_OF HOLINESS IN EATING._
LEV. xvii. 1-16.
With this chapter begins another subdivision of the law. Hitherto we
have had before us only sacrificial worship and matters of merely
ceremonial law. The law of holy living contained in the following
chapters (xvii.-xx.), on the other hand, has to do for the most part
with matters rather ethical than ceremonial, and consists chiefly of
precepts designed to regulate morally the ordinary engagements and
relationships of every-day life. The fundamental thought of the four
chapters is that which is expressed, _e.g._, in xviii. 3: Israel,
redeemed by Jehovah, is called to be a holy people; and this holiness
is to be manifested in a total separation from the ways of the
heathen. This principle is enforced by various specific commands and
prohibitions, which naturally have particular regard to the special
conditions under which Israel was placed, as a holy nation consecrated
to Jehovah, the one, true God, but living in the midst of nations of
idolaters.
The whole of chapter xvii., with the exception of vv. 8, 9, has to do
with the application of this law of holy living to the use even of
lawful food. At first thought, the injunctions of the chapter might
seem to belong rather to ceremonial than to moral law; but closer
observation will show that all the injunctions here given have direct
reference to the avoidance of idolatry, especially as connected with
the preparation and use of food.
It was not enough that the true Israelite should abstain from food
prohibited by God, as in chap. xii.; he must also use that which was
permitted in a way well-pleasing to God, carefully shunning even the
appearance of any complicity with surrounding idolatry, or fellowship
with the heathen in their unholy fashions and customs. Even so for the
Christian: it is not enough that he abstain from what is expressly
forbidden; even in his use of lawful food, he must so use it that it
shall be to him a means of grace, in helping him to maintain an
uninterrupted walk with God.
In vv. 1-7 is given the law to regulate the use of such clean animals
for food as could be offered to God in sacrifice; in vv. 10-16, of
such as, although permitted for food, were not allowed for sacrifice.
The directions regarding the first class may be summed up in this: all
such animals were to be treated as peace-offerings. No private person
in Israel was to slaughter any such animal anywhere in the camp or out
of it, except at the door of the tent of meeting. Thither they were to
be brought "unto the priest," and offered for peace-offerings (ver.
5); the blood must be sprinkled on the altar of burnt-offering; the
fat parts burnt "for a sweet savour unto the Lord" (ver. 6); and then
only, the priest having first taken his appointed portions, the
remainder might now be eaten by the Israelite, as given back to him by
God, in peaceful fellowship with Him.
The law could not have been burdensome, as some might hastily imagine.
Even when obtainable, meat was probably not used as food by them so
freely as with us; and in the wilderness the lack of flesh, it will be
remembered, was so great as to have occasioned at one time a rebellion
among the people, who fretfully complained (Numb. xi. 4): "Who shall
give us flesh to eat?"
Even the uncritical reader must be able to see how manifest is the
Mosaic date of this part of Leviticus. The terms of this law suppose a
camp-life; indeed, the camp is explicitly named (ver. 3). That which
was enjoined was quite practicable under the conditions of life in the
wilderness, when, at the best, flesh was scarce, and the people dwelt
compactly together; but would have been utterly inapplicable and
impracticable at a later date, after they were settled throughout the
land of Canaan, when to have slaughtered all beasts used for food at
the central sanctuary would have been impossible. Hence we find that,
as we should expect, the modified law of Deuteronomy (xii. 15, 16,
20-24), assuming the previous existence of this earlier law,
explicitly repeals it. To suppose that forgers of a later day, as, for
instance, of the time of Josiah, or after the Babylonian exile, should
have needlessly invented a law of this kind, is an hypothesis which is
rightly characterised by Dillmann as "simply absurd."[30]
[30] "Die Bücher Exodus und Leviticus," 2 Aufl., p. 535.
This regulation for the wilderness days is said (vv. 5, 7) to have
been made "to the end that the children of Israel may bring their
sacrifices, which they sacrifice in the open field ... unto the Lord,
... and sacrifice them for sacrifices of peace offerings unto the
Lord.... And they shall no more sacrifice their sacrifices unto the
he-goats, after whom they go a whoring."
