Leviticus 7:16

Lev 7:16 But if the sacrifice of his offering [be] a vow, or a voluntary offering, it shall be eaten the same day that he offereth his sacrifice: and on the morrow also the remainder of it shall be eaten:

Ver. 16. And on the morrow also.] This was not allowed in a thank offering. {Lev 7:15} Hereby God would teach them, that he must be worshipped as himself appointeth, and not as they in their reason should think fit.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Lev 7:16. If the sacrifice be a vow — Offered in performance of a vow, the offerer having desired some special favour from God, and vowed the sacrifice to God if he would grant it. A voluntary offering, which a person offered freely to God, in testimony of his faith and love, not being under the obligation of any particular vow of his own, or command from God. On the morrow also the remainder shall be eaten — Which was not allowed in the case of the thank-offering. The reason of which is to be fetched only from God’s good pleasure and will, to which he expects our obedience, though we discern not the reason of his appointments.

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

7:16-18 In contrast to the “peace offering of thanksgiving,” which was presented as an expression of thanks to the Lord (7:12-15), the offering to fulfill a vow related to a vow made by a worshiper. The festive meal that followed was more relaxed and could extend into the next day. However, because the vow offering involved a vow made to God, it was still more restrictive than the voluntary offering, which could even use a deformed animal (22:23).

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

If he makes a vow to offer: for else the flesh of the peace offerings must be eaten the same day.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

(16) Be a vow or a voluntary offering.—The vow and the voluntary offering which constitute the second class of peace offerings are both entirely voluntary. The distinction between them, as defined by the canon law, which obtained in the time of Christ, is as follows :—A vow (nçdçr) is an obligation voluntarily imposed upon oneself with the formula, “Behold, I take it upon myself to bring a bullock, &c., for a peace offering.” This undertaking is binding upon the person till he fulfils it. Hence, if the bullock in question dies, or is stolen, or becomes disqualified for a sacrifice, he must bring another. A free-will offering (nedabah) simply pledges voluntarily a certain animal for a peace offering, with the formula, “ Behold, this animal I devote for a peace offering.” Hence, if the animal in question dies, or is stolen, or has otherwise become disqualified for sacrifice, the obligation ceases, since it does not extend beyond the animal thus devoted.

It shall be eaten the same day.—As both these votive offerings were an indirect mode of supplication having respect to future favours, and hence were not a spontaneous expression of pious devotion, they were not so sacred as the former. They were, therefore, allowed to be eaten both on the day of presentation and on the following day.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

But the remainder of the flesh of the sacrifice on the third day,.... What remained of it uneaten on the second day, and was kept till the third:

shall be burnt with fire; that it might neither corrupt, nor be put to superstitious uses, nor be of any profit in any respect; that so niggardliness and distrust of the care of Providence might be discouraged: perhaps some respect may be had in the type to the resurrection of Christ on the third day, having seen no corruption.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

The vow-offering appears to have been a peace-offering vowed upon a certain condition; the voluntary-offering, one offered as the simple tribute of a devout heart rejoicing in peace with God and man offered on no external occasion (compare Lev 22:17-25).

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

It. The victim of thanksgiving was more worthy, as it proceeded from a more disinterested motive. (Menochius) --- Such victims as were perfectly voluntary might be received, though they had some defect, chap. xxii. 23.

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

Be a vow; offered in performance of a vow, the man having desired some special favour from God, and vowed the sacrifice to God if he would grant it. A

voluntary offering, which a malt freely offered to God, in testimony of his faith and love to God, without any particular injunction from God, or design of his own special advantage thereby. See Lev 22:23; Eze 46:12.

On the morrow also the remainder of it shall be eaten, which was not allowed for the thankoffering; the reason of which difference is to be fetched only from God’s good pleasure and will, to which he expects our obedience, though we discern not the reason of his appointments.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

16. A vow, or a voluntary offering — See Lev_7:11, note. Since these were inferior offerings, they were considered less sacred. Hence two days were allowed for eating them. There was little difficulty in this matter where friends were numerous and near. The requirement to eat within one or two days would often induce the offerer to invite the poor to this religious banquet. Theodoret, Clericus, and others, assert that the limit of two days was designed to compel the worshipper to invite the poor to his religious banquet. It is more probable that it is a safeguard against the desecration of holy things.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Vers. 16-27. The sanctity of the service of God.

The peace offering may be offered for thanksgiving, in which case it has appropriate ceremonies (verses 12-15). There is also the peace offering of a vow, the ceremonies of which are the same as those of the voluntary offering. (verse 16; also Lev_19:5-8) In connection with this subject, we are admonished of the sanctity of the service of God; and similar admonitions arc given in what follows.

