal water introduced, which is the emblem of the purifying spirit of the gospel.
II. COLLECTIVELY CONSIDERED.
1. The Church is the mother of the children of God.
(1) Every man was intended to be a figure of Christ. The first man was such (Rom_5:14). This privilege is shared by his male descendants (Gen_1:26, Gen_1:27; 1Co_11:7). So every woman was intended to be a figure of the Church of God (1Co_11:7-9). The marriage union, therefore, represents the union between Christ and his Church (Eph_5:22-32). And the fruit of marriage should represent the children of God (see Isa_54:1-8; Isa_49:20-23; Gal_4:25-31).
(2) But all this may be reversed. Men, through perversity, may come to represent Belial rather than Christ. Women may become idolatrous, and represent an anti-Christian rather than a Christian Church. Thus Jezebel, who demoralized Ahab, became a type of those anti-Christian State Churches which demoralize the kings of the nations (see Rev_2:20-23; Rev_17:1-18.).
2. In her present state she is impure.
(1) Under the Law she was far from perfect. The elaborate system of ceremonial purifications imposed upon her evinced this. Her history and the judgments she suffered go to the same conclusion. The uncleanness of the mother in the text is not an exaggerated picture,
(2) Nor is she perfect under the gospel. The saints are in her. Many of her children have experienced the circumcision of the heart. But many more have only had that which is outward in the flesh. The "tares"—hypocrites and unbelievers—are mingled with the "wheat," a state of things which is destined to continue "until the harvest" (Mat_13:30, Mat_13:39).
3. But she is in the process of her purification.
(1) The first stage in this process was marked by the rite of circumcision. During the time prior to that event, she was in her "separation," viz. from her husband and friends, and those in necessary attendance upon her were unclean. This indicates the great difference which the cutting off of the Great Purifier of his people makes to the spiritual liberty of the Church (Rom_7:1-4).
(2) Still the period of her uncleanness was extended to forty days from the beginning. Her "separation" terminated on the eighth day, but during the whole period she must not eat the Passover, nor the peace offerings, nor come into the sanctuary (verse 4). These forty days may be presumed to be similar in typical expression to the forty years of the Church in the wilderness before it was fit to enter Canaan (see Deu_8:2, Deu_8:16).
(3) In the case of the birth of a female this period of forty days was doubled. This may be designed to show that under the gospel, where the distinction of male and female is abolished (Gal_3:28; Col_3:11), still the wilderness state of the Church is continued. Our Lord was forty days upon earth before he entered into his glory, and in that state represented the state of the Church that is spiritually risen with him, but not yet glorified.
(4) The entrance of the mother into the temple when her purification was perfected represented the state of the Church in heaven (see Eph_5:27). The offerings with which she entered showed that her happiness is the purchase of the Redeemer's passion. Her feasting upon the holy things expressed those joys of the heavenly state elsewhere described as "the marriage supper of the Lamb" (Rev_19:7-9).—J.A.M.
I. LET US START WITH THE PHYSICAL FACT THAT NATURE HAS ASSOCIATED WITH CHILDBIRTH A SENSE ON THE MOTHER'S PART OF PERSONAL UNCLEANNESS. The "issue of her blood" (1Ti_2:7) stamps the physical process with defilement. No mother can avoid this sense of personal uncleanness, not even the blessed Virgin (Luk_3:22-24). Upon the fact it is needless to dwell.
II. THE MORAL COUNTERPART TO THIS IS THE FACT THAT SIN IS TRANSMITTED BY ORDINARY GENERATION. As David puts it in Psa_51:5, "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me." From generation to generation is the legacy of evil transmitted. Hereditary sin must be recognized as a much wider phenomenon than "hereditary genius." The law of heredity must be accepted as at the bottom of human experience, if the mother, in spite of all her fondness for her babe, finds that she has transmitted sinful qualities; if this is the universal experience in ordinary generation, then the sense of uncleanness, physically induced, contracts a moral significance.
