Leviticus 7

"And this is," it says, "the law of the ram which is for the trespass; the holy of holies. In the place in which they slaughter the whole burnt offerings, they shall also slaughter the ram which is for the trespass, before the Lord" and so forth. In the divine Scriptures it seems that frequently sin is named for trespass and trespass for sin indifferently and without any distinction; in this passage, however, it is found to be distinguished. For when above, in the victim "for sin", it had delivered the rite and order of the sacrifice, now it separately enjoins a sacrifice "for the trespass"; and although all things are enjoined in the same order and with the same observance, and it adds at the very end: "as that which is for sin, so also that which is for trespass; there shall be one law for them", yet it wished to show that there is some difference in those things for which it enjoined divided sacrifices. In which I for my part think that the trespass committed is somewhat lighter than the sin. For we find it said of sin that there is "a sin unto death", but of trespass we do not read that it is said to be unto death. I know, however, also that distinction which has seemed good to some of the wise, that a trespass is when we do not do the things we ought to do; but a sin is when we commit the things we ought not to commit. But since we do not always find these things under this distinction in the divine Scriptures, therefore we cannot affirm it as a general rule. Therefore, in the same manner and by the same tradition, the sacrifice which is offered "for the trespass" is to be understood as we above expounded concerning that which is "for sin". For similarly there are commanded to be placed upon the altar "these fats of the ram which are around the kidneys, and those which cover the inward parts"; so that you too, who hear these things, may know that everything within you that is grosser and covers your "inward parts" you ought to offer to the fire of the altar, so that all your "inward parts" may be purged, and you too may say, as David also said: "bless the Lord, O my soul, and all my inward parts his holy name". For unless that grossness which covers your "inward parts" is removed, they cannot grasp a subtle and spiritual sense, nor can they grasp the understanding of wisdom, and therefore they cannot praise the Lord. But if everything that is fat is removed from the kidneys and from all the inward parts of the entrails, then truly, purged of every vice of lust, you have slain the victim "for the trespass" and have offered a sacrifice "to God for an odor of sweetness". "The priest's," it says, "who offers it and shall make propitiation for the trespass, it shall be his". Let the priests of the Lord who preside over the churches learn that a share is given to them with those whose trespasses they shall have propitiated. But what is it to "propitiate a trespass"? If you take up a sinner and, by admonishing, exhorting, teaching, instructing, lead him to repentance, correct him from error, amend him from vices, and make him such that God becomes propitious to him upon his conversion, you will be said to have "propitiated for the trespass". If, then, you are such a priest, and such is your teaching and your discourse, a share is given to you of those whom you shall have corrected; so that their merit is your reward and their salvation your glory. Or does not the Apostle too show this, where he says: "what a man has built upon, he shall receive a reward"? Let the priests of the Lord therefore understand where a portion has been given to them, and let them be free for this and give their labor to these things. Let them not entangle themselves in vain and superfluous doings, but let them know that they will have a part with God in nothing else except in that which they offer "for sins", that is, in that they have turned sinners from the way of sin. This too is to be noted, that the things which are offered in the "whole burnt offering" are the "inward parts"; but that which is exterior is not offered to the Lord. The skin is not offered to the Lord, nor does it go into the "whole burnt offerings". Such was also that son of Judah who was called Er, which is interpreted "skin". Therefore "he was most wicked, and God slew him", because such as these are not offered to the Lord.

What is the tail, except the end of the body? And that man sacrifices well who continues his offering of good works right to the end of the required action. So the tail of a beast must be offered on the altar so that we will carry out to the end every good work that we begin. Exposition of the Old and New Testament, Leviticus

What is the tail, except the end of the body? And that man sacrifices well who continues his offering of good works right to the end of the required action. So the tail of a beast must be offered on the altar so that we will carry out to the end every good work that we begin.