I WE SEE THIS SANCTITY IN THE SANCTIONS OF THE LAW OF THE PEACE OFFERING.

1. Consider the precept.

(1) Look at it in the letter. "It shall be eaten the same day that he offereth his sacrifice." The same day in which the fat is burnt on the altar, the flesh is consumed by the worshipper and his friends. What remains must be eaten on the morrow. If any remain over to the third day, it must not then be eaten, but burnt with fire.

(2) The first reason for this is hygienic. The flesh would, of course, be wholesome on the day it was killed, and so it would continue to be on the day following. But on the third day, in a hot climate, it would tend to corruption. The laws of health are well considered in the Levitical system, upon which account the study of that system may be commended to the votaries of social science.

(3) But there must be a deeper reason still, else the penalties would not be so formidable as they are. The peace offering was undoubtedly a type of Christ in his passion. (Eph_2:13-18) Our Lord was two days in the tomb after his death without seeing corruption. Then rising from the dead on the third day, the typical sacrifices of the Law, having answered their end, were abolished, This abolition was foreshadowed in the burning of what remained of the peace offering on the third day. (1Co_15:3) To eat of the typical peace offering on the third day would be therefore highly improper, as it would suggest return to the "beggarly elements" after the "bringing in of the better hope". (Gal_3:3 Gal_4:9-11, Gal_4:30, 31 5:1-4)

(4) If the" third day" represent the Christian dispensation in which typical sacrifices are done away, how are we to view the "two days" during which they were serviceable? There were exactly two great dispensations before the Christian, in which typical sacrifices were ordained, viz. first, the Patriarchal, from Adam to Moses; and secondly, the Levitical, from Moses to Christ.

2. Consider the penalties.

(1) If the flesh of the peace offering be eaten on the third day, the sacrifice "shall not be accepted." The reason will now be obvious. In the third, or gospel, dispensation, there is a better Sacrifice. Typical sacrifices are now out of place and worthless, since the Antitype is come.

(2) "It shall not be imputed to him that offereth it." The typical sacrifices were useful in procuring the "forbearance of God" until the true atonement should be made; but now it is made, Christ will profit them nothing who return to the Law,

(3) "He shall bear his sin." He shall be treated as the sacrifice was treated. He shall himself be sacrificed for his own sin.

II THIS SANCTITY IS FURTHER SEEN IN THE PENALTIES IMPOSED IN OTHER CASES. Thus:

1. When the flesh of sacrifice is unlawfully eaten.

(1) This would happen if it had touched "any unclean thing" (verse 19). Instead of being eaten, it should then be "burnt with fire." The teaching is that an unclean thing is of no use for purposes of atonement. The sacrifice of Christ could not be accepted were he not immaculate.

(2) It would happen if the cater were unclean. "As for the flesh, all that be clean shall eat thereof" (Hebrew, "The flesh of all that is clean shall eat the flesh"), i.e. , every clean person shall eat the flesh of his peace offering. As Christ is without spot of sin, so is his flesh meat only to the holy. "But the soul" etc. (verses 20, 21). To the wicked, the very gospel becomes the savour of death. (1Co_11:29 2Co_2:15, 2Co_2:16)

2. When holy things are profaned.

(1) When the fat is eaten (verse 23) the fat of such animals as were offered in sacrifice. There is no law against the eating of the fat of the roebuck or the hart. And that portion of the fat which was offered in sacrifice. The fat mingled with the flesh, which was not burnt on the altar, was not forbidden. There must be the most careful avoidance of whatever would profane the sacrifice of Christ. The fat even of an animal of the sacrificial kind, which by any accident might be rendered unfit for sacrifice, must not be eaten (verse 24). The moral here is that the very appearance of evil must be avoided.

(2) When the blood is eaten. This law is universal. Blood, viz. of every description of animal, is forbidden. The Jews properly expound this law as forbidding the blood of the life as distinguished from the gravy . And the reason given for the prohibition is that the life maketh atonement for the life. Our life, which is redeemed by the life of Jesus sacrificed for us, must be wholly given to God. The highest sanctity is associated with the blood of Christ.

