| Back to Home Page | Back to Book Index
|
Leviticus
Chapter Twenty-one
Leviticus 21
Chapter Contents
Laws concerning the priests.
As these priests were types of Christ, so all ministers
must be followers of him, that their example may teach others to imitate the
Saviour. Without blemish, and separate from sinners, He executed his priestly
office on earth. What manner of persons then should his ministers be! But all
are, if Christians, spiritual priests; the minister especially is called to set
a good example, that the people may follow it. Our bodily infirmities, blessed
be God, cannot now shut us out from his service, from these privileges, or from
his heavenly glory. Many a healthful, beautiful soul is lodged in a feeble,
deformed body. And those who may not be suited for the work of the ministry,
may serve God with comfort in other duties in his church.
── Matthew Henry《Concise Commentary on Leviticus》
Leviticus 21
Verse 1
[1] And
the LORD said unto Moses, Speak unto the priests the sons of Aaron, and say
unto them, There shall none be defiled for the dead among his people:
Among his people —
None of the priests shall touch the dead body, or assist at his funeral, or eat
of the funeral feast. The reason of this law is evident, because by such
pollution they were excluded from converse with men, to whom by their function
they were to be serviceable upon all occasions, and from the handling of holy
things. And God would hereby teach them, and in them all successive ministers,
that they ought entirely to give themselves to the service of God. Yea, to
renounce all expressions of natural affection, and all worldly employments, so
far as they are impediments to the discharge of their holy services.
Verse 2
[2] But for his kin, that is near unto him, that is, for his mother, and for
his father, and for his son, and for his daughter, and for his brother,
Near to him —
Under which general expression his wife seems to be comprehended, though she be
not expressed. And hence it is noted as a peculiar case, that Ezekiel, who was
a priest, was forbidden to mourn for his wife, Ezekiel 24:16, etc. These exceptions God makes
in condescension to human infirmity, because in such cases it was very hard to
restrain the affections. But this allowance concerns only the inferior priest,
not the high-priest.
Verse 3
[3] And
for his sister a virgin, that is nigh unto him, which hath had no husband; for
her may he be defiled.
That is nigh him —
That is, by nearness not of relation, (for that might seem a needless addition)
but of habitation, one not yet cut off from the family. For if she was married,
she was now of another family, and under her husband's care in those matters.
Verse 4
[4] But
he shall not defile himself, being a chief man among his people, to profane
himself.
Being —
Or, seeing he is a chief man, for such not only the high-priest, but others
also of the inferior priests were. He shall not defile himself for any other
person whatsoever.
To profane himself —
Because such defilement for the dead did profane him, or make him as a common
person, and consequently unfit to manage his sacred employment.
Verse 5
[5] They shall not make baldness upon their head, neither shall they shave off
the corner of their beard, nor make any cuttings in their flesh.
They shall not make baldness — In funerals, as the Heathens did. Though I allow them to defile
themselves for some of the dead, yet in no case shall they use these
superstitious rites, which also the people were forbidden to do; but the
priests in a more peculiar manner, because they are by word and example to
teach the people their duty.
Verse 6
[6] They
shall be holy unto their God, and not profane the name of their God: for the
offerings of the LORD made by fire, and the bread of their God, they do offer:
therefore they shall be holy.
Holy unto their God — Devoted
to God's service, and always prepared for it, and therefore shall keep
themselves from all defilements.
The name of their God — Which they especially bear.
The bread of their God — That is, the shew-bread: or rather, all the other offerings, besides
burnt-offerings: which are called bread, because bread is commonly put for all
food.
Verse 7
[7] They
shall not take a wife that is a whore, or profane; neither shall they take a
woman put away from her husband: for he is holy unto his God.
Profane — Or
defiled, or deflowered, though it were done secretly, or by force: because the
priest must take care that all the members of his family be free not only from
gross wickedness, but from all suspicions of evil.
Verse 8
[8] Thou
shalt sanctify him therefore; for he offereth the bread of thy God: he shall be
holy unto thee: for I the LORD, which sanctify you, am holy.
Thou — O
Moses, and whosoever shall succeed in thy place, to whom it belongs to see my
laws observed, shall take care that the priest be holy, and do not defile
himself by any of these forbidden marriages.
Verse 9
[9] And
the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she
profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire.
And the daughter —
And by analogy his son also, and his wife, because the reason of the law here
added, concerns all. And nothing is more common than to name one kind for the
rest of the same nature, as also is done Leviticus 18:6.
