And the LORD spoke to Moses and to Aaron, saying to them, Jump to: Barnes • Benson • BI • Calvin • Cambridge • Clarke • Darby • Ellicott • Expositor's • Exp Dct • Gaebelein • GSB • Gill • Gray • Haydock • Hastings • Homiletics • JFB • KD • Kelly • KJT • Lange • MacLaren • MHC • MHCW • Parker • Poole • Pulpit • Sermon • SCO • TTB • WES • TSK EXPOSITORY (ENGLISH BIBLE) XI.(1) And the Lord spake unto Moses and to Aaron.—Lest the rebuke which Moses publicly administered to the priests (see Leviticus 10:16) should diminish their influence with the people, whom they had to teach the laws of clean and unclean things (see Leviticus 10:10-11) laid down in the following chapters, the Lord here honours Aaron, as well as Moses, by making this communication to them conjointly. Besides, Aaron as minister was as much concerned in these laws as Moses the legislator. Hence, when a question of defilement had afterwards to be decided, it was brought for judgment before Moses and Aaron conjointly. (See Numbers 9:6.) Leviticus 11:1. The Lord spake unto Moses and Aaron — This charge is given to them jointly; to the one, as chief governor, and to the other, as high-priest; both being greatly concerned in the execution of it. The priest was to direct the people about the things forbidden or allowed, and the magistrate was to see the direction followed.11:1-47 What animals were clean and unclean. - These laws seem to have been intended, 1. As a test of the people's obedience, as Adam was forbidden to eat of the tree of knowledge; and to teach them self-denial, and the government of their appetites. 2. To keep the Israelites distinct from other nations. Many also of these forbidden animals were objects of superstition and idolatry to the heathen. 3. The people were taught to make distinctions between the holy and unholy in their companions and intimate connexions. 4. The law forbad, not only the eating of the unclean beasts, but the touching of them. Those who would be kept from any sin, must be careful to avoid all temptations to it, or coming near it. The exceptions are very minute, and all were designed to call forth constant care and exactness in their obedience; and to teach us to obey. Whilst we enjoy our Christian liberty, and are free from such burdensome observances, we must be careful not to abuse our liberty. For the Lord hath redeemed and called his people, that they may be holy, even as he is holy. We must come out, and be separate from the world; we must leave the company of the ungodly, and all needless connexions with those who are dead in sin; we must be zealous of good works devoted followers of God, and companions of his people.]Yahweh speaks to Moses and Aaron conjointly. (Compare Leviticus 13:1; Leviticus 15:1.) The high priest, in regard to the legal purifications, is treated as co-ordinate with the legislator. CHAPTER 11 Le 11:1-47. Beasts That May and May Not Be Eaten. 1, 2. the Lord spake unto Moses and to Aaron—These laws, being addressed to both the civil and ecclesiastical rulers in Israel, may serve to indicate the twofold view that is to be taken of them. Undoubtedly the first and strongest reason for instituting a distinction among meats was to discourage the Israelites from spreading into other countries, and from general intercourse with the world—to prevent them acquiring familiarity with the inhabitants of the countries bordering on Canaan, so as to fall into their idolatries or be contaminated with their vices: in short, to keep them a distinct and peculiar people. To this purpose, no difference of creed, no system of polity, no diversity of language or manner, was so subservient as a distinction of meats founded on religion; and hence the Jews, who were taught by education to abhor many articles of food freely partaken of by other people, never, even during periods of great degeneracy, could amalgamate with the nations among which they were dispersed. But although this was the principal foundation of these laws, dietetic reasons also had weight; for there is no doubt that the flesh of many of the animals here ranked as unclean, is everywhere, but especially in warm climates, less wholesome and adapted for food than those which were allowed to be eaten. These laws, therefore, being subservient to sanitary as well as religious ends, were addressed both to Moses and Aaron.From the laws concerning the priests, he now comes to those which belong to all the people. EXEGETICAL (ORIGINAL LANGUAGES) Ch. Leviticus 11:1-23 [51]. The Distinction between Clean and Unclean Food[51] For the sources from which this ch. comes, and its relation from a critical point of view to Deuteronomy 14:3 ff. see App. I (c), pp. 162 f. One principle underlying this distinction appears to have been that animals which were recognised as in any way objects of worship by heathen neighbours, or even supposed by them to be connected with unseen supernatural beings, were to be considered unclean. See Bertholet in KHC., introd. note to this ch. But in other cases the prohibition probably rested on the animal’s repulsive appearance or uncleanly habits, or on sanitary or totemistic grounds. See Driver, Deut. p. 164, and Rob.