There can be no doubt that in the last sentence, "he-goats," as in the
Revised Version, instead of "devils," as in the Authorised, is the
right rendering. The worship referred to was still in existence in the
days of the monarchy; for it is included in the charges against
"Jeroboam, the son of Nebat, who made Israel to sin" (2 Chron. xi.
15), that "he appointed him priests, ... for the he-goats, and for the
calves which he had made." Nor can here we agree with Dillmann[31]
that in this worship of he-goats here referred to, there is "no
occasion to think of the goat-worship of Egypt." For inasmuch as we
know that the worship of the sacred bull and that of the he-goat
prevailed in Egypt in those days, and inasmuch as in Ezekiel xx. 6, 7,
15-18, repeated reference is made to Israel's having worshipped "the
idols of Egypt," one can hardly avoid combining these two facts, and
thus connecting the goat-worship to which allusion is here made, with
that which prevailed at Mendes, in Lower Egypt. This cult at that
place was accompanied with nameless revolting rites, such as give
special significance to the description of this worship (ver. 7) as "a
whoring" after the goats; and abundantly explain and justify the
severity of the penalty attached to the violation of this law (ver. 4)
in cutting off the offender from this people; all the more when we
observe the fearful persistency of this horrible goat-worship in
Israel, breaking out anew, as just remarked, some five hundred years
later, in the reign of Jeroboam.
[31] "Die Bücher Exodus und Leviticus," 2 Aufl., p. 537.
The words imply that the ordinary slaughter of animals for food was
often connected with some idolatrous ceremony related to this
goat-worship. What precisely it may have been, we know not; but of
such customs, connecting the preparation of the daily food with
idolatry, we have abundant illustration in the usages of the ancient
Persians, the Hindoos, and the heathen Arabs of the days before
Mohammed. The law was thus intended to cut out this every-day idolatry
by the root. With these "field-devils," as Luther renders the word,
the holy people of the Lord were to have nothing to do.
Very naturally, the requirement to present all slaughtered animals as
peace-offerings to Jehovah gives occasion to turn aside for a little
from the matter of food, which is the chief subject of the chapter, in
order to extend this principle beyond animals slaughtered for food,
and insist particularly that all burnt-offerings and sacrifices of
every kind should be sacrificed at the door of the tent of meeting,
and nowhere else. This law, we are told (ver. 8), was to be applied,
not only to the Israelites themselves, but also to "strangers" among
them; such as, _e.g._, were the Gibeonites. No idolatry, nor anything
likely to be associated with it, was to be tolerated from any one in
the holy camp.
The principle which underlies this stringent law, as also the reason
which is given for it, is of constant application in modern life.
There was nothing wrong in itself in slaying an animal in one place
more than another. It was abstractly possible--as, likely enough, many
an Israelite may have said to himself--that a man could just as really
"eat unto the Lord" if he slaughtered and ate his animal in the field,
as anywhere else. Nevertheless this was forbidden under the heaviest
penalties. It teaches us that he who will be holy must not only
abstain from that which is in itself always wrong, but must carefully
keep himself from doing even lawful or necessary things in such a way,
or under such associations and circumstances, as may outwardly
compromise his Christian standing, or which may be proved by
experience to have an almost unavoidable tendency toward sin. The
laxity in such matters which prevails in the so-called "Christian
world" argues little for the tone of spiritual life in our day in
those who indulge in it, or allow it, or apologise for it. It may be
true enough, in a sense, that as many say, there is no harm in this or
that. Perhaps not; but what if experience have shown that, though in
itself not sinful, a certain association or amusement almost always
tends to worldliness, which is a form of idolatry? Or--to use the
apostle's illustration--what if one be seen, though with no intention
of wrong, "sitting at meat in an idol's temple," and he whose
conscience is weak be thereby emboldened to do what to him is sin?
There is only one safe principle, now as in the days of Moses:
everything must be brought "before the Lord;" used as from Him and for
Him, and therefore used under such limitations and restrictions as His
wise and holy law imposes. Only so shall we be safe; only so abide in
living fellowship with God.