She profaneth her father — Exposeth his person and office, and consequently religion, to contempt.
Verse 10
[10] And
he that is the high priest among his brethren, upon whose head the anointing
oil was poured, and that is consecrated to put on the garments, shall not
uncover his head, nor rend his clothes;
The garments —
Those holy garments, which were peculiar to him.
Shall not uncover his head — This being then the posture of mourners, Leviticus 10:6, though afterwards the custom was
changed and mourners covered their heads, 2 Samuel 15:30; Esther 6:12.
Nor rent his clothes — Another expression of mourning.
Verse 11
[11]
Neither shall he go in to any dead body, nor defile himself for his father, or
for his mother;
Go in —
Into the chamber or house where they lie. This and divers other rites here prescribed
were from hence translated by the Heathens into their use, whose priests were
put under the same obligations.
Verse 12
[12]
Neither shall he go out of the sanctuary, nor profane the sanctuary of his God;
for the crown of the anointing oil of his God is upon him: I am the LORD.
Out of the sanctuary — To attend the funerals of any person: for upon other occasions he might
and did commonly go out.
Nor profane the sanctuary — Either by the performance of a civility, or by entering into the
sanctuary before the seven days allotted for his cleansing, Numbers 19:11, were expired.
The crown of the anointing oil — Or, the crown, the golden plate, which is called the holy crown, Exodus 29:6, and the anointing oil of his God
are upon him. So there is only an ellipsis of the conjunction and, which is
frequent. And these two things, being most eminent, are put for the rest, as the
sign is put for the thing signified, that is, for he is God's high-priest.
Verse 13
[13] And
he shall take a wife in her virginity.
In her virginity —
Or, a virgin, partly because as he was a type of Christ, so his wife was a type
of the church, which is compared to a virgin, and partly for greater caution
and assurance that his wife was not a defiled or deflowered person. Most of
these things are forbidden to all the priests; and here to the high-priest, to
shew that he also, and he especially is obliged to the same cautions.
Verse 15
[15]
Neither shall he profane his seed among his people: for I the LORD do sanctify
him.
I the Lord sanctify him — I have separated him from all other men for my immediate service, and
therefore will not have that race corrupted.
Verse 17
[17]
Speak unto Aaron, saying, Whosoever he be of thy seed in their generations that
hath any blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God.
Of thy seed —
Whether the high priest, or the inferior ones.
That hath — In
all successive ages, any defect or excess of parts, any notorious deformity or
imperfection in his body. The reason hereof is partly typical, that he, might
more fully represent Christ, the great high-priest, who was typified both by
the priest and sacrifice, and therefore both were to be without blemish; partly
moral, to teach all Christians and especially ministers of holy things, what
purity and perfection of heart and life they should labour after, and that
notorious blemishes in the mind or conversation, render a man unfit for the
ministry of the gospel; and partly prudential, because such blemishes were apt
to breed contempt of the person; and consequently, of his function, and of the
holy things wherein he ministered. For which reason, such persons as have notorious
defects or deformities, are still unfit for the ministry except where there are
eminent gifts and graces, which vindicate a man from the contemptibleness of
his bodily presence. The particular defect's here mentioned, I shall not
enlarge upon because some of the Hebrew words are diversely interpreted, and
because the use of these things being abolished, the knowledge of them is not
necessary.
Verse 18
[18] For
whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man,
or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous,
A flat nose —
Most restrain this word to the nose, and to some great deformity relating to
it. But according to others, it signifies more generally, a person that wants
some member or members, because the next word, to which it is opposed,
signifies one that hath more members than he should.
Verse 21
[21] No
man that hath a blemish of the seed of Aaron the priest shall come nigh to
offer the offerings of the LORD made by fire: he hath a blemish; he shall not
come nigh to offer the bread of his God.
A blemish —
Any notorious blemish whereby he is disfigured, though not here mentioned.
Verse 22
[22] He
shall eat the bread of his God, both of the most holy, and of the holy.
He shall eat —
Which a priest having any uncleanness might not do whereby God would shew the
great difference between natural infirmities sent upon a man by God, and moral
defilements which a man brought upon himself.
Verse 23
[23] Only
he shall not go in unto the vail, nor come nigh unto the altar, because he hath
a blemish; that he profane not my sanctuaries: for I the LORD do sanctify them.
