[1] "Genesis may be made up of various documents, and yet have been compiled by Moses; and the same thing is possible, even in the later books of the Pentateuch. If these could be successfully partitioned among different writers, on the score of variety in literary execution, why may not these have been engaged jointly with Moses himself in preparing each his appointed portion, and the whole have been finally reduced by Moses to its present form?... Why might not these continue their work, and record what occurred after Moses was taken away?"—Professor W. H. Green, Schaff-Herzog EncyclopÆdia; article, "The Pentateuch."

[2] "If it be proven that a record was committed to writing at a comparatively late date, it does not necessarily follow that the essential part has not been accurately handed down."—Professor Strack, ibid.

[3] Something like this seems to have been the final position of the late Professor Delitzsch, who said: "We hold firmly that Moses laid the foundation of this codification" (of the "priest-code" of Leviticus, etc.), "but it was continued in the post-Mosaic period within the priesthood, to whom was entrusted the transmission, interpretation, and administration of the law. We admit this willingly; and even the participation of Ezra in this codification in itself furnishes no stumbling block for us. For it is not inconceivable that laws which until then had been handed down orally were fixed by him in writing to secure their judicial authority and execution. The most important thing for us is the historico-traditional character of the Pentateuchal legislation, and especially the occasions for (the laws) and the fundamental arrangements in the history of the times. That which we cannot be persuaded to admit is that the so-called Priestly Code is the work of the free invention of the latest date, which takes on the artificial appearance of ancient history."—The Presbyterian Review, July 1882; article, "Delitzsch on the Origin and Composition of the Pentateuch," p. 578.

[4] The Expositor, January, 1889; article, "The Old Theology and the New," pp. 54, 55.

[5] From the note in xvi. 1 it would appear that this chapter, so different in subject from the five preceding chapters on "Uncleannesses," originally preceded them, and so followed x., with which it is so closely connected. Its exposition is therefore given immediately after that of x.

[6] This name is often restricted to xviii.-xx.

[7] The usage of the common Hebrew phrase so rendered does not warrant the translation in the old version: "of his voluntary will."

[8] See Psalm lxix. 9, and compare in the Hebrew such expressions as, "the fire hath consumed the burnt-offering;" and Deut. iv. 24, "thy God is a devouring fire," etc., in all which the verb signifying "to eat" is idiomatically used of fire.

[9] Kurtz, "Der Alt-testamentliche Opfercultus," p. 243.

[10] A striking parallel to this ordinance is found in a caste custom in North India, where the caste Hindoo, as I have often seen, if he give you a drink of water in a vessel, will only use an earthen vessel, which, immediately after you have drunk, he breaks, to preclude the possibility of its accidental use thereafter, by which ceremonial defilement might be contracted. For the Hindoo does not regard it as possible so to cleanse a metallic vessel as to remove the defilement thus caused; and as he could not afford to throw it away, he will give one to drink in the cheap earthen vessel, or else no drink at all.

[11] It is to be regretted that the Revisers had not allowed in this case the rendering "trespass-offering" to stand, as in the Authorised Version. For, unlike the more generic term "guilt," our word "trespass" very precisely indicates the class of offences for which this particular offering was ordained. It is indeed true that the Hebrew word so rendered is quite distinct from that rendered "trespass;" yet, in this instance, by the attempt to represent this fact in English, more has been lost than gained.

[12] Even in the burnt-offering, the hide of the victim was assigned to the priest (vii. 8).

[13] See "Die BÜcher Exodus und Leviticus," 2 Aufl., p. 462.

[14] Especially striking in this connection is the expression used by the Apostle Paul (Rom. xv. 16), where he speaks of himself as "a minister of Christ Jesus unto the Gentiles, ministering the Gospel of God;" in which last phrase, the Greek word denotes "ministration as a priest." See R.V., margin.

[15] "Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews," vol. ii., p. 172.

[16] See, e.g., Exod. xxiv. 10; Ezek. i. 26.

[17] Thus e.g., in Cant. iv. 13, where the Revised Version reads, "Thy shoots are an orchard of pomegranates," the Jewish paraphrast in the Chaldee Targum renders, "Thy young men are filled with the commandments (of God) like unto pomegranates (sc. with their seeds)."

[18] Not, however, as many imagine, in behalf of those who have in this age died in sin, but in ministrations to the living nations in the flesh, in the age to come. We find no ground of hope, in Holy Scripture, for the impenitent dead.

[19] The interposition of chapters xi.-xv. on ceremonial uncleanness, between chapters x. and xvi., which are so closely connected by this historical note in xvi. 1, certainly suggests an editorial redaction—as the phrase is—in which the latter chapter, for whatsoever reason, has been removed from its original context. But that such a redaction, of which we have in the book other traces, does not of necessity affect in the slightest degree the question of its inspiration and Divine authority, should be self-evident.

[20] "Die BÜcher Exodus und Leviticus," 2 Aufl., p. 525.

[21] "Symbolik des MosÄischen Cultus," 2 Band., p. 668.

[22] "Biblische Abhandlungen," pp. 239-270.

[23] In The Nineteenth Century, September, 1889.

[24] See above, p. 290-292.

[25] This latter reason, however, would rather appear to have demanded, as in the case of the leper, a guilt-offering.

[26] This word, it should be noted, is now popularly used to denote a disease quite distinct from leprosy, known also as "Barbadoes leg," which consists essentially of an elephantine enlargement of the lower extremities.

[27] This opinion has been ably argued by Sir Risdon Bennett, M.D., LL.D., F.R.S., in "By-paths of Bible Knowledge," vol. ix., "The Diseases of the Bible."