Very beautiful and instructive, again, was the direction that the
Israelite, in the cases specified, should make his daily food a
peace-offering. This involved a dedication of the daily food to the
Lord; and in his receiving it back again then from the hand of God,
the truth was visibly represented that our daily food is from God;
while also, in the sacrificial acts which preceded the eating, the
Israelite was continually reminded that it was upon the ground of an
accepted atonement that even these every-day mercies were received.
Such also should be, in spirit, the often neglected prayer before each
of our daily meals. It should be ever offered with the remembrance of
the precious blood which has purchased for us even the most common
mercies; and should thus sincerely recognise what, in the confusing
complexity of the second causes through which we receive our daily
food, we so easily forget: that the Lord's prayer is not a mere form
of words when we say, "Give us this day our daily bread;" but that
working behind, and in, and with, all these second causes, is the
kindly Providence of God, who, opening His hand, supplies the want of
every living thing. And so, eating in grateful, loving fellowship with
our Heavenly Father that which His bounty gives us, to His glory,
every meal shall become, as it were, a sacramental remembrance of the
Lord. We may have wondered at what we have read of the world-wide
custom of the Mohammedan, who, whenever the knife of slaughter is
lifted against a beast for food, utters his "_Bism allàh_," "In the
name of the most merciful God;" and not otherwise will regard his food
as being made _halàl_, or "lawful;" and, no doubt, in all this, as in
many a Christian's prayer, there may often be little heart. But the
thought in this ceremony is even this of Leviticus, and we do well to
make it our own, eating even our daily food "in the name of the most
merciful God," and with uplifting of the heart in thankful worship
toward Him.
But there were many beasts which, although they might not be offered
to the Lord in sacrifice, were yet "clean," and permitted to the
Israelites as food. Such, in particular, were clean animals that are
taken in the hunt or chase. In vv. 10-16 the law is given for the use
of these. It is prefaced by a very full and explicit prohibition of
the eating of blood;[32] for while, as regards the animals to be
offered to the Lord, provision was made with respect to the blood,
that it was to be sprinkled around the altar, there was the danger
that in other cases, where this was not permissible, the blood might
be used for food. Hence the prohibition against eating "any manner of
blood," on a twofold ground: first (vv. 11, 14), that the life of the
flesh is the blood; and second (ver. 11), that, for this reason, God
had chosen the blood to be the symbol of life substituted for the life
of the guilty in atoning sacrifice: "I have given it to you upon the
altar to make atonement for your souls." Hence, in order that this
relation of the blood to the forgiveness of sins might be constantly
kept before the mind, it was ordained that never should the Israelite
eat of flesh except the blood should first have been carefully drained
out. And it was to be treated with reverence, as having thus a certain
sanctity; when the beast was taken in hunting, the Israelite must
(ver. 13) "pour out the blood thereof, and cover it with dust;"--an
act by which the blood, the life, was symbolically returned to Him who
in the beginning said (Gen. i. 24), "Let the earth bring forth the
living creature after its kind." And because, in the case of "that
which dieth of itself," or is "torn of beasts," the blood would not be
thus carefully drained off, all such animals (ver. 15) are prohibited
as food.
[32] These verses have been partially expounded, indeed, before,
in so far as was necessary to a complete exposition of the
sin-offering; but in this context the subject is brought forward
in another relation, which renders necessary this additional
exposition.
It is profoundly instructive to observe that here, again, we come upon
declarations and a command, the deep truth and fitness of which is
only becoming clear now after three thousand years. For, as the
result of our modern discoveries with regard to the constitution of
the blood, and the exact nature of its functions, we in this day are
able to say that it is not far from a scientific statement of the
facts, when we read (ver. 14), "As to the life of all flesh, the blood
thereof is all one with the life thereof." For it is in just this
respect that the blood is most distinct from all other parts of the
body; that, whereas it conveys and mediates nourishment to all, it is
itself nourished by none; but by its myriad cells brought immediately
in contact with the digested food, directly and immediately
assimilates it to itself. We are compelled to say that as regards the
physical life of man--which alone is signified by the original term
here--it is certainly true of the blood, as of no other part of the
organism, that "the life of all flesh is the blood thereof."