"And every sacrifice which is made in the oven, and everything which is made on the gridiron or in the frying-pan, shall be the priest's who offers it; it shall be his". What do we say? Are we to suppose that almighty God, who gave responses to Moses from heaven, gave precepts about the "oven" and the "gridiron" and the "frying-pan", so that the people might learn through Moses that through these God would become propitious to them, if they fried certain things "in the frying-pan", cooked certain things "in the oven", roasted certain things "on the gridiron"? But "not so" did the children of the Church "learn Christ", nor were they "instructed in him" through the Apostles in such a way, that they should suppose anything so lowly and so cheap concerning "the Lord of majesty". Rather, according to the spiritual sense which the Spirit gives to the Church, let us see what that "sacrifice" is "which is cooked in the oven", or what that "oven" ought to be understood to be. But where shall I find on a sudden the divine Scripture which may teach me what the "oven" is? I must call upon my Lord Jesus, that he may make me who seek to find, and open to me who knock, so that I may find in the Scriptures the "oven" where I may cook my sacrifice, so that God may receive it. And indeed I think I have found it in the prophet Hosea, where he says: "all committing adultery, like an oven heated for burning", and again: "their hearts," he says, "grew hot like an oven". The heart of man, then, is the "oven". But this heart, if vices set it ablaze or the devil inflames it, will not cook, but will burn up. But if he set it ablaze who said: "I came to cast fire upon the earth", then the loaves of the divine Scriptures and of the words of God, which I receive in my heart, I do not burn up to destruction, but cook for a sacrifice. And perhaps those things are said to be cooked "in the oven" which are "inward" and hidden and cannot easily be brought forth to the common crowd; for there are many things of this kind in the divine Scriptures, as in Ezekiel, when there is described something either of the cherubim or of God and of that magnificent vision. These things, if they are not cooked "in the oven", cannot be eaten as they are, raw. For it is not to be believed that there is some animal set in the form of a lion, on which God is carried, or another in the form of a calf or an eagle. These things, then, and whatever is of this kind, are not to be brought forth raw, but are to be cooked in the "oven" of the heart. Three, therefore, are these in which it says that sacrifices ought to be prepared, "in the oven, in the frying-pan, on the gridiron", and I think that the "oven", according to its form, signifies the deeper things and those which are unspeakable in the divine Scriptures; the "frying-pan" those which, if they are frequently and often turned over, can be understood and explained; but the "gridiron" those which are plain and are discerned without any covering. For we have often said that a threefold mode of understanding is found in the divine Scriptures: the historical, the moral, the mystical; whence we have understood that there is in it a body and a soul and a spirit. And the threefold form of this understanding the threefold preparation of the sacrifices here shows. But elsewhere too we find — that is, in these very things which are recorded about the sacrifices — mention of "the holy basket of consecration", in which three loaves are commanded to be held. Do you see how all the forms of the sacraments accord with one another? The "basket of consecration", in which three loaves are commanded to be placed, what else ought we to understand it to be than the divine Scriptures, setting food before their hearers in a threefold manner? Do you wish us to bring forth for you examples of a similar mystery from the gospels too? Let us recall the words of the Lord, where he says that "at midnight" a certain man came to his friend, knocking at his door, and said: "friend, lend me three loaves, since a friend of mine has come to me from a journey, and I have nothing to set before him". In which, to touch briefly upon it, the night is this time of life, and the three loaves are: one which is cooked "in the oven", another "in the frying-pan", the third "on the gridiron".

After these things: "and every sacrifice," it says, "made in oil or not made shall belong to all the sons of Aaron, to each equally". What sacrifice is "made in oil" or which is that "not made in oil"? The "sacrifice of the peace offering" is commanded to be made "in oil", as we have already said above. But the "sacrifice for sin" is not made "in oil"; for it says: "he shall not put oil upon it, since it is for sin". That, then, which is "for sin", neither is the "oil of gladness" put upon it nor the incense of sweetness; for concerning those who sin the Apostle says: "and I shall mourn those who have sinned before and have not done penance". Nor is there in it the "odor of sweetness", because from the person of the sinner it is said: "my scars have rotted and are corrupted". These things for the time being have been observed by us concerning the earlier chapter, where the law of the sacrifice is written "for the trespass". But I do not doubt that there are many things which lie hidden from us and surpass our sense. For we are not of such merit that we too can say: "but we have the mind of Christ". For he alone is the "mind" to whom all things lie open which in the laws of the sacrifices are contained within the secret of the letter. For if I deserved that the "mind of Christ" be given to me, I too would say in these things: "that we may know the things that have been given to us by God; which things we also speak". But now, content with the smallness of our sense, let us see the beginning of the second chapter.