III. THERE IS AT THE SAME TIME A SENSE OF JOY AND TRIUMPH ASSOCIATED WITH THE BIRTH OF CHILDREN. If there is an element of sorrow and of judgment, as God indicates by his utterance at the Fall (Gen_3:16), there is also an element of triumph, caught from the "protevangelium," which speaks of victory through the woman's seed (Gen_3:15). Our Lord even speaks of it as an appropriate figure of the coming apostolic joy: "A woman when she is in travail hath sorrow, because her hour is come: but as soon as she is delivered of the child, she remembereth no more the anguish, for joy that a man is born into the world" (Joh_16:21). The sorrow is the preliminary of joy, the joy is its crown.
IV. THE TWO ELEMENTS OF JOY AND JUDGMENT HAD THEIR EXPRESSION IN THE BURNT AND SIN OFFERING THE MOTHER WAS DIRECTED TO PRESENT TO THE LORD. The ritual is the same whether it be a son or a daughter. The difference in the time of separation was due to a supposed physical fact that "a female child causes the mother more labour and a longer illness. This belief," continues Ewald, ", was itself caused by the well-known primitive disfavour with which the birth of a girl was regarded." £ No moral significance is to be attached, therefore, to the difference in the duration of the mother's separation. But at the end of either period there is to be brought a burnt offering and a sin offering. The burnt offering is to be, if the mother can afford it, "a lamb of the first year," while the sin offering is only to be "a young pigeon" or a "turtledove." It is evident, therefore, that, while a poor mother might bring as her burnt offering a "turtledove" or "young pigeon," the ritual attaches emphasis to the burnt offering rather than to the sin offering. It has even been supposed that the burnt offering took precedence in the order of time in this particular instance. At all events, the joy of consecration, which the burnt offering expresses, is more emphatic in this ritual than the atonement for unavoidable defilement, which is expressed by the sin offering. The undertone of judgment is certainly discernible, but high above it sound the notes of grateful, holy joy. The mother rejoiced that, though unavoidably unclean in her child-bearing, the Lord had put away her uncleanness, and she was ready to dedicate herself and her child unto the Lord in the rite of the burnt offering.
V. THIS RITUAL RECEIVES PECULIAR EMPHASIS FROM ITS CELEBRATION BY THE 'VIRGIN' MOTHER. Mary had the usual physical concomitants in the birth of Jesus, we have every reason to believe, the termination of which this ritual of purification was intended to celebrate. The sense of uncleanness was manifestly hers, since she enters upon the ritual as no exception to the general rule and law. Not only so, but Luke boldly states, "when the days of their purification, according to the Law of Moses, were fulfilled" ( τοῦ καθαρισμοῦ αὐτῶν , not αὐτῆς ), including Jesus along with Mary, for Oosterzee's notion that it is Joseph and Mary, not Jesus and Mary, will not satisfy the case. In what sense, then, was Jesus associated with his mother in a ritual of purification? It is certain that there was not transmitted to Jesus any sinful disposition or qualities, as in ordinary generation. His whole life belied this idea. He was "holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners." But this does not prevent the idea being accepted that there was transmitted in his extraordinary generation responsibility for human sin. In other words, Jesus Christ was born with a liability on account of the sins of others. Having entered into the human family, having condescended to be born, he became liable for the responsibilities and debts of the human family, and the ritual so regarded him. Not only so, but our Lord had entered upon his "bloody passion" when at eight days old he had passed through the painful operation of circumcision. The rites in the temple thirty-three days after only expressed in legal form the liability on account of human sin upon which he had already entered. But if the atonement of the sin offering has thus a distinctive meaning in this exceptional case, the burnt offering had also its fulfillment. Mary dedicated, not only herself, but her Son, according to the Law of the Lord, "Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord." Simeon and Anna recognized in the infant the dedicated Messiah. Thus did Mary, as mother of Jesus, fulfill all righteousness.