To the veil — To
the second veil which was between the holy and the most holy place, to burn
incense, to order the shew-bread, and to dress the lamps, which were nigh unto
that veil though without.
My altar —
The altar of burnt-offering, which was without the sanctuary. The sense is, he
shall not execute the priest's office, which was to be done in those two
places.
── John Wesley《Explanatory Notes on
Leviticus》
21 Chapter 21
Verses 1-24
Speak unto the priests the sons of Aaron.
--
Sacred relationship demands sanctity of life
If there is one fact more notably emphasised than another
in this address to priests, it is this: their--
I. Absolute and
indestructible relationship. Every son of Aaron was a “priest.” Of this union
with Aaron it is observable that--
1. It results from a living relationship. By birth he was connected
with Aaron, a lineal descendant of God’s high priest. And no truth is more a
truism than that every Christian is by birth-relationship connected with
Christ--the moment he is quickened and becomes a believing and a living soul,
he is a “priest unto God.” By no process of spiritual development or
self-culture or studied effort does the convert to Christ become a “priest”; he
is that by virtue of his living relationship to the High Priest: for as all the
sons of Aaron were priests, so are all the sons of God through their connection
with Christ.
2. The relationship is inalienable and indestructible. Conduct is not
the basis of relationship with Christ, but life. A son of Aaron may be defiled
“for the dead” (Leviticus 21:2), yet he did not thereby
cease to be related to Aaron. If we were only priests to God as our conduct was
faultless, who could stand? We are all unclean; defile ourselves continuously
with “the dead,” the guilty and contaminating things of earth. But “our life is
hid with Christ in God”; and by virtue of that life-union we remain priests.
3. Imperfections of nature and character do not sever relationship. A
“blemish,” deformity of body, prove a disqualification for ministry, but did
not destroy association with Aaron. Yes; there is exclusion from high and
honoured services in consequence of irremediable defect and fault; and
Christians with incurable weakness of disposition, worldliness of sympathy,
infirmities of character, vacillation of purpose, are thereby set aside from
honour in the Church and highest ministries for their Lord; yet still the
relationship to Christ continues, for it is a birth-relationship, based upon a
life-union with Jesus. But though relationship is absolute and indestructible--
II. Privilege is
dependent and conditional.
1. Defilement is a disqualification for near fellowship and highest
enjoyment of the priestly relationship.. Contact with “the dead” was forbidden;
it excluded the priest from the service of God until cleansed anew and so
reinstated. All contamination works disqualification, therefore “touch not,
taste not, handle not.” A priestly life should be pure.
2. Defect is a disqualification for highest service for our Lord.
Holy unto their God.
Holy priests
I. The honourable
position of the priests.
1. They are sanctioned by God, consecrated to His especial service,
they bear His stamp upon them, wear His livery, and receive of the honour that
belongs to Him.
2. They perform the high function of offering the bread of God. This
phrase included not only the placing of the shewbread in the sanctuary, but
also the presentation to God of the various sacrifices which become the
materials for His glory and praise. The enlarged priesthood of the New
Testament, embracing the whole body of believers in Christ Jesus, are similarly
dedicated to sacred office. They present spiritual sacrifices, they “showforth
the excellences of Him who called them out of darkness into His marvellous
light.”
II. Honour involves
obligation and restriction. Many acts permissible to the people were not so to
the priests. They were evidently to be models of holiness in their persons,
families, and social relationships. Men like the idea of occupying posts of
dignity, but do not sufficiently realise the responsibilities thence accruing.
We are always more anxious to get than to give; sinecure livings are at too
high a premium of estimation.
III. Perfect holiness
implies beauty, life, and joy. It is in opposition to disfigurement, death, and
sorrow. How different this conception of holiness from that of gloom and
moroseness which many entertain. Let young people know that God loves pretty
children, and handsome men and women, when the glory of the Spirit is thus
reflected in the outer person; He delights in the vigour and innocent mirth of
the young, and in the happy enthusiasm, the lively rejoicing of their elders,
when these are the outcome of righteousness and devoted service. The
imperfection of this present state is evident in the fact that holiness does
not mean exemption from anxiety and tribulation. It sometimes appears as if the
most faithful children of God were visited with heaviest chastisements. We are
assured of a future state where these contradictions shall be removed. The
ideal shall not only be approximated, but attained to; “death shall be no more,
neither shall there be mourning nor crying, nor pain any more: the first things
are passed away,” symbolical and ascriptional righteousness shall give place to
real perfect holiness; in the presence of God there shall be fulness of joy. (S.
