Leviticus 14:10

And on the eighth day he shall take two he lambs without blemish, and one ewe lamb of the first year without blemish, and three tenth deals of fine flour for a meat offering, mingled with oil, and one log of oil.

EXPOSITORY (ENGLISH BIBLE)

Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers

(10) And on the eighth day.—Though restored to social intercourse with his fellow brethren, the recovered leper could not at once be admitted to the privileges of the sanctuary, but had to bring on the eighth day three kinds of sacrifices: viz., a trespass offering, a sin offering, and a burnt offering. The lamb for the sin offering had not only to be without blemish (see Leviticus 1:3), but of the first year (see Leviticus 12:6).

And three tenth deals of fine flour.—Each of these three sacrifices is to be accompanied by a meat offering, consisting of a tenth part of an ephah (which is an omer) of flour. The omer, which is the same as “the tenth deal” (see Exodus 16:36), as it is here called, is equal to 43⅕ eggs, or about four pints. Ordinarily a meat offering did not accompany the trespass offering or the sin offering, and only one omer was brought with a lamb (see Numbers 15:4); but according to the administrators of the law during the second Temple, three omers are here prescribed as a substitute for the drink offering which should have accompanied the two expiatory sacrifices. For the manner in which the meat offering was prepared, see Leviticus 11:1-4.

And one log of oil.—This oil, as we see afterwards (see Leviticus 14:15, &c.), was used to sprinkle seven times before the Lord, to sanctify the ear, the hand, the foot, and the head of the restored leper. The measure log, which occurs four times in this section (Leviticus 14:10; Leviticus 14:12; Leviticus 14:15; Leviticus 14:21), is not to be found in any other part of the Hebrew Scriptures. According to the authorities at the time of Christ, a “log” is equal to six hen’s eggs.

Benson Commentary

Leviticus 14:10. Two he-lambs, and one ewe-lamb — For three kinds of sacrifice, namely, a trespass-offering, a sin-offering, and a burnt-offering. Flour for a meal-offering — For to each of these sacrifices there was a meal or bread- offering appropriated, consisting of a tenth part of an ephah of fine flour. Mingled with oil — This is added as a fit sign of God’s grace and mercy, and of the leper’s being healed. A log is a measure containing about six egg-shells full.

Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary

14:10-32 The cleansed leper was to be presented to the Lord, with his offerings. When God has restored us to enjoy public worship again, after sickness, distance, or otherwise, we should testify our thanksgiving by our diligent use of the liberty. And both we and our offerings must be presented before the Lord, by the Priest that made us clean, even our Lord Jesus. Beside the usual rites of the trespass-offering, some of the blood, and some of the oil, was to be put upon him that was to be cleansed. Wherever the blood of Christ is applied for justification, the oil of the Spirit is applied for sanctification; these two cannot be separated. We have here the gracious provision the law made for poor lepers. The poor are as welcome to God's altar as the rich. But though a meaner sacrifice was accepted from the poor, yet the same ceremony was used for the rich; their souls are as precious, and Christ and his gospel are the same to both. Even for the poor one lamb was necessary. No sinner could be saved, had it not been for the Lamb that was slain, and hath redeemed us to God with his blood.

Barnes' Notes on the Bible

Two young rams from one to three years old (not lambs), a ewe lamb in her first year (see Leviticus 12:6), three-tenth parts of an ephah (something over ten pints and a half) of fine flour mingled with oil, and a log (about half a pint; see Leviticus 19:35) of oil. The priest presented both the man and his offerings to Yahweh at the entrance of the tent of meeting. See Leviticus 1:3.

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary

10-20. on the eighth day he shall take two he lambs without blemish, and one ewe-lamb of the first year without blemish—The purification of the leper was not completed till at the end of seven days, after the ceremonial of the birds [Le 14:4-7] and during which, though permitted to come into the camp, he had to tarry abroad out of his tent [Le 14:8], from which he came daily to appear at the door of the tabernacle with the offerings required. He was presented before the Lord by the priest that made him clean. And hence it has always been reckoned among pious people the first duty of a patient newly restored from a long and dangerous sickness to repair to the church to offer his thanksgiving, where his body and soul, in order to be an acceptable offering, must be presented by our great Priest, whose blood alone makes any clean. The offering was to consist of two lambs, the one was to be a sin offering, and an ephah of fine flour (two pints equals one-tenth), and one log (half pint) of oil (Le 2:1). One of the lambs was for a trespass offering, which was necessary from the inherent sin of his nature or from his defilement of the camp by his leprosy previous to his expulsion; and it is remarkable that the blood of the trespass offering was applied exactly in the same particular manner to the extremities of the restored leper, as that of the ram in the consecration of the priests [Le 8:23]. The parts sprinkled with this blood were then anointed with oil—a ceremony which is supposed to have borne this spiritual import: that while the blood was a token of forgiveness, the oil was an emblem of healing—as the blood of Christ justifies, the influence of the Spirit sanctifies. Of the other two lambs the one was to be a sin offering and the other a burnt offering, which had also the character of a thank offering for God's mercy in his restoration. And this was considered to make atonement "for him"; that is, it removed that ceremonial pollution which had excluded him from the enjoyment of religious ordinances, just as the atonement of Christ restores all who are cleansed through faith in His sacrifice to the privileges of the children of God.