-Sm. OTJC.2 p. 366. A list of animals which may and may not be eaten is given in Deuteronomy 14:3-20; it has close verbal affinity with Leviticus 11:2-21 of this ch. The two passages are placed side by side in Driver (ICC.) Deut. P. 157 f. Both lists are divided into classes: (a) Beasts Leviticus 11:2-8. Cp. Deuteronomy 14:3-8Deut. enumerates three domestic, and seven wild animals, as clean beasts which may be eaten. Lev. does not mention the clean beasts, but both give their two distinguishing marks—‘Whatsoever parteth the hoof … and cheweth the cud,’ and specify the same four beasts which have not both of these marks as unclean. Lev. is more diffuse, but employs the same expressions as Deut. (b) Fishes Leviticus 11:9-12. Cp. Deuteronomy 14:9-10The same criterion of cleanness, having ‘scales and fins,’ is given both in Lev. and Deut., but Lev. is more diffuse, and introduces a word (Heb. shéḳeẓ) detestation, used frequently in this ch., also in Leviticus 7:21, and Isaiah 66:17; Ezekiel 8:10. Another and commoner form (shiḳḳuẓ) occurs in Deuteronomy 29:16. No fish is mentioned by name, and the distinction between clean and unclean fishes in particular cases was determined by the Jewish rabbis. (c) Birds Leviticus 11:13-19. Cp. Deuteronomy 14:11-18Deut. begins with ‘Of all clean birds ye may eat’ (Leviticus 11:11), but does not give a list like that of clean beasts. The forbidden birds are almost identical in both. (d) Winged swarming things Leviticus 11:20-23. Cp. Deuteronomy 14:19-20Lev. adds ‘that go upon all four’ (Leviticus 11:20), and in Leviticus 11:21-22 gives a list of winged swarming things that may be eaten (those that ‘leap’), repeating in Leviticus 11:23 the prohibition of Leviticus 11:20. Deut. concludes the list with ‘of all clean fowls (the same Heb. word as for ‘winged things’) ye may eat’ (Leviticus 14:20), but gives no list.Verse 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 Leviticus 11:1; Leviticus 13:1; Leviticus 14:33; Leviticus 15:1. His name is not mentioned in Leviticus 12:1; Leviticus 14:1; Leviticus 17:1; Leviticus 18:1; Leviticus 19:1; Leviticus 20:1; Leviticus 21:1, 16; Leviticus 22:1, 17, 26. Probably there is no signification in these omissions. After the directions occasioned by this judgment of God, Moses reminded Aaron and his sons of the general laws concerning the consumption of the priests' portions of the sacrifices, and their relation to the existing circumstances: first of all (Leviticus 10:12, Leviticus 10:13), of the law relating to the eating of the meat-offering, which belonged to the priests after the azcarah had been lifted off (Leviticus 2:3; Leviticus 6:9-11), and then (Leviticus 10:14, Leviticus 10:15) of that relating to the wave-breast and heave-leg (Leviticus 7:32-34). By the minchah in Leviticus 10:12 we are to understand the meal and oil, which were offered with the burnt-offering of the nation (Leviticus 9:4 and Leviticus 9:7); and by the אשּׁים in Leviticus 10:12 and Leviticus 10:15, those portions of the burnt-offering, meat-offering, and peace-offering of the nation which were burned upon the altar (Leviticus 9:13, Leviticus 9:17, and Leviticus 9:20). He then looked for "the he-goat of the sin-offering," - i.e., the flesh of the goat which had been brought for a sin-offering (Leviticus 9:15), and which was to have been eaten by the priests in the holy place along with the sin-offerings, whose blood was not taken into the sanctuary (Leviticus 6:19, Leviticus 6:22); - "and, behold, it was burned" (שׂרף, 3 perf. Pual). Moses was angry at this, and reproved Eleazar and Ithamar, who had attended to the burning: "Wherefore have ye not eaten the sin-offering in a holy place?" he said; "for it is most holy, and He (Jehovah) hath given it you to bear the iniquity of the congregation, to make atonement for it before Jehovah," as its blood had not been brought into the holy place (הוּבא construed as a passive with an accusative, as in Genesis 4:18, etc.). "To bear the iniquity" does not signify here, as in Leviticus 5:1, to bear and atone for the sin in its consequences, but, as in Exodus 28:38, to take the sin of another upon one's self, for the purpose of cancelling it, to make expiation for it. As, according to Exodus 28:38, the high priest was to appear before the Lord with the diadem upon his forehead, as the symbol of the holiness of his office, to cancel, as the mediator of the nation and by virtue of his official holiness, the sin which adhered to the holy gifts of the nation (see the note on this passage), so here it is stated with regard to the official eating of the most holy flesh of the sin-offering, which had been enjoined upon the priests, that they were thereby to bear the sin of the congregation, to make atonement for it. This effect or signification could only be ascribed to the eating, by its being regarded as an incorporation of the victim laden with sin, whereby the priests actually took away the sin by virtue of the holiness and sanctifying power belonging to their office, and not merely declared it removed, as Oehler explains the words (Herzog's Cycl. x. p. 649). Exodus 28:38 is decisive in opposition to the declaratory view, which does not embrace the meaning of the words, and is not applicable to the passage at all. "Incorporabant quasi peccatum populique reatum in se recipiebant" (Deyling observv. ss. i. 45, 2). (Note: C. a Lapide has given this correct interpretation of the passage: "ut scilicet cum hostiis populi pro peccato simul etiam populi peccata in vos quasi recipiatis, ut illa expietis." There is no foundation for the objection offered by Oehler, that the actual removal of guilt and the atonement itself were effected by the offering of the blood. For it by no means follows from Leviticus 17:11, that the blood, as the soul of the sacrificial animal, covered or expiated the soul of the sinner, and that the removal and extinction of the sin had already taken place with the covering of the soul before the holy God, which involved the forgiveness of the sin and the reception of the sinner to mercy.) Links Leviticus 11:1 InterlinearLeviticus 11:1 Parallel Texts Leviticus 11:1 NIV Leviticus 11:1 NLT Leviticus 11:1 ESV Leviticus 11:1 NASB Leviticus 11:1 KJV Leviticus 11:1 Bible Apps Leviticus 11:1 Parallel Leviticus 11:1 Biblia Paralela Leviticus 11:1 Chinese Bible Leviticus 11:1 French Bible Leviticus 11:1 German Bible Bible Hub |
    |