"This is," it says, "the law of the sacrifice of the peace offering, which they shall offer to the Lord. If indeed he offers it for a thanksgiving, he shall also bring to the sacrifice loaves of thanksgiving made of fine flour in oil, and unleavened wafers anointed with oil, and fine meal mingled with oil. Upon leavened loaves he shall offer his gifts, because it is the sacrifice of thanksgiving of his peace offering. And he shall offer of it one from all his gifts as a separation to the Lord; it shall belong to the priest who pours out the blood of the peace offering; and the flesh of the sacrifice of thanksgiving of the peace offering, it shall be his; and on the day on which the gift is offered, they shall eat it, and they shall not leave any of it until the morning". This sacrifice, which is called "the peace offering", it divides into two parts, and one indeed it names of "thanksgiving", the other of "vow", yet each is named "the peace offering". But since it is not for us now to reinstate the sacrifices according to the letter, let us seek within ourselves who is so great and such a one as to offer to God "a sacrifice of the peace offering" and "a sacrifice of praise". I judge him to be the one who in all his deeds causes God to be praised, and through whom is fulfilled that which our Lord and Savior says: "that men may see your good works and glorify your Father who is in heaven". He, then, has offered "a sacrifice of praise", for whose deeds, for whose teaching, for whose word and character and discipline God is praised and blessed; just as, on the contrary, there are those of whom it is said: "through you my name is blasphemed among the nations". Observe, however, here too, how "loaves made of fine flour in oil" and "unleavened wafers anointed with oil" and "fine flour mingled with oil" are set forth, and again by a threefold sacrament the peace victim is offered, and at the last: "it shall belong," it says, "to the priest who pours out the blood of the peace offering". Above it said: "it shall belong to the priest who shall make propitiation"; here: "it shall belong to the priest who pours out the blood of the sacrifice of the peace offering". It uses a fitting order; for first propitiation is to be sought, and after these things "the sacrifice of the peace offering" is to be offered. For there can be salvation to no one unless he first makes the Lord propitious to himself. "But the flesh also," it says, "of the sacrifice of thanksgiving of the peace offering shall be his". We have already often said that flesh in the Scriptures indicates "solid food" and perfect doctrine. For according to the Scriptures I know that there is a certain food of the soul of "milk", and another food of the soul of "vegetables", and another of flesh, as the Apostle himself says of certain persons: "I have given you milk to drink, not meat. For you were not yet able, but neither are you yet able. For you are still carnal"; and again elsewhere he says: "one indeed believes he may eat all things; but he who is weak, let him eat vegetables"; and again elsewhere: "but solid food is for the perfect" and so forth. Here, then, the flesh "of the sacrifice of the peace offering, which is offered for thanksgiving", is commanded to be the priest's own. But of the fine flour offered in a threefold manner, as we said above, only one, that which shall have pleased, is assigned to the priest; the rest belongs to the layman who offers, yet in such a way that they be eaten within the day and nothing of them remain "until the morning". The flesh, then, in which there is "solid food" and perfect knowledge, is assigned to the priests, because they ought to be perfect in all things, in doctrine, in virtues, in character. For if they do not have this in themselves, they shall not eat of the flesh of the sacrifices. But that one thing, which is separated as chief from the three that were commanded of the fine flour, in this I judge that portion of knowledge to be designated of which we spoke above, which indicates the perfect and deep doctrine. But you may perhaps ask, since above it utterly rejected leaven from the sacrifices, how it now commands the sacrifice to be placed "upon leavened loaves"? But observe more carefully that the "leavened loaf" is taken up not for the sacrifice, but for the ministry of the sacrifice. What this then may be, come, let us see. The Lord in the gospels calls the human doctrine of the Pharisees, "who handed down traditions", the precepts of men, "leaven", when he says to the disciples: "beware of the leaven of the Pharisees". Similarly, then, human doctrine is, for example, the art of grammar, or rhetoric, or even dialectic. From which doctrine nothing indeed is to be taken up for the sacrifice, that is, in the things that are to be thought concerning God; but lucid speech and the splendor of eloquence and the method of disputation are fittingly commanded to be admitted to the ministry of the word of God. Or did not he who said: "evil conversations corrupt good morals" and: "the Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy bellies" and other things similar to these, taken from the leaven of the Greeks — did he not have the sacrifice of the word of God placed upon this leaven?