R. Aldridge, B. A.)
Personal requirements of the priests
It is a truth which ought ever to be before the minds of those who
minister in holy things, and deeply graven on their hearts, that righteousness
of life and consistency in private conduct is the most vital element of a
preacher’s power. Let his ordination, his talents, his attainments, his
eloquence, be what they may, without a life corresponding to his teachings he
is only “as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.” Actions speak louder than
words. Character is more eloquent than rhetoric. What a man is always has more
weight than what he says. And in the same proportion that an unholy life
weakens a minister’s influence, does uprightness, fidelity, and consistency,
enhance it. A truly honest and good man, whatever his sphere, will always have
weight. However people may revile his profession, they always feel rebuked in
his presence, and pay homage to him in their secret souls. There is might in
virtue. It tells upon a man in spite of him. It strikes at once into the heart
and conscience. And when a minister has a pure and spotless life to sustain his
profession, he becomes a host in strength. Jehovah says of His priests, “They
shall be holy unto their God, and not profane the name of their God.” “He that
ruleth among men must be just, ruling in the fear of the Lord.” But the law
prescribes for the domestic relations and social surroundings of the priest as
well as for his personal perfections. Upon this point also it becomes a
minister to be particular.
I. The ancient
priest was required to be physically perfect. Otherwise he could not be a fit
representative of that perfect humanity which was found in our Saviour. He was
required to be without bodily blemish, that Israel might know what sort of a
Priest Messiah to expect. Their eyes were to be directed to Jesus as one
“altogether lovely.”
II. The ancient
priest was required to be properly and purely mated. As a type of Christ in all
other respects, so was he also in his espousals. The Lamb is not alone. He has
His affianced bride--His holy Church. He hath chosen her as a chaste virgin--as
one whom “the daughters saw and blessed.” Not a divorced woman--not a vile
offender--not an unclean thing--is the Church of Jesus. And the priest’s wife
had to be pure to typify these pure espousals of the Lamb, and the excellencies
of that Church which He has chosen for His everlasting bride.
III. It was required
of the ancient priest that his children should be pure. The transgression of
his daughter degraded him from his place. It is one of the demands laid upon
Christian pastors to have “faithful children that are not accused of riot, nor
unruly.” The reason is obvious. A minister’s family, as well as himself, is
made conspicuous by the very nature of his office. Their misdeeds are specially
noticed by the world, and readily laid to his charge. Any unholiness in them
operates as a profanation of his name. It is so much taken from his power. The
Holy Ghost therefore calls upon him to “rule well his own house, having his
children in subjection.” But the law was typical. It relates to Christ and His
Church. It points to the fact that everything proceeding from His union with
His people is good and pure.
IV. There are other
requirements which were made of the ancient priests, both in the twenty-first
and twenty-second chapters, which I will sum up under the general name of
holiness. They were not to defile themselves with the dead, or by eating
improper food, or by contact with the unclean, or by irreverence towards the
holy things. They were to be very particular about all the laws, and to devote
themselves to their office as men anointed of God. In one word, they were to be
holy; that is, whole, entire, complete, fully separated from all forbidden, and
fully consecrated to what was commanded. This was necessary for personal and
official reasons; but especially for the high priest as a type of Christ. It
was a requirement to shadow forth the character of Jesus, and the sublime
wholeness and consecration which were in Him. Men have despised and desecrated
the sanctity of everything else related to religion; but when they came to the
character of Jesus, their hands grew powerless, their hearts failed, their
utterance choked, and they turned aside in reverent awe of a goodness and
majesty which could not be gainsaid. Infidelity itself has freely and
eloquently confessed to His matchless excellence. Paine disavows “the most
distant disrespect to the moral character of Jesus Christ.” Rousseau is struck
with admiration at His excellence. “What sweetness, what purity in His manner!
What an affecting gracefulness in His delivery! What sublimity in His maxims!
What profound wisdom in His discourses l What presence of mind, what subtlety,
what truth in His replies! How great the command of His passions! Where is the
man, where the philosopher, who could so live, and so die, without weakness and
without ostentation?. . . Yea, if Socrates lived and died like a sage, Jesus
lived and died like a God.” What would man be without Christ--without His holy
life? In Him, and in Him alone, earth rises into communion with heaven, and
light shines in upon our benighted humanity.