And while it is true that, according to the text, a spiritual and
moral reason is given for the prohibition of the use of blood as food,
yet it is well worth noting that, as has been already remarked in
another connection, the prohibition, as we are now beginning to see,
had also a hygienic reason. For Dr. de Mussy, in his paper before the
French Academy of Medicine already referred to,[33] calls attention to
the fact that, not only did the Mosaic laws exclude from the Hebrew
dietary animals "particularly liable to parasites;" but also that "it
is in the blood," so rigidly prohibited by Moses as food, "that the
germs or spores of infectious disease circulate." Surely no one need
fear, with some expositors, lest this recognition of a sanitary intent
in these laws shall hinder the recognition of their moral and
spiritual purport, which in this chapter is so expressly taught.
Rather should this cause us the more to wonder and admire the unity
which thus appears between the demands and necessities of the physical
and the moral and spiritual life; and, in the discovery of the
marvellous adaptation of these ancient laws to the needs of both, to
find a new confirmation of our faith in God and in His revealed Word.
For thus do they appear to be laws so far beyond the wisdom of that
time, and so surely beneficent in their working, that in view of this
it should be easy to believe that it must indeed have been the Lord
God, the Maker and Preserver of all flesh, who spake all these laws
unto His servant Moses.
[33] See p. 292.
The moral and spiritual purpose of this law concerning the use of
blood was apparently twofold. In the first place, it was intended to
educate the people to a reverence for life, and purify them from that
tendency to bloodthirstiness which has so often distinguished heathen
nations, and especially those with whom Israel was to be brought in
closest contact. But secondly, and chiefly, it was intended, as in the
former part of the chapter, everywhere and always to keep before the
mind the sacredness of the blood as being the appointed means for the
expiation of sin; given by God upon the altar to make atonement for
the soul of the sinner, "by reason of the life" or soul with which it
stood in such immediate relation. Not only were they therefore to
abstain from the blood of such animals as could be offered on the
altar, but even from that of those which could not be offered. Thus
the blood was to remind them, every time that they ate flesh, of the
very solemn truth that without shedding of blood there was no
remission of sin. The Israelite must never forget this; even in the
heat and excitement of the chase, he must pause and carefully drain
the blood from the creature he had slain, and reverently cover it with
dust;--a symbolic act which should ever put him in mind of the Divine
ordinance that the blood, the life, of a guiltless victim must be
given, in order to the forgiveness of sin.
A lesson lies here for us regarding the sacredness of all that is
associated with sacred things. All that is connected with God, and
with His worship, especially all that is connected with His revelation
of Himself for our salvation, is to be treated with the most profound
reverence. Even though the blood of the deer killed in the chase could
not be used in sacrifice, yet, because it was blood, was in its
essential nature like unto that which was so used, therefore it must
be treated with a certain respect, and be always covered with earth.
It is the fashion of our age--and one which is increasing in an
alarming degree--to speak lightly of things which are closely
connected with the revelation and worship of the holy God. Against
everything of this kind the spirit of this law warns us. Nothing which
is associated in any way with what is sacred is to be spoken of or
treated irreverently, lest we thus come to think lightly of the sacred
things themselves. This irreverent treatment of holy things is a
crying evil in many parts of the English-speaking world, as also in
continental Christendom. We need to beware of it. After irreverence,
too often, by no obscure law, comes open denial of the Holy One and of
His holy Son, our Lord and Saviour. The blood of Christ, which
represented that holy life which was given on the cross for our sins,
is holy--an infinitely holy thing! And what is God's estimate of its
sanctity we may perhaps learn--looking through the symbol to that
which was symbolised--from this law; which required that all blood,
because outwardly resembling the holy blood of sacrifice, and, like
it, the seat and vehicle of life, should be treated with most careful
reverence. And it is safe to say that just those most need the lesson
taught by this command who find it the hardest to appreciate it, and
to whom its injunctions still seem regulations puerile and unworthy,
according to their fancy, of the dignity and majesty of God.