But as to what it says: "it shall be eaten within the day, nor shall it be left over of it until the morning", let us compare it with the other sacrifices and let us see what the reason is that in this peace sacrifice indeed it commanded "the things that are offered" to be "eaten on the same day", but in another sacrifice it allows them to be kept even to the second day and up to the third, but on the third day the things that remain over to be already delivered to the fire, lest they defile the one who offers. What, then, this difference may hold, let us see. But truly we need the help of God, who may deign to cut away all the "fats covering" our "inward parts" and to remove every veil of grosser sense, so that we may be able to perceive these things according to that which is said to be commanded by God. Let us therefore compare the divine Scripture itself with itself, and let us follow the path of solution which it shall have opened to us. For we find in the sacrifice of the Passover, which is commanded to be immolated "in the evening", a command similarly given that "nothing remain of the flesh until the morning". This is not idle, that the divine word does not wish us to eat yesterday's flesh, but always fresh and new — those especially who immolate to God the sacrifice of the Passover or "the sacrifice of praise"; it commands them to eat new and fresh flesh of that very day, and forbids yesterday's. I have recalled that the prophet Ezekiel too says something similar, when the Lord had commanded him to cook loaves for himself "in human dung". For he answered the Lord and said: "O Lord, never has my soul been defiled, and carrion or anything unclean has not entered into my mouth. But neither has yesterday's flesh entered into my mouth". Concerning which I often used to inquire within myself, what this exultation of the prophet might be, by which he brought forth before God as something great and said: "I have never eaten yesterday's flesh". But, as I see, taught from this and imbued with these mysteries, the prophet spoke thus to the Lord: I am not so cast down and degenerate a priest as to "feed on yesterday's", that is, on old "flesh". Hear these things, all you priests of the Lord, and understand more attentively what is said. The flesh which from the sacrifices is assigned to the priests is "the word of God" which they teach in the Church. For this, then, they are admonished by mystical figures, that when they begin to bring forth discourse to the people, they should not bring forth "yesterday's", should not speak forth old things which are according to the letter, but through the grace of God should always bring forth new things and always find spiritual things. For if the things which you learned from the Jews yesterday you bring forth today in the Church, this is to eat the yesterday's flesh of the sacrifice. If you remember, the lawgiver used the same expression also in the offering of the first fruits, that they be, he says, "new and fresh". You see that everywhere the things which pertain to the praises of God — for this is "the sacrifice of praise" — ought to be "new and fresh", lest perchance, when you bring forth old things in the Church, your lips speak and your "mind be without fruit". But hear what the Apostle says: "if," he says, "I speak with tongues, my spirit prays, but my mind is without fruit. What then is it? I will pray," he says, "with the spirit, I will pray also with the mind, I will say a psalm with the spirit, I will say a psalm also with the mind". So therefore you too, if not out of spiritual learning, out of the doctrine of the grace of God, you bring forth a present and fresh discourse in the praises of God, your mouth indeed offers "a sacrifice of praise", but your mind is convicted for the barrenness of yesterday's flesh. For the Lord too did not put off the bread which he gave to the disciples, saying to them: "take and eat", nor did he order it to be reserved for the morrow. This mystery perhaps is contained also in that he "does not command bread to be carried on the way", so that you may always bring forth fresh the loaves of the word of God which you bear within you. Finally, those Gibeonites are for this reason condemned and become "hewers of wood or carriers of water", because they brought old loaves to the Israelites, whom the spiritual law commanded always to use fresh and new ones. There is indeed another figure of the sacraments which commands that what has remained over be eaten also "on the second day", but nothing be reserved "for the third"; which we shall see in its proper places. But let not even this lie hidden from us, that there is a certain time in which it is a blessing to feed on old things. For concerning the seventh year, which is called "the year of remission" or the sabbatical, it is thus said: "you shall eat," it says, "old things and the old of the old". Then, under the mystery of the seventh year, as we said, it is a blessing to "eat old things", but now it is forbidden. But it is much of a digression to have such excursions through each of these things and, on the occasion of the testimonies, to wander further afield, since the explanation of the sacrifices is now in hand.