V. There is yet
one particular in the requirements concerning the ancient priests to which I
will refer. It is said of the high priest, “he shall not uncover,” &c. (Leviticus 21:10-12). That is to say, he
was not to allow any natural sympathies to interfere with the pure and proper
discharge of the duties of his high office. Some have regarded this as a
coldness and harshness thrown around the old priesthood, which has nothing to
correspond to it in the Christian system. I do not so understand it. The very
reverse is the truth. The high priest was a great religious officer for the
entire Jewish nation. He belonged more to the nation than to his family or
himself. It would therefore have been a most heartless thing to allow a little
natural domestic sympathy and affection to set aside all the great interests of
the Hebrew people. So far from throwing a chilliness around the high
priesthood, it gave to it a warmth and zeal of devotion, and showed an
outbreathing of heart upon the spiritual wants of the congregation, superior to
the love of father or mother. And it was meant to shadow forth a precious
truth: viz., that Christ, as our High Priest, consecrated all His highest,
warmest, and fullest sympathies in His office. He loved father and mother, and
was properly obedient to them; but when it came to the great duties of His
mission, the interests of a perishing world were resting upon His doings, and
He could not stop to gratify domestic sympathies. Rising then above the narrow
circle of carnal relationships, “He stretched forth His hand toward His
disciples, and said, Behold My mother and My brethren!” His sympathies are
those of the spirit, and not of the flesh. (J. A. Seiss, D. D.)
Any blemish.--
Blemishes affect service, not sonship
To be a child of God is one thing; to be in the enjoyment of
priestly communion and priestly worship is quite another. This latter is, alas!
interfered with by many things. Circumstances and associations are allowed to
act upon us by their defiling influence. We are not to suppose that all
Christians enjoy the same elevation of walk, the same intimacy of fellowship,
the same felt nearness to Christ. Alas! alas! they do not. Many of us have to
mourn over our spiritual defects. There is lameness of walk, defective vision,
stunted growth; or we allow ourselves to be defiled by contact with evil, and
to be weakened and hindered by unhallowed associations. In a word, as the sons
of Aaron, though being priests by birth, were, nevertheless, deprived of many
privileges through ceremonial defilement and physical defects; so we, though
being priests unto God by spiritual birth, are deprived of many of the high and
holy privileges of our position by moral defilement and spiritual defects. We
are shorn of many of our dignities through defective spiritual development. We
lack singleness of eye, spiritual vigour, whole-hearted devotedness. Saved we
are through the free grace of God, on the ground of Christ’s perfect sacrifice.
“We are all the children of God, by faith in Christ Jesus”; but, then,
salvation is one thing, communion is quite another. Sonship is one thing,
obedience is quite another. These things should be carefully distinguished. The
section before us illustrates the distinction with great force and clearness.
If one of the sons of Aaron happened to be “broken-footed, or broken-handed,”
was he deprived of his sonship? Assuredly not. Was he deprived of his priestly
position? By no means. It was distinctly declared, “He shall eat the bread of
his God, both of the most holy and of the holy.” What, then, did he lose by his
physical blemish? He was forbidden to tread some of the higher walks of
priestly service and worship. “Only he shall not go in unto the vail, nor come
nigh unto the altar.” These were very serious privations; and though it may be
objected that a man could not help many of these physical defects, that did not
alter the matter. Jehovah could not have a blemished priest at His altar, or a
blemished sacrifice thereon. Both the priest and the sacrifice should be
perfect. Now we have both the perfect priest and the perfect sacrifice in the
Person of our blessed Lord Jesus Christ. (C. H. Mackintosh.)
Verse 22
He shall eat the bread of his God.
The Divine banquet
It is not easy to say whether the words, “bread of his God,” refer
generally to the sacrifices and offerings, or specially to the “shewbread.” We
take them as pointing to the latter; as, indeed, in any interpretation of the
expression, the shewbread must be included, if not mainly intended. It was
called the “shewbread”; or, more properly, “the bread of the presence”; the
bread that stood on the King’s table, and in the King’s presence; the bread
which was therefore intimately connected with Him who is called “the Angel of
the Presence” (Isaiah 62:9); the bread which was associated
with Him whose “presence” went with Israel whithersoever they went (Exodus 33:14).
I. It is provided
by God. As in carrying out His purpose in the old creation, He provided every
fruit-bearing tree for man, so, in accomplishing the new creation, He has
supplied the “food convenient.” He has made the provision for His house; and He
has also blessed it. For the sustaining the life which He imparts, He provides
the food required.