Matthew Poole's Commentary

Oil is added here as a fit sign of God’s grace and mercy, and of the leper’s healing.

Log, a measure for liquid things containing six eggshells-full.

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

And on the eighth day,.... From the leper's first appearance before the priest, and the day after the above things were done, in Leviticus 14:9,

he shall take two he lambs without blemish; the one for a trespass offering, and the other for a burnt offering; and both typical of Christ the Lamb of God, without spot and blemish:

and one ewe lamb of the first year without blemish; for a sin offering, a type of Christ also:

and three tenth deals of fine flour, for a meat offering, mingled with oil; that is, three tenth parts of an ephah, or three omers; one of which was as much, or more than a man could eat in a day, see Exodus 16:36; there were three of these to answer to and accompany the three lambs for sacrifice, just such a quantity was allotted to the lambs of the daily sacrifice, Exodus 29:40; typical, likewise of Christ, who is the true bread, and whose flesh is meat indeed:

and one log of oil; to be used as after directed: this measure was about half a pint, and is an emblem of the grace and Spirit of God, received by the saints in measure, and is the same with the oil of gladness, poured on Christ without measure, Psalm 45:7.

Geneva Study Bible

And on the eighth day he shall take two he lambs without {e} blemish, and one ewe lamb of the first year without blemish, and three tenth deals of fine flour for a meat offering, mingled with oil, {f} and one log of oil.

(e) Which has no imperfection in any part.

(f) This quantity in Hebrew is called a Log, and holds six eggs in measure.

EXEGETICAL (ORIGINAL LANGUAGES)

Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

10. On the following (the eighth) day he brings his sacrifice to the usual place, the entrance to the Tent of Meeting. In the Temple the leper, after bathing in a chamber at the N.W. corner of the Court of the Women, was brought to the gate of Nicanor, between the Court of the Women and the Court of Israel, where he presented his offerings.

tenth parts of an ephah] See on Leviticus 23:17. For ‘parts’ A.V. has ‘deals,’ a substantive of the same meaning, but now surviving as such only in the common phrase, ‘a great deal,’ although the verb is still in ordinary use. Cp. dole, and the German Teil, portion.

log] a liquid measure approximately equal to an English pint.

The ritual here enjoined is peculiar:

(1) The first offering is a Guilt-Offering—a he-lamb.

(2) The whole lamb is waved with the log of oil before the Lord.

(3) The blood of the sacrifice and the oil are applied to the leper with a ceremonial similar to that used at the consecration of the priests (Leviticus 8:12; Leviticus 8:23 f., Leviticus 8:30).

The he-lamb was of the first year, and younger than the ram usually brought for a Guilt-Offering; the waving of the whole animal was unusual; certain parts only of a sacrifice were waved, and the ceremony of waving was not practised with the Guilt-Offering and Sin-Offering. So that in respect of the animal employed, the act of waving, and the matter waved, this sacrifice was different from the ordinary Guilt-Offering.

The Nazirite who had been defiled by a dead body brought a Sin-Offering, a Burnt-Offering, and a Guilt-Offering; they were offered in this order, and no special regulations about the Guilt-Offering are given (Numbers 6:10-12). But in the case of the leper, the fact that the Guilt-Offering is brought first, with an accompanying ritual of marked significance, invests this sacrifice with a special importance and distinguishes it from the Guilt-Offering brought by the Nazirite. The Guilt-Offering with its accompanying ritual is the prominent feature in the leper’s sanctuary service. It seems to imply that the disease of leprosy had removed him who had been smitten from the ‘kingdom of priests’ (Exodus 19:6); that a re-consecration was necessary, before he could again take his place among his brethren. But it may also mean that leprosy was thought to imply some sin for which atonement must be made by fine or compensation.

The reason why this sacrifice should be a Guilt-Offering is not apparent. The distinctive character of the Guilt-Offering was that it involved restitution for wrong done, whether in respect of ‘the holy things of the Lord’ (Leviticus 5:15), or against a neighbour (Leviticus 6:2 f.). As the Nazirite had vowed a period of separation, it might be considered that the defilement of that separation (Numbers 6:12), though involuntary, was a wrong done in respect of ‘the holy things of the Lord’; but it seems doubtful whether the leper’s enforced absence from the sanctuary during the period of his uncleanness can be so regarded. If it is urged that every Israelite in virtue of his priesthood (Exodus 19:6) is dedicated to the service of God, then a Guilt-Offering would be required after any prolonged illness, and after cases of lengthened uncleanness such as those mentioned in chs. 12 and 15; but no Guilt-Offering is prescribed for these persons. Can there be here a remnant of some older practice of which no certain traces survive? The Heb. word ’âshâm, used for the Guilt-Offering in P, is applied in the older literature to certain offerings and fines (1 Samuel 6:3; 2 Kings 12:17). Was an ’âshâm or money payment required in earlier times on the recovery of a leper? This would explain the demand for a Guilt-Offering in P.