It is said, then, in what follows: "but if it be a vow, or if he sacrifice his gift voluntarily, on whatever day he shall have offered his sacrifice, it shall be eaten, and on the following day. And what remains over of the flesh of the sacrifice until the third day shall be burned with fire. But if by eating anyone eats of the flesh on the third day, it shall not be accepted from him who offers it, it shall not be reckoned to him, it is a defilement. And whatever soul eats of it shall bear the sin". This is doubtless what David too says in the Psalms: "let his prayer become sin", when not only nothing of merit, but even much of guilt is sought from the sacrifices. For you hear the lawgiver decree that, if anyone eats of that "which has remained over to the third day, he shall bear the sin". Whence it is to be recognized how great a stain of sins threatens the human condition, since sin arises even from that place where the victim of propitiation is offered. Considering these things, I believe, blessed David said in the Psalms: "who understands sins?". The sacrifice, then, of "vow" or of "will" is that which it is lawful to feed on even "on the second day", but is utterly forbidden on the third. But it gives a remedy to the negligent: if, it says, you are weak and unable to finish all the flesh of the sacrifice on the second day, eat nothing of these on the third day, but deliver to the fire "what remains". For if you wish to eat of the sacrifice after two days, you will bear the sin. I, so far as the capacity of my sense holds, think that in this pair of days the two testaments can be understood, in which it is permitted for every word which pertains to God — for this is the sacrifice — to be sought and examined, and from these to take up all knowledge of things; but if anything "remains over" which the divine Scripture does not decree, no other, third Scripture ought to be received to the authority of knowledge — because this is named the third day — but let us deliver to the fire "what remains", that is, let us reserve it for God. For neither in the present life did God wish us to know all things, especially since the Apostle too says this: "we know in part and we prophesy in part; but when that which is perfect shall have come, those things which are in part shall be destroyed". This, then, is the fire to which we ought to keep the things that "remain over to the third day", and not, with rashness presumed, take up for ourselves the knowledge of all things, so that it be deservedly said to us by the same Apostle: "not knowing either the things which they say or the things concerning which they affirm". Lest, then, perchance our sacrifice not become accepted, and this very thing, that we desire to take up knowledge from the divine Scriptures, be turned for us into sin, let us keep those measures which the spiritual law announces to us through the lawgiver.

"And any flesh that has been touched by anything unclean shall not be eaten, it shall be burned with fire. Everyone who is clean shall eat the flesh; and whatever soul eats the flesh of the sacrifice of the peace offering, which is the Lord's, and his uncleanness is in him, that soul shall perish from his people. And whatever soul touches any unclean thing, whether from the uncleanness of a man or of unclean quadrupeds or from any unclean abomination, and eats of the flesh of the sacrifice of the peace offering, which is the Lord's, that soul shall perish from his people". The lawgiver here has set forth threefold causes of uncleanness. One, that the "flesh" of the sacrifices not be touched by any "uncleanness". Another, that he who eats the "flesh of the sacrifice" not be unclean and "his uncleanness be in him". The third, that, even if the flesh be clean and he who eats be himself clean, yet that "anything unclean not have touched it" — whether from beasts or from birds or from all the things which have been pronounced unclean. And this indeed is the will of the law sanctioning concerning the rite of the bodily sacrifices. But according to the order of our exposition, where the holy flesh is understood to be the divine words, an observation of this kind must be held: that it often happens that clean flesh is touched by something unclean; so that, to speak by way of example, if someone makes a pure and sincere discourse concerning God the Father and concerning his only-begotten and the Holy Spirit, worthy of the mystery of the Deity, and likewise concerning all rational creatures as made by God for this end, that they might grasp and understand him — but does not, with the following mystery, also assert the resurrection of the flesh: his first discourse indeed, since he discoursed perfectly and holily, is "solid food", the flesh is holy; but this, that he adds to these things by denying the resurrection of the flesh, since it is foreign to the faith, joined to the earlier perfect and faithful words, has contaminated and polluted the holy flesh. Therefore the lawgiver commanded that flesh of this kind not be eaten, to which the "uncleanness" of some unbelief is joined. Therefore the Apostle too says: "for indeed let us celebrate the feast not in the old leaven nor in the leaven of malice and wickedness, but in the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth". The second kind of "uncleanness" is that he who eats the flesh not be unclean "and his uncleanness be in him"; which can be understood in this way, for instance, if there is someone of a flourishing nature and ardent talent, he will not at once seem apt for taking up the mysteries of the word of God, but this too is required, that he first be separated from profane deeds and unclean works, and so at last become capable of learning, if first he has been capable of holiness. Something similar to these we read written in Numbers, where the Lord gave flesh from heaven to the sons of Israel and says: "sanctify yourselves for the morrow, that you may eat flesh", showing this, that unless they had first been sanctified and made clean, God would not give them the flesh. But the lawgiver well showed the clemency of the Lord, in that he did not say: let him not eat the flesh in whom there was uncleanness, but he says: "in whom his uncleanness is in himself". For almost no one is found in whom there was not uncleanness. But one can be found in whom indeed it was, but, the law of God having been heard, it no longer is. But if his uncleanness remains in him and, these things having been heard, he does not wish to be converted and amended, "that soul," it says, "shall perish from his people". The third is the species of uncleanness, by which he who is clean "touches something unclean" and is polluted not so much by his own sin as by another's contagion; as, for instance, if someone joins himself in friendship and fellowship with a man who is spiteful or wrathful or an adulterer, and he himself indeed is not implicated by his own deeds in that man's crimes, yet sees him and understands how he hates his brother and is a murderer, or how he lies in wait for another's wife and is an adulterer, or how in various other things he is sacrilegious, and, having discovered these things, does not depart from his fellowship: this is the one who "touches something unclean", whether an animal or a bird or "carrion", and is himself polluted by another's uncleanness. But concerning the diversities of unclean things, so far as it could occur to us, we have spoken in the foregoing. Or did not the Apostle too give command according to this same form, when he says: "but now I write to you in a letter, that you not mingle, if any one who is called a brother is a fornicator or covetous or a servant of idols or a drunkard or rapacious, with such a one not even to take food"? In all which, what else is it that he commands, except that we not be polluted by others' sins and uncleannesses?