II. It is prepared
by God himself. Moses, as representing God, prepared the twelve loaves; and God
Himself has prepared the better bread, the flesh of the Son of Man. “A body
hast Thou prepared Me.” In the history of the birth, the life, the sorrows, the
hardships, the blood-shedding, the death of the incarnate Son of God, we have a
description of the way it, which the “shewbread” or “presence-bread” of the
Church was prepared, according to God’s own method, for our everlasting food.
III. It is given to
us by God. God causes it to be provided for us; nay, He prepares it Himself;
and then having thus provided and prepared it, He gives it: “God so loved the
world that He gave His only-begotten Son” (John 3:16); “The bread that I will give
is My flesh, which I will give,” &c.
IV. Who they are
who feast on it. Perhaps the answer to such a question will be--God’s
priesthood, His Church. Nor would this be incorrect; yet it would be defective.
No doubt this heavenly bread is for them, just as the tree of life was for
Adam, or the Temple shewbread was for the sons of Aaron. But it is so specially
called “the bread of our God”; and the table on which it is set is so specially
God’s own table; and the place where it is to be eaten is so manifestly the royal
banquet-hall of heaven, that we come to the conclusion that God Himself is partaker of
this feast as well
as we. The King, sitting at His own table, in His own festal chamber, not only
feeds His guests, bat Himself partakes of that which is set before them.
Israel’s various sacrifices and offerings of all kinds were the various dishes
set upon the great Temple table; each of them full of meaning; each of them
containing that which would satisfy and comfort; every one of them setting
forth some part of the glorious fulness of the God-man, as the true food of
souls; and all of them together representing that complete and blessed feast of
“fat things” partaken of by God and His redeemed, in some measure now, but
hereafter to be more fully enjoyed at the great marriage-supper in the New
Jerusalem, when that shall be fulfilled, so long realised but in parts and
fragments, “I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with Me” (Revelation 3:20). (H. Bonar, D. D.)
The bread of God
It was an ancient heathen notion that in sacrifice food was
provided for the deity in order thus to show him honour. And, doubtless, in
Israel, ever prone to idolatry, there were many who rose no higher than this
gross conception of the meaning of such words. Thus, in Psalms 50:8-15, God sharply rebukes
Israel for so unworthy thoughts of Himself, using language at the same time
which teaches the spiritual meaning of the sacrifice, regarded as the “food” or
“bread” of God . . . Of which language the plain teaching is this. If the
sacrifices are called in the law “the bread of God,” God asks not this bread
from Israel in any material
sense, or for any material need. He asks that which the offerings symbolise;
thanksgiving, loyal fulfilment of covenant engagements to Him, and that loving
trust which will call on Him in the day of trouble. Even sol Gratitude,
loyalty, trust! this is the “food of God,” this the bread which He desires that
we should offer, the bread which those Levitical sacrifices symbolised. For
even as man, when hungry, craves food, and cannot be satisfied without it, so
God, who is Himself Love, desires our love, and delights in seeing its
expression in all those offices of self-forgetting and self-sacrificing service
in which love manifests itself. This is to God even as is food to us. Love
cannot be satisfied except with love returned; and we may say, with deepest
humility and reverence, the God of love cannot be satisfied without love
returned. Hence it is that the sacrifices, which in various ways symbolize the
self-offerings of love and the fellowship of love, are called by the Holy Ghost
“the food” or “bread of God.” And yet we must, on no account, hasten to the
conclusion, as many do, that therefore the Levitical sacrifices were only
intended to express and symbolise the self-offering of the worshipper, and that
this exhausts their significance. On the contrary, the need of infinite love
for this “bread of God” cannot be adequately met and satisfied by the
self-offering of any creature, and, least of all, by the self-offering of a
sinful creature, whose very sin lies just in this, that he has fallen away from
perfect love. The symbolism of the sacrifice as “the food of God,” therefore,
by this very phrase, points toward the self-offering in love of the eternal Son
to the Father, and in behalf of sinners for the Father’s sake. It was the
sacrifice on Calvary which first became, in innermost reality, that “bread of
God,” which the ancient sacrifices were only in symbol. It was this, not
regarded as satisfying Divine justice (though it did this), but as satisfying
the Divine love; because it was the supreme expression of the perfect love of
the incarnate Son of God to the Father, in His becoming “obedient unto death,
even the death of the Cross.”
(S. H. Kellogg, D. D.)
──《The Biblical Illustrator》