Pulpit Commentary

Verse 10. - On the eighth day he shall take two he lambs without blemish, and one ewe lamb of the first year without blemish, and three tenth deals of fine flour. Every sacrifice is to be provided and offered by the restored leper, except the peace offering. It is certainly singular that the peace offering should be omitted, and that the trespass offering should be required. The former fact may be accounted for by the supposition that though the peace offering was not required, the late leper was, after his other sacrifices, put in a position where he might offer it when he would of his own free will. But the requirement of the trespass offering is more difficult to explain. What wrong had the leper done? and what satisfaction had he to make? The usual answer to this question is that he had wronged Jehovah in that, however involuntarily, he had failed to bring him the offerings and service which he would have brought had he not been excluded from the camp. But this is a very forced explanation, and it is incompatible with other parts of the Law. For the leper was not the only unclean person who, owing to his uncleanness, was prevented from offering his gifts and worship at the tabernacle or temple. The woman who had an issue of blood for twelve years (Luke 8:43) during that time would have been excluded from the sanctuary. But no trespass offering is required of those that have been unclean through issues. We must therefore, look for some other explanation of the requirement in the case of the cleansed leper. And a simpler one is at hand. Leprosy was the type of sin - or all sin whatsoever. When, therefore, the expiatory sacrifices were demanded, both kinds - the trespass offering and the sin offering - had to be offered, because expiation had to be made for the uncleanness which represented all unrighteousness - trespasses as well as sins. It might be that the man had not committed a trespass; he might also not hive committed sin; but he had been stricken with the foul disease which symbolized both one and the other, and therefore he had to offer on his cleansing the sacrifice appropriate to each. There is a difference in the ritual of the trespass offering in the present ease, intended perhaps to distinguish it from those trespass offerings which were made when a man had in his mind a certain wrong or injury which he had committed, and for which he wished to make compensation. On this occasion

(1) the animal presented was not required to be of a particular value, as in the ordinary trespass offerings;

(2) it was waved, whereas the ordinary trespass offerings were not waved;

(3) it was waved by the priest, whereas other wave offerings were waved not by the priest, but by the offerer, whose bands were guided by the priests. Nor

(4) did the offering of oil accompany the presentation of other trespass offerings. For whatever reason it be, the most characteristic feature of the sacrificial cleansing of the leper is the trespass offering, and the way that it was dealt with. Leviticus 14:10

Keil and Delitzsch Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament

The second act (Leviticus 14:9-20) effected his restoration to fellowship with Jehovah, and his admission to the sanctuary. It commenced on the seventh day after the first with a fresh purification; viz., shaving off all the hair from the head, the beard, the eyebrows - in fact, the whole body, - washing the clothes, and bathing the body. On the eighth day there followed a sacrificial expiation; and for this the person to be expiated was to bring two sheep without blemish, a ewe-lamb of a year old, three-tenths of an ephah of fine flour mixed with oil as a meat-offering, and a log (or one-twelfth of a hin, i.e., as much as six hens' eggs, or 1562 Rhenish cubic inches) of oil; and the priest was to present him, together with these gifts, before Jehovah, i.e., before the altar of burnt-offering. The one lamb was then offered by the priest as a trespass-offering, together with the log of oil; and both of these were waves by him. By the waving, which did not take place on other occasions in connection with sin-offerings and trespass-offerings, the lamb and oil were transferred symbolically to the Lord; and by the fat that these sacrificial gifts represented the offerer, the person to be consecrated to the Lord by means of them was dedicated to His service again, just as the Levites were dedicated to the Lord by the ceremony of waving (Numbers 8:11, Numbers 8:15). But a trespass-offering was required as the consecration-offering, because the consecration itself served as a restoration to all the rights of the priestly covenant nation, which had been lost by the mortal ban of leprosy.

(Note: Others, e.g., Riehm and Oehler, regard this trespass-offering also as a kind of mulcta, or satisfaction rendered for the fact, that during the whole period of his sickness, and so long as he was excluded from the congregation, the leper had failed to perform his theocratical duties, and Jehovah had been injured in consequence. But if this was the idea upon which the trespass-offering was founded, the law would necessarily have required that trespass-offerings should be presented on the recovery of persons who had been affected with diseased secretions; for during the continuance of their disease, which often lasted a long time, even as much as 12 years (Luke 8:43), they were precluded from visiting the sanctuary or serving the Lord with sacrifices, because they were unclean, and therefore could not perform their theocratical duties.)