"And the Lord spoke," it says, "to Moses, saying: Speak to the sons of Israel, saying: You shall not eat any fat of oxen and of sheep and of goats. And the fat of carrion, and of what is caught from a wild beast, shall not be for any work, and shall not be eaten as food. Everyone who eats the fat of the cattle from which you offer from them a victim to the Lord, that soul shall perish from his people. And you shall not eat any blood in all your habitation, from cattle and from birds. Every soul, whatever it be, that eats blood, that soul shall perish from his people". The lawgiver refuses that the "fats" of those animals which are offered in the sacrifices, and of certain others, be eaten or held in use; but he forbids the "blood" of any flesh to be eaten. In the foregoing, treating the mystical passage where the "calf" was given as a whole burnt offering "for sin" and the fats were placed upon the altar, the blood, with which in some part the "horns" were smeared, but the rest was poured out "at the base of the altar", we took as a figure of those who are called "the remnant of Israel", and who, after "the fullness of the nations has entered in", hopes for salvation at the last. But the "fats" we said to be the soul of Christ, which is the Church "of his friends, for whom he lays down his soul". It can be, then, in this passage too, that what is commanded — that no one eat of the fats from those things which are offered to the Lord — is this which the Lord also says: "let no one scandalize one of these little ones who believe in me". But that the "blood" of no animal is commanded to be eaten, that perhaps is what the Apostle says concerning the Israelites: "you will say then: if the branches were broken off, that I might be grafted in. Well; because of unbelief they were broken off. But you stand by faith. Be not high-minded, but fear"; and again: "do not boast against the branches", namely so that no one insult their fall; lest perchance, as the same Apostle says, "you too be cut off, and they, if they do not remain in unbelief, be grafted in". But the "blood" I think may fittingly be understood to be that people. For they descend from Abraham not by faith nor by spirit, but only by his blood.