VI. WE ARE SURELY TAUGHT HERE THE GENERAL PRINCIPLE THAT IT IS THROUGH SORROW AND HUMILIATION THAT TRIUMPH IS REACHED. The hope of a triumphant woman's seed sustained Jewish mothers in their sorrow. They looked for salvation through child-bearing, according to the idea of the apostle (1Ti_2:15). God's meaning was through the child-bearing ( διὰ τῆς τεκνογονίας ), that is, the motherhood of the Virgin. Yet the hope sustained multitudes of mothers in their agonies. At length the Conqueror of the devil appeared. He came as an infant, and braved the dangers of development, and became "the Man of sorrows," and passed through death to victory. To the same law we must constantly conform. Humiliation is the price of exaltation in the case of Jesus and of all his people. The apostles had their season of sorrow in connection with Christ's crucifixion, and so sore it was that our Lord does not hesitate to compare it to a woman's travail; but at Pentecost they got the joy and exhilaration which compensated for all. The law of the kingdom is that we enter it through much tribulation. "He that humbleth himself shall be exalted" (Luk_14:11). When we humble ourselves under a sense of sin, when we humble ourselves under a sense of unprofitableness, then are we treading the path which leads to power and triumph.—R.M.E.
I. THE EXPLANATION or THIS STATUTE. And we shall find the explanation
(1) not in the notion that any actual sin is involved in it;
(2) but in the fact that there is connected with it that which is painfully suggestive of sin. (There was nothing actually "unclean" in the camel or hare, but it was constituted so because it was fairly suggestive of it.)
1. The sorrow of maternity (Joh_16:21) points clearly to the primeval curse, and therefore to the primeval sin (Gen_3:16).
2. The birth of a human child means the entrance into the world of one in whom are the germs of sin (Psa_51:5; Psa_58:3; Eph_2:3).
3. Maternity suggests the sexual relation, and that suggests the abounding and baneful sin of impurity. Hence sin is associated with the birth of the human infant, and the physical condition (Lev_12:7) attending it is typical of sin, constitutes "uncleanness," and necessitates purification.
II. THE THOUGHTS WE GAIN FROM THIS STATUTE. We learn:
1. The communicativeness of sin. We transmit our follies, our errors, our iniquities, by ordinary generation. Our children, because they are our children, will go astray, and will be in danger of those very errors into which we ourselves have fallen. Those who become parents must take the responsibility of bringing into the world children like themselves, who will inherit their dispositions, their habits of thought, their character. Sin is communicated from generation to generation through heredity, and also through the contagiousness of evil example. There is nothing more diffusive.
2. The extension of the consequences of sin. How sin sends forth its stream of sorrow! The pangs of maternity, answered by the opening cry of the infant as it enters the world—do these not speak the truth, that a world of sin is a world of sorrow, that succeeding generations of sinners are succeeding generations of sufferers, and that this will he so to the end of the world?
3. The removableness of guilt from the sight of God. The "uncleanness" of the mother was not irremovable. It did temporarily but did not permanently separate her from the sanctuary (Lev_12:4). After a limited retirement she might come with her sin offering and her burnt offering to "the door of the tabernacle" (Lev_12:6). If she were poor she might bring an offering within the reach of the poorest (Lev_12:8), and the priest would "make atonement," and she would "be clean" (Lev_12:8). Whatever guilt we contract, whether in communicating evil to others or as the indirect consequence of the sin of others, by whatsoever our souls have been defiled, our lives stained and corrupted, we may all come to the cross of the Redeemer, and through his atoning sacrifice be made clean in the sight of God. And thus coming, our sin offering will not be unaccompanied by a burnt offering; the forgiveness of our sin will be followed by the dedication of our whole selves to the service of the Lord.—C.
I. THE LAW REMINDS US HERE OF WOMAN'S CONNECTION WITH THE PRIMAL SIN.
1. She is to be considered "unclean" for a fixed period after bringing forth a child. In the first part of "separation for her infirmity," she communicates defilement to whatever she touches, and must therefore, as far as possible, remain apart. But in the succeeding thirty-three or sixty-six "days of her purifying," she may fulfill her domestic duties, only she must not come into contact with hallowed things, not partake of sacrificial meals, nor enter the sanctuary, Thus the fulfillment of her maternal hopes renders her unfit for a season to join in the worship of the holy God. She is led to rejoice with trembling; she is at once exalted and depressed. She sees that the new life is not separate from corruption, is allied to uncleanness and death, and in order to be redeemed requires hallowing by obedience to God's ordinances.