[28] Compare our frequent use of the word to denote paralysis.

[29] "The Land and the Book," vol. i., pp. 530, 531.

[30] "Die BÜcher Exodus und Leviticus," 2 Aufl., p. 535.

[31] "Die BÜcher Exodus und Leviticus," 2 Aufl., p. 537.

[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.

[33] See p. 292.

[34] It deserves to be noticed that in this phrase, which recurs with such frequency in this "Law of Holiness," the original, with evident allusion to Exod. iii. 15; vi. 2-4, always has the covenant name of God, commonly anglicised "Jehovah." The retention of the term "Lord" here, as in many other places, is much to be regretted, as seriously weakening and obscuring the sense to the ordinary reader.

[35] See, for example, in the Hebrew text, 1 Kings xiv. 24; Gen. xxxviii. 21; Hosea iv. 14, et passim.

[36] "Die BÜcher Exodus und Leviticus," 2 Aufl., p. 550.

[37] The wife is not mentioned, but that she would also be included in the exception, in view of her being always regarded in the law as yet nearer to her husband than father or mother, may be safely taken for granted.

[38] See margin (R.V.).

[39] That is, not burnt alive, but after execution.

[40] See 1 John iii. 4 and 2 Thess. ii. 3, 4, 7, 8,—passages which, in view of this most manifest and characteristic tendency of our times, are pregnant with very solemn warning.

[41] See the inspired comment in Heb. iv.

[42] Compare Isa. lviii. 3-7, Zech. vii. 5, where the necessity of the inward sorrow for sin and turning unto God, in connection with this fast of the seventh month, is solemnly urged upon Israel.

[43] See Kurtz, "Der Alttestamentliche Opfercultus," p. 271.

[44] "Symbolik des MosÄischen Cultus," erster Band, pp. 428-432.

[45] See, e.g., Rabbi Dr. J. Levy, "ChaldÄisches WÖrterbuch," zweiter Band, pp. 301, 302; and compare Numb. xxiii. 8, Prov. xi. 26, xxiv. 24, where the same Hebrew word is used.

[46] Cf. the expression used with reference to Jesus Christ, Phil. ii. 9 (R.V.), "the name which is above every name."

[47] Thus Dillmann writes: "That the law (of the jubilee) in its principal features was already issued by Moses does not admit of demonstration to him who wills not to believe it; but that it cannot have been in the first instance the invention of a post-exilian scribe is certain. Only in the simpler communal relations of the more ancient time could a law of such an ideal character have seemed practicable; after the exile, all the presuppositions involved in its promulgation are wanting" ("Die BÜcher Exodus und Leviticus," 2 Aufl., p. 608).

[48] The interpretation of ver. 33 presents a difficulty which, if the rendering retained in the text by the Revisers be accepted, is hard to resolve. But if we assume that a negative has fallen out of the first clause in the received text, and read with the Vulgate, as given in the margin of the Revised Version, "if one of the Levites redeem not," all becomes clear. In the exposition we have ventured to assume in this instance the correctness of the Vulgate.

[49] See Psalm lxxxix. 15.

[50] Much has been made of this reference to the neglect of the sabbatic years as evidence of the late composition of the chapter; but surely in this argument there is little force. For, even apart from any question of inspiration, the ordinance of the sabbatic year was of such an extraordinary character, so opposed alike to human selfishness and eagerness for gain, and calling for such faith in God, that it would require no great knowledge of human nature to anticipate its probable neglect, even on natural grounds. But, even were this not so, still an argument of this kind against the Mosaic origin of this minatory section of the covenant can have decisive force for those only who, for whatsoever reason, have come to disbelieve that God can tell beforehand what free agents will do, or that, if He know, He can impart that knowledge to His servants.

[51] So Basnage ("History of the Jews," London, 1700, chap. xxviii., sec. 15) estimated it in his day. Since then, however, their number has materially increased, and is still increasing; a fact the significance of which has been pointed out by the present writer in "The Jews; or, Prediction and Fulfilment" (New York, 1883, pp. 178-83).

[52] "Modern Doubt and Christian Belief," p. 333.

[53] It is the same Hebrew word which is rendered "enjoy" when applied to the land and "accept" when applied to Israel: it might thus be rendered "enjoy" in the latter case—"they shall enjoy the punishment of their iniquity," when the words would express a severe irony, a figure of which we have examples elsewhere in the Scriptures.

[54] The "if" which introduces ver. 40 in the Authorised version has no equivalent in the Hebrew, and should therefore be omitted, as in the revision.

[55] See Gen. xii. 1-3; xiii. 14-17; xv. 5-21; xvii. 2-11; xxii. 15-18.

[56] These commutation rates are so low that it is plain that they could not have represented the actual value of the individual's labour. The highest sum which is named—fifty shekels—as the rate for a man from twenty to sixty years of age, taking the shekel as 2s. 3·37d., or $·5474, would only amount to £5 14s. 0¾d., or $27·375. Even from this alone it is clear that, as stated above, the chief reference in these figures must have been symbolic of a claim of God upon the person, graded according to his capacity for service.

[57] So certainly should we render instead of "angel," in accordance with the suggestion of the margin (R.V.). The reference is to the priest, as Mal. ii. 7 makes very clear: "He [the priest] is the messenger of the Lord."

[58] On this subject, among other authorities, see Ebrard, "Apologetik," 2 Theil, pp. 167-90, especially p. 173.

[59] See "Die BÜcher Exodus und Leviticus," pp. 635-638.

[60] See "Undenkbar;" so Dillmann, op. cit., p. 638.