(3) "That soul shall be cut off from his people" (verses 20, 21, 25, 27). The penalty in all these cases is extreme. It means separation from religious and civil privileges, if not also death. The penalties of the Mosaic Law terminated in the death of the body; but "a much sorer punishment" is reserved for those who despise and desecrate the blood of Christ. J.A.M. (Heb_10:28, Heb_10:29)

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

A vow - Offered in performance of a vow, the man having desired some special favour from God, and vowed the sacrifice to God if he would grant it. On the morrow also - Which was not allowed for the thank-offering.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

ואם נדר או נדבה BUT IF [THE SACRIFICE OF HIS OFFERING BE] A VOW OR A FREE WILL OFFERING — i. e., that he does not bring it as an acknowledgement of some miraculous deliverance (cf. Rashi v. 12), then it does ‘not require the offering of bread and may be eaten during two days as is set forth in the section.

וממחרת והנותר ממנו AND ON THE MORROW ALSO THE REMAINDER OF IT — i. e. what remained on the first day, יאכל MAY BE EATEN; — this ו (that of והנותר) is redundant (the text being equivalent to וממחרת הנותר ממנו יאכל); there are many similar examples in Scripture: (Genesis 36:24) “And these are the sons of Zibean: And Ajah (ואיה) and Anah”; (Daniel 8:13): “to give and the Sanctuary (וקדש) and the host to be trampled under foot”.

Rashi on the Tanakh — English translations: “The Judaica Press complete Tanach with Rashi, translated by A. J. Rosenberg” (CC BY 4.0); “Pentateuch with Rashi's commentary by M. Rosenbaum and A.M. Silbermann, 1929-1934” (public domain); “The Metsudah Tanach series, Lakewood, N.J” (CC BY 4.0); and “The Book of Joshua, Metsudah Publications, 1997” (CC BY 4.0). Text via Sefaria.

AND ON THE MORROW ‘V’HANOTHAR’ (AND THAT WHICH REMAINETH) OF IT SHALL BE EATEN. “The letter vav [in the word v’hanothar — ‘and’ that which remaineth] is redundant [thus the meaning of the verse is: “and on the morrow, that which remaineth of it shall be eaten”]. There are many examples of this in Scripture, such as: and these are the children of Zibeon: ‘v’ayah’ (and Ajah) and Anah. in v’ayah (“and” Ajah) is redundant. See in Vol. I, p. 440. So also: to give ‘v’kodesh’ (‘and’ the Sanctuary) and the host to be trampled upon.” in v’kodesh (“and” the Sanctuary) is here redundant. This is Rashi’s language, and so did Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra interpret the verse.In my opinion the meaning of the verse is as follows: Since He said, it shall be eaten on the day that he offereth his offering, and on the morrow, this might imply that it is a commandment that it [the peace-offering] be eaten in two days, [namely] that he should eat part of it on the first day, and should leave part of it to be eaten on the morrow. Therefore He explained again, ‘and’ that which remaineth is to be eaten on the first day and also on the morrow [if by chance it was not all eaten on the first day]. But he is not to leave some over intentionally, nor is he permitted to leave it all over to be eaten on the second day. Rather, it is a commandment that he should eat it on the first day, and that which is left over by chance, should be eaten on the morrow previously mentioned.This matter we have learned from the words of our Rabbis, who have said in the Torath Kohanim: 12:11-12. “On the day that he offereth it, shall it be eaten. It is a commandment that it be eaten thereof during the first day. I might think that he is commanded to eat the whole of it; Scripture therefore says, and on the morrow. I might then think that it is a commandment to eat it in two days; Scripture therefore states, and that which remaineth — if it remains, it remains [i.e., it may still be eaten]. If [we are to go by the expression] and that which remaineth, I might think that if he left it all over for the second day it is invalid [since that does not come under the term “remaineth” which indicates only a part thereof]; Scripture therefore says [that which remaineth of it] shall be eaten, even all of it.” And even if you hold the vav in v’hanothar (and that which remaineth) to be redundant, [as Rashi explained], the verse can also be explained to mean: “and on the morrow that which remained of it [from the first day] may be eaten,” but not that he is to leave it over intentionally.But I do not know why Rashi held the vav of the verse, to give ‘v’kodesh’ (‘and’ the Sanctuary) and the host to be trampled upon in v’kodesh (“and” the Sanctuary) is here redundant. to be redundant, since the meaning of the verse is that [the angel] is asking: “How long shall the transgression give appalment, and how long shall the Sanctuary and the host be trampled underfoot?” in v’kodesh thus stands for the repetition of the phrase ad mathai (how long), and is therefore not redundant.

Ramban (Nachmanides) on the Tanakh — English translation: “Commentary on the Torah by Ramban (Nachmanides). Translated and annotated by Charles B. Chavel. New York, Shilo Pub. House, 1971-1976” (CC BY 4.0). Text via Sefaria.