2. To cleanse the mother from the stains of childbirth and to allow of restored fellowship with God, atonement is requisite. First a burnt offering, that the life spared and secluded temporarily may be wholly surrendered in spirit to the Author and Sustainer of life. Then a sin offering to expiate all ceremonial offenses connected with the begetting of children. If these rites appertain simply to the parent, yet must the knowledge of them afterwards acquaint the child with the state of separation from God into which it was the unwitting instrument of introducing the parent, and there is at least a hint that the origin of life is not free from taint.
II. THE LAW INDICATES THE INFERIOR ESTEEM IN WHICH WOMAN WAS ANCIENTLY HELD.
1. The uncleanness contracted by bearing a female child lasted twice as long as when a boy was born. This has indeed been explained on physiological grounds, as formerly maintained, But there is ample warrant for the other view (see 1Sa_1:11; Jer_20:15, and Joh_16:21, for the joy caused by the birth of a male child). In Le Lev_27:5, the female is esteemed at half the price of the male. Each mother of a male might cherish the hope that to her was granted the promised seed—the Messiah.
2. No rite of initiation into the covenant for the female. The Jews regarded circumcision as the badge of honour, the mark of privilege and blessing. Woman entered the nation without special recognition. She was not capable of becoming the head of a family, on whose proved nationality so much depended, for if she married she became a member of her husband's family.
III. THE GOSPEL DIGNIFIES THE POSITION OF WOMAN.
1. It abolishes before the Lord distinctions of sex. "There is neither male nor female; ye are all one in Christ Jesus." "There is neither circumcision nor uncircumcision." Woman has equal rights with man, saving only what natural modesty forbids her claiming, and what is the general law promulgated from the first (Gen_3:16), that the husband shall rule over her. Both men and women are baptized (Act_8:12) and endowed with the Spirit.
2. It is the glory of woman to have been the medium of the incarnation of the Son of God. Her shame is removed. Even the poverty of woman is ennobled by the example of the Virgin Mary bringing her "pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons."
3. Woman's quick appreciation of truth and steadfast fidelity are specially notable under the preaching of Christ and the apostles. Ready to adore the Lord. as an intent, to supply his wants during his ministry, to bathe his feet with repentant, grateful tears, to anoint him before his burial, to follow him on the road to Calvary, to be nearest to him at the cross, and the first at his grave on the Resurrection morn, woman occupies a place in the gospel records alike conspicuous and honourable. Nor are the faith and love and devotion of woman less marked in the Acts and the Epistles. Well has woman striven to erase the stigma of the first transgression. Eighteen centuries of the continually progressive elevation of woman in the social and mental scale have only attested the cardinal principles of Christianity. The position of woman in any nation now serves as an index to the stage of civilization which it has reached.—S.R.A.
I. RELIGION PRESERVES, PURIFIES, EXALTS HUMAN NATURE. The facts of family life are to be connected with the sanctuary. The more we think of both the joyful and the sorrowful events of our individual and social life as intimately bound up with our religion, the better we shall be prepared to find God's blessing always both preserving and sanctifying.
II. ALL REGULATIONS WHICH CONCERN THE BODILY LIFE AND THE TEMPORAL HAPPINESS OF MEN SHOULD BE SURROUNDED WITH RELIGIOUS REVERENCE. Science is a curse to the world unless it is the handmaid to religion. Oar bodies are the temples of the Holy Ghost. Our earthly life is the threshold of eternity.
III. TYPICALLY. Leprosy represents human depravity and misery. We see it brought into relation to the cleansing blood of atonement. The sin which works death both by the individual acts and by contact with others, both in person and in condition, is cleansed away both in guilt and in power. The leper is not excluded from mercy, but is dealt with by the priest as having his place in the covenant. Our vileness does not shut us out from the love or' God, but his love is revealed as an atoning love. "He is able to save unto the uttermost," but it is "those who come unto God by him."—R.