“With all thine oblations thou shalt offer salt.” (Lev. 2: 13)
Earlier instructions prohibiting the use of leaven in connection with most oblations seem to suggest at least one reason why salt was to be used in all cases of offerings made in sacrifice to the Lord. It was probably because of the putrefying action of leaven that its use was forbidden in all meal offerings made by fire.
In the New Testament, leaven is used of spiritual corruption. Jesus warned his disciples against ” the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees (see Matt. 16:6), while the Apostle Paul wrote of “the leaven of malice and wickedness” (1 Co. 5 : 8).
Leaven (the putrefying factor) was forbidden. By contrast, salt (the preservative) was commanded. But salt—like leaven—had a spiritual significance. Salt was a necessary article of food at most meals. The sacred tie of hospitality was established by eating of another’s salt at his table. A covenant between man and man was ratified by a meal together, and the salt used during the meal came to be taken as the symbol of the sacredness, and therefore the binding character, of the covenant. Thus we read in Num. 18 :19 of “a covenant of salt for ever.” The salt of the offerings would, therefore indicate the everlasting covenant made by God with His people.
“If any one shall sin unwittingly . . .”(Lev. 4:2)
The word “unwittingly” seems to have a wider meaning than appears on the surface. In Num. 15:29, 30, “unwitting sins” are contrasted with deliberate sins (sins committed “with a high hand,” says the R.V.), so that unwitting sins may cover sins of frailty, sins which are conscious but unpremeditated, and so on.
Lev. 5:1 seems to class failure through timidity to bear witness as an “unwitting sin,” yet it could scarcely be regarded as really a sin of ignorance.
By the way, it would seem that any breach of God’s instructions whether moral or ceremonial, was “sin ” within the meaning of the Law.
“If his means suffice not for a lamb, then he shall bring two turtledoves, or two young pigeons.” (Lev. 5 : 7)
It seems probable that this alternative provision for poor Israelite would be taken advantage of by many of the people, especially perhaps among those whose livelihood depended on other things than agriculture or allied pursuits. Indeed, Lev.5:11 provides for those Israelite who could not even afford two pigeons, presumably the very poorest in the nation.
Turtledoves and pigeons were kept by the poor for food, so that just as shepherds could provide a lamb for their sin offering, so the poorer members of the community could bring two of their domestic birds for the same purpose.
We remember that our Lord’s mother brought to the temple at Jerusalem an offering of two birds, presumably because Joseph was too poor to provide a lamb. It seems certain that if any offerers brought two pigeons when they could afford to bring a lamb, God would refuse to accept their offering, with consequences which are not stated in Scripture.
“There came forth fire from before the Lord.” (Lev. 9.24)
This verse evidently records an exceptional incident in the wilderness life of the children of Israel. Normally, the burnt offerings were left upon the altar all night (see Lev. 6:9), and slowly reduced to ashes by the altar fire, which was kept burning continually.
On this occasion, however, it would seem, there came miraculously fire from heaven, and consumed the burnt offering. We suggest that this additional fire did quickly what the ordinary altar fire did slowly, and it seems probable that this sending of fire from heaven was intended to show to the people that, in spite of difficulties which they encountered from time to time in the wilderness, God was indeed working among them, a lesson which even the plagues in Egypt and the dividing of the Red Sea had failed to teach them.
“Nadab and Abihu offered “strange fire before the Lord.” (Lev. 10:1)
What was this “strange fire”? The answer seems to be indicated in Ex. 30:9, where we read : “Ye shall offer no strange incense . . .”, and that chapter goes on in verse 34 to specify how incense for the tabernacle must be made.
Evidently Nadab and Abihu defied this Divine injunction, and used “strange” (i.e., unauthorised) incense, with the result that ” there came forth fire from before the Lord (perhaps from the altar in the tabernacle) and devoured them.”
We are not told why these priests were so remiss in the performance of their prescribed duties, but seeing that the record of their punishment is at once followed by a Divine prohibition of wine and strong drink for duty in the tabernacle, many commentators have been led to conclude that Nadab and Abihu were partly or wholly intoxicated when they offered unauthorised incense before the Lord.
“Clean” and “unclean” animals. (Lev. 11)
Bible students have often wondered why certain animals were prohibited from being eaten by the Israelites under the Law of Moses. Pigs, hares and coneys, for example, were forbidden as food; pigs because—though they were cloven footed—they did not chew the cud, and hares and coneys because they chewed the cud, but were not cloven-footed (just the reverse of pigs).
The prohibition seems, therefore, to be somewhat arbitrary, if that is the right word to use in this connection. But was it, or was the prohibition due to the unclean animals not being good for food?
