Leviticus 7:18

7:11-27 As to the peace-offerings, in the expression of their sense of mercy, God left them more at liberty, than in the expression of their sense of sin; that their sacrifices, being free-will offerings, might be the more acceptable, while, by obliging them to bring the sacrifices of atonement, God shows the necessity of the great Propitiation. The main reason why blood was forbidden of old, was because the Lord had appointed blood for an atonement. This use, being figurative, had its end in Christ, who by his death and blood-shedding caused the sacrifices to cease. Therefore this law is not now in force on believers.

And if any of the flesh of his peace offerings be eaten at all on the third day,.... Any part of it, even the least: it shall not be accepted; as a sacrifice well pleasing to God; he will take no delight in it, or express any satisfaction therein; but, on the contrary, reject it with abhorrence: neither shall it be imputed to him that offereth it; the Targum of Jonathan adds, for merit or righteousness; it shall not be accounted a righteous action, or the offerer receive any benefit by it: it shall be an abomination; to God, the flesh being kept so long, through a sordid and stubborn disposition: and the soul that eateth of it shall bear his iniquity; it shall not be forgiven him; he shall bear the punishment of it.

18 . it shall be an abomination ] Heb. piggûl , a word which occurs here and in Leviticus 19:7 of the flesh of the Peace-Offering which is eaten on the third day, and elsewhere only in Isaiah 65:4 , broth of abominable things (Heb. piggûlim ); Ezekiel 4:14 , abominable flesh (Heb. flesh of Piggûl ). In both these passages food of an unclean character, perhaps mixed with blood, is referred to (cp. Rel. Sem .2, 343, note 3). The word is a common technical term in the Mishna. It is unfortunate that both here and in Leviticus 7:21 ‘abomination,’ which is generally the translation of tô‘çbhah , should be employed as the English equivalent of two other Heb. words, but it is difficult to find a good English word for piggûl . Leviticus 7:18

And if any of the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace offerings be eaten at all on the third day, it shall not be accepted, neither shall it be imputed unto him that offereth it: it shall be an abomination, and the soul that eateth of it shall {i} bear his iniquity. (i) The sin for which he offered shall remain.

It was proper that the sacrificial meat should not be polluted by any approach to putrefaction. But the exclusion of a mean-spirited economy may further have furnished the ground for the distinction between the thank-offerings and the others. The most liberal distribution of the meat of the offering, particularly among the poor who were invited to partake, would plainly be becoming when the sacrifice was intended especially to express gratitude for mercies received.

(18) And if any of the flesh . . . be eaten. —The owner of the sacrifice was responsible for the due observance of this injunction. If, through his neglect, any one ate of the sacrifice after the limited time here specified, the efficacy of the sacrifice was disannulled, and the offerer had to bring another votive offering. It shall be an abomination.—That is, the flesh left so long in the Eastern climate begins to putrefy, and becomes loathsome and offensive on the third day; so that which is holy becomes desecrated.And the soul that eateth of it.—Hence he who ate it after the prescribed time was regarded as eating carrion, he bore his guilt, i.e., incurred the penalty of excision.Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary7:11-27 As to the peace-offerings, in the expression of their sense of mercy, God left them more at liberty, than in the expression of their sense of sin; that their sacrifices, being free-will offerings, might be the more acceptable, while, by obliging them to bring the sacrifices of atonement, God shows the necessity of the great Propitiation. The main reason why blood was forbidden of old, was because the Lord had appointed blood for an atonement. This use, being figurative, had its end in Christ, who by his death and blood-shedding caused the sacrifices to cease. Therefore this law is not now in force on believers.Barnes' Notes on the BibleIt was proper that the sacrificial meat should not be polluted by any approach to putrefaction.

But the exclusion of a mean-spirited economy may further have furnished the ground for the distinction between the thank-offerings and the others. The most liberal distribution of the meat of the offering, particularly among the poor who were invited to partake, would plainly be becoming when the sacrifice was intended especially to express gratitude for mercies received. Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary18. if any of the flesh of the sacrifice … be eaten at all on the third day, it shall not be accepted, neither … imputed—The sacrifice will not be acceptable to God nor profitable to him that offers it.Matthew Poole's Commentary It shall not be imputed unto him for an acceptable service to God. Gill's Exposition of the Entire BibleAnd if any of the flesh of his peace offerings be eaten at all on the third day,.... Any part of it, even the least: it shall not be accepted; as a sacrifice well pleasing to God; he will take no delight in it, or express any satisfaction therein; but, on the contrary, reject it with abhorrence: neither shall it be imputed to him that offereth it; the Targum of Jonathan adds, for merit or righteousness; it shall not be accounted a righteous action, or the offerer receive any benefit by it: it shall be an abomination; to God, the flesh being kept so long, through a sordid and stubborn disposition: and the soul that eateth of it shall bear his iniquity; it shall not be forgiven him; he shall bear the punishment of it.

The flesh of the praise-offering was to be eaten on the day of presentation, and none of it was to be left till the next morning (cf. Leviticus 22:29-30 ); but that of the vow and freewill-offerings might be eaten on both the first and second days. Whatever remained after that was to be burnt on the third day, i.e., to be destroyed by burning. If any was eaten on the third day, it was not well-pleasing (ירצה "good pleasure," see Leviticus 1:4 ), and was "not reckoned to the offerer," sc., as a sacrifice well-pleasing to God; it was "an abomination." פּגּוּל, an abomination, is only applied to the flesh of the sacrifices ( Leviticus 19:7 ; Ezekiel 4:14 ; Isaiah 65:4 ), and signifies properly a stench; - compare the talmudic word פּגּל faetidum reddere. Whoever ate thereof would bear his sin (see Leviticus 5:1 ). "The soul that eateth" is not to be restricted, as Knobel supposes, to the other participators in the sacrificial meal, but applies to the offerer also, in fact to every one who partook of such flesh. The burning on the third day was commanded, not to compel the offerer to invite the poor to share in the meal (Theodoret, Clericus, etc.), but to guard against the danger of a desecration of the meal.

The sacrificial flesh was holy ( Exodus 29:34 ); and in Leviticus 19:8 , where this command is repeated, (Note: There is no foundation for Knobel's assertion, that in Leviticus 19:5. another early lawgiver introduces a milder regulation with regard to the thank-offering, and allows all the thank-offerings to be eaten on the second day. For Leviticus 19:5. does not profess to lay down a universal rule with regard to all the thank-offerings, but presupposes our law, and simply enforces its regulations with regard to the vow and freewill-offerings, and threatens transgressors with severe punishment.) eating it on the third day is called a profanation of that which was holy to Jehovah, and ordered to be punished with extermination. It became a desecration of what was holy, through the fact that in warm countries, if flesh is not most carefully preserved by artificial means, it begins to putrefy, or becomes offensive (פּגּוּל) on the third day. But to eat flesh that was putrid or stinking, would be like eating unclean carrion, or the נבלה with which putrid flesh is associated in Ezekiel 4:14. It was for this reason that burning was commanded, as Philo (de vict. p. 842) and Maimonides (More Neboch iii. 46) admit; though the former also associates with this the purpose mentioned above, which we decidedly reject (cf. Outram l.c. p. 185 seq., and Bhr, ii. pp. 375-6).