After these things: "and the Lord spoke to Moses, saying: And speak to the sons of Israel, saying: He who offers a sacrifice of his peace offering to the Lord shall offer his gift to the Lord from the sacrifice of his peace offering. His hands shall offer the victim to the Lord: the fat which is upon the little breast and the lobe of the liver, he shall offer them so that they be set as a gift before the Lord. And the priest shall place the fat which is upon the little breast upon the altar, and the little breast shall be Aaron's and his sons'. And the right arm you shall give as a separation to the priest from your peace offerings. He who offers the blood of the peace offering and the fat from the sons of Aaron, to him shall the right arm be as a portion. For the little breast of the placing and the arm of the taking-away I have received from the sons of Israel from your peace offerings, and I have given them to Aaron the priest and to his sons, as an everlasting statute from the sons of Israel". There is a sacrifice which is called "the peace offering". Which sacrifice no one offers to the Lord except he who is sound and, conscious of his own salvation, renders thanks to the Lord. No one, then, who is sick in soul and languid in works can offer "a sacrifice of the peace offering". Do you wish to see that no one sick and languid can offer this sacrifice? That leper whom in the gospel the Lord is described to have cured could not offer a victim while he was held by the sickness of leprosy; but when he came to Jesus "and was cleansed", then he is commanded by the Lord to offer gifts at the altar: "which Moses commanded," he says, "for a testimony to them". You have heard who it is that ought to offer "the victim of the peace offering"; hear now how he ought to offer. "His hands," it says, "shall offer the victim to the Lord". Does not the lawgiver plainly cry out that it is not the man who offers the victim, but "his hands", that is, his works? For it is works which commend the victim to God. For if your hand is drawn back for giving and stretched out for receiving, your leprosy is still within you and you cannot offer "the victim of the peace offering". "His hands", then, "shall offer the sacrifice of the peace offering", and "his hands" shall offer those things which are to be offered to the Lord, that is, "the fat which is upon the little breast" and "the lobe of the liver". In this passage, where we have: "his hands shall offer the victim to the Lord", in the Greek there is, for "victim", that which is understood as all fruit; by which it shows that he cannot offer to the Lord all fruit who is fruitless, who does not bring "the fruit of righteousness", the fruit of mercy, or even "the fruits of the spirit", which the Apostle enumerates, "love, joy, peace, patience, concord" and other things similar to these. Whence also in another place the prophet says: "and let your whole burnt offering be made fat". He offers, then, "the fats which are upon the little breast" and "the lobe of the liver", which are to be placed upon the altar. Concerning the fats we have already often spoken. But as to what it says: "the fats which are upon the little breast", understand your "little breast" to be your heart, from which are to be taken away from you all "evil thoughts" — for from there they proceed — and are to be delivered to the fire of the altar, so that your heart, made clean, may be able to see God. But it also commands the "lobe of the liver" to be offered. We have said before too that the region of the liver is set forth as the place of anger or of desire; he offers, then, the "lobe of the liver", who cuts out of himself every vice of wrath and fury. The "fats", then, "which are upon the little breast", are placed upon the altar, but the "little breast itself" belongs to Aaron and his sons. But it also commanded the "right arm" to be separated and to be to them in the place of a gift "from the peace sacrifice". See with what gifts the priest is honored. He receives the "little breast" and the "arm", but the "right arm". Do we suppose there is no reason that, of all the members of the animals which are slaughtered in the sacrifices, these members above all are chosen? I for my part think that, if anyone says he is a priest of God, unless he has a breast chosen out of all the members, he is not a priest; and unless he has a "right arm", he cannot ascend to the altar of the Lord nor be named a priest. What then is the priest's breast, or of what kind? I think it to be such as is full of wisdom, full of knowledge, full of every divine understanding. And why do I say full of understanding? Rather, that it be full of God; such too as is the arm of the priest, which the sons of Israel offer to him for their salvation, by which they are saved. Forms are all these single things which are written in the law, of the things which ought to be done in the Church. Otherwise it would not have been necessary for these things to be read in the Church, unless from them some edification were provided to the hearers. If, then, the priest of the Church, through his words and teaching and much solicitude and the labor of vigils, has been able to convert a sinner and to teach him to follow a better way, to return to the fear of God, to ponder the future hope, to cease from evil deeds and to be converted to good ones; if, I say, he has done such a work, it follows that he who is saved by his labor gives thanks to God and offers "the victim of the peace offering" for this, that he has obtained salvation. In which victim the priest's portion becomes the "little breast" and the "right arm", so that it may be a sign that his breast and heart, which before thought evil things, converted by the priest's labor, has received good thoughts and has been so cleansed that it can even see God. Similarly, in the arm too, this is the sign, that his evil and left-hand works, which are indeed depraved and not good, he has converted into right-hand ones, so that they may be according to God; and this is the right arm, in which the portion is said to be the priest's. But we also beseech you who hear these things, that you give your little breasts, that you offer your breasts to the priests of God, that they may take away from them everything that is gross, so that they may make it the priestly portion. Give us also your arms, but we ask right arms from you; the left we want not at all, we require right-hand works from you. But this too, which it added, that the "little breast" is called "of the placing-upon" and the "arm of the taking-away", does not seem to me to have been said without cause. And therefore I would wish to inquire what it is that must be placed upon the little breast, so that it becomes "the little breast of the placing-upon". After there shall have been taken away from your heart everything that is gross, and it shall have been cleansed from every covering that is to be delivered to the fire, it remains that the grace of the Holy Spirit be placed upon it, and then it will become "the little breast of the placing-upon", and also the "arm of separation" or "of taking-away". How will it also be the "arm of separation"? If you know and understand how to discern what are the works of light and what are "the works of darkness", and you separate your deeds from darkness, so that your works may be in the light, your arm becomes "the arm of separation"; or when you have separated yourself from every brother "who walks disorderly", or certainly when, according to the prophet, "they separate themselves and go out from the midst of sinners, who carry the vessels of the Lord". Finally, by a certain vernacular custom of Scripture that is said to be "common" which is unclean; as also the voice from heaven says to Peter: "what God has cleansed, call not you common". Consequently, then, if that which is unclean is called "common", that which is holy shall be named "separated". But this too we add. If anyone is the servant of God alone, he cannot be called common. But if anyone is common, there is no doubt that he belongs to many, and therefore is called "common". Great is the mystery in this word, which Israel according to the flesh indeed has in use, but has not the understanding. They too call an unclean man "common", but why he is called "common", they know not. Let them learn, then, from the Church of God that he who is holy belongs to God alone and is common to him with no one. But he who is a sinner and unclean belongs to many. For many demons possess him, and therefore he is called common. Finally, that man who in the gospels was cured by the Lord, when he was asked: "what is your name? said: Legion, for we are many". These things, although in a certain digression, seem nevertheless to have been necessarily added, so that we might learn why the mystery of "the little breast of the placing-upon" and "the arm of separation" was written; which is the everlasting portion given to the priests, in which may he deign to make us worthy, that for the purity of our heart and the probity of our works we may deserve to have a share in the divine sacrifice, through the eternal high priest, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, through whom is to God the Father with the Holy Spirit "glory and dominion unto the ages of ages. Amen".