We are told in the New Testament (Rom. 14:14) that ” nothing is unclean of itself,” while in 1 Tim. 4:4 we read that “every creature of God is good, and nothing to be rejected.” And there is perhaps significance in the fact that the Jerusalem Council (see Acts 15) did not require Gentile converts to observe the ban on the eating of “unclean ” animals.
We conclude, therefore, that the division by God of the animals into ” clean ” and ” unclean ” – classes was chiefly an act of discipline, and had little to do with the question whether or not certain animals were not good for food.
“The Scapegoat (on which the lot fell for Azazel).” (Lev. 16:10 R.V.)
There is a tradition that Azazel was the leader of the “sons of God ” mentioned in Gen. 6:2, and that—as a punishment—he was bound to a rock in a desert somewhere.
Lev. 16 seems to have taken hold of this tradition, which was probably strong among primitive peoples, and to have depicted Azazel as the father of evil, to whom the scapegoat takes the sins which God has forgiven, and has—so to speak—sent away in a sort of dismissal from His presence.
The whole incident of the scapegoat seems to have been devised to impress on the minds of those rather untutored Israelites that God does indeed forgive the sins of His penitent people, and no longer holds those sins against them.
“That man shall be cut off from his People.” (Lev. 17:4)
We meet with this or similar phrases quite frequently in the Pentateuch regarding the punishment for major sins, and we get the impression from the Authorised Version that it implied the death penalty. Moffatt, however, seems generally to translate the phrase “that man shall be outlawed” . . . which suggests something less than the death penalty.
Which view is correct? We appear to have a “test case” in Lev. 20. In verse 2 of that chapter we are plainly told that people who sacrificed any of their children to Molech were to be put to death. Verse 3 of that chapter tells us that God decreed that He could “cut such off from his people.” The two phrases seem to be synonymous; being “cut off from his people ” means being put to death.
In Num. 15:30 we are told that the man who blasphemed the Lord was to be “cut off from his people,” and in Lev. 24:16 we have these words:
“He that blasphemeth the name of the Lord shall surely be put to death.”
Again we have an indication that “cutting off from his people” meant being put to death.
We feel, therefore, quite convinced that for once Moffatt is wrong in his translation, and that “outlawed” is incorrect.
“Ye shall bring forth the old (store) because of the new.”(Lev. 26:10)
As it stands, this verse is somewhat enigmatical. What does it mean to “bring forth the old because of the new? “Because of” seems to signify “to make room for.” The margin of the R.V. gives “from before” instead of “because of,” and this supports the suggestion that this verse enjoins on the people that they should eat up the old first, and thus make room for the abundant new harvest which God promised would be theirs if they were faithful to Him.
BORROWED PENS
The conclusion that Ephesians, Colossians and Philemon were dispatched from Rome by Paul by the same messenger at the same time fixes the date at about A.D.62. Epaphras had reported to Paul a peculiar type of heresy arising at Colossae, with which he had evidently not been able to cope, so he sought the advice of the apostle. Paul decided to write to the Colossians himself. Because Epaphras himself had been detained in Rome a prisoner, Paul’s letter had to be sent to the Colossians by the hand of Tychicus, who was accompanied by Onesimus, a converted runaway slave who was returning to Colassae to his master Philemon (Col. 7 :9 and Phil. v. 23).1
PROBLEMS
Baptism in the Triune Name
An Aberdeen correspondent takes us severely to task for suggesting in the January 1954 Testimony that the reference to the triune name in Matt. 28 :19 might be “a late doctrinal expansion.”
It was implicit in what we wrote that either this reference is “a late doctrinal expansion” or—alternatively—it was never intended by Jesus to be a compulsory baptismal formula, seeing that the early disciples baptized simply “in (or into) the name of Jesus Christ” (see all such cases mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles).
We put forward these two alternatives for the information, rather than the choice, of our readers, and refrained from dogmatising on the matter.
Doubts about the genuineness of the reference to the three witnesses in heaven in 1 Jno. 5:7 would have been dubbed as heretical at one time, but it is now admitted on all hands that this reference is an interpolation. In view of this, we do not consider it as at all heretical to suggest that the reference in Matt. 28:19 to the triune name may be (we do not say “is”) “a late doctrinal expansion.”
In any case, we would remind our corespondent that we said that we “could reserve judgment on this difficult verse until some further evidence appears.” If he, or any other reader, has this “further evidence,” we shall be very glad indeed to consider it without bias.
Reference
- (G. T. Manley, M.A., in The New Bible Handbook).
The Solution