What does it mean that the priest, by a precept of the law, receives not only the right shoulder, but receives it "separated"? Not only is his work useful; it is also unique. Not only does he do what is right among wicked men, but he surpasses those who live well and are subject to him by the honor of his orders and thus surpasses them in his virtuous life. When the breast and the shoulder are given to him as food—since he is bidden to consume part of the sacrifice—he learns to sacrifice something of himself to God. Not only should he think right thoughts in his breast, but also by the work of his shoulder draw his hearers to things above. Nothing in this present life should he desire, nothing should he fear. He should despise the pleasures of this world and reject the fear within, and he should scorn fear as he meditates on the pleasures of inner sweetness. Exposition of the Old and New Testament, Leviticus

What does it mean that the priest, by a precept of the law, receives not only the right shoulder, but receives it "separated"? Not only is his work useful; it is also unique. Not only does he do what is right among wicked men, but he surpasses those who live well and are subject to him by the honor of his orders and thus surpasses them in his virtuous life. When the breast and the shoulder are given to him as food—since he is bidden to consume part of the sacrifice—he learns to sacrifice something of himself to God. Not only should he think right thoughts in his breast, but also by the work of his shoulder draw his hearers to things above. Nothing in this present life should he desire, nothing should he fear. He should despise the pleasures of this world and reject the fear within, and he should scorn fear as he meditates on the pleasures of inner sweetness.

The Apostle briefly shows the reason why these things that are read to us can be understood or not understood, saying that from his eyes "the veil of the old testament can be taken away, whoever shall have turned to the Lord"; from which he wished it to be known that, the less these things are plain to us, the less is our conversion to God. And therefore we must strive with all our strength that, being free from the occupations of the world and from worldly affairs, and leaving behind even those superfluous tales of our companions, if it can be done, we may give our effort to the word of God and "meditate on his law day and night", so that, being converted with our whole heart, we may be able to behold the unveiled and open face of Moses, and especially in these things which have now been read, whether concerning the priestly vestments or concerning the consecration of the high priest, in which certain such things are said as to exclude entirely even that carnal Israel itself from the historical understanding; and therefore, in expounding these things, we must not rely on the powers of human genius, but on prayers and supplications poured out to God. In this we need also the help of you, that God, the Father of the Word, may grant us the word "for the opening of our mouth", so that we may be able to consider the wonders of his law.

The beginning, then, of the things that have been read today lies in these words: "This is the anointing of Aaron and the anointing of his sons from the offerings of the Lord, in the day when he brought them near to sacrifice to the Lord, as the Lord commanded to give to them, in the day when he anointed them from the sons of Israel: an everlasting statute throughout their generations. This is the law of the whole burnt offerings, and of the sin offering, and of the trespass offering, and of the consecration, and of the peace offering, as the Lord commanded Moses on Mount Sinai, in the day when he commanded the sons of Israel to offer their gifts before the Lord in the desert of Sinai." When the lawgiver had set out to say, "This is the anointing of Aaron and the anointing of his sons", he did not add what the anointing was, nor did he explain in what manner he had anointed them, but this indeed he does in what follows; now, however, after he has said, "This is the anointing of Aaron and of his sons", he added nothing about the anointing. Doubtless it was to show that these things which he had said above, that is, "the little breast of imposition and the arm of separation", were themselves the anointing of Aaron and of his sons, lest we should think those things said with reference to the flesh, but that he might teach that these too were inserted under the mystery of the anointing. Finally, in what follows he repeats those things which he had explained above, and says: "This is the law of the whole burnt offerings and of the sacrifice and of the sin offering." This—that is, what was explained above—also appears to be, that is, a recapitulation of the mysteries which had been more fully narrated in what preceded.