Homilies on Leviticus 5.5–5.11

“And every sacrifice that is made in the oven, and every one that is made on the griddle or in the frying pan, shall belong to the priest who offers it.” What do we say? Do we think that almighty God, who gave answers to Moses from heaven, gave commands about an oven, a griddle, and a frying pan, so that the people might learn through Moses that God would become propitious to them through these things, if they fried some things in a frying pan, baked some in an oven, and roasted some on a griddle? But the children of the church did not so learn Christ, nor were they so instructed in him by the apostles, as to accept anything so lowly and so cheap about the Lord of majesty. Rather, according to the spiritual sense which the Spirit gives to the church, let us see what this sacrifice is which is baked in the oven, or what this oven ought to be understood to be. But where shall I now find, on the spur of the moment, a divine Scripture which may teach me what an oven is? I must call on my Lord Jesus, that he may make me find as I seek, and open to me as I knock, so that I may find in the Scriptures an oven where I can bake my sacrifice, that God may accept it. And indeed I think I have found it in the prophet Hosea, where he says: “All who commit adultery, like an oven heated for burning.” And again: “Their hearts,” he says, “grew hot like an oven.” The heart of man, then, is an oven. And if vices have kindled this heart, or the devil has inflamed it, it will not bake but burn up. But if he has kindled it who said, “I came to cast fire on 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 perdition, but bake for sacrifice. And perhaps those things are said to be baked in the oven which are inward and hidden and cannot easily be brought out to the crowd; for there are many such things in the divine Scriptures, as in Ezekiel, where the cherubim, or God, and that magnificent vision are described. These things, if they are not baked in the oven, cannot be eaten raw as they are. For we must not believe that there is a certain living creature set in the form of a lion, on which God rides, or another in the form of a calf or an eagle. These things, then, and any of this kind, are not to be brought out raw, but are to be baked in the oven of the heart. There are, therefore, these three things in which he says the sacrifices ought to be prepared: in the oven, in the frying pan, on the griddle; and I think that the oven, according to its shape, signifies the deeper and unspeakable things in the divine Scriptures; the frying pan, those things which, if they are turned over frequently and often, can be understood and explained; and the griddle, those which are in the open and are seen without any covering. For we have often said that a threefold mode of understanding is found in the divine Scriptures: historical, moral, and mystical. Hence we have understood that there is in it a body, and a soul, and a spirit. This threefold preparation shows the threefold form of the sacrifices of this understanding. And elsewhere too, that is, in these very things that are related about the sacrifices, we find mention of the holy basket of perfection, in which three loaves are commanded to be kept. Do you see how the forms of all the sacraments agree with one another? The basket of perfection, in which three loaves are commanded to be placed, what else should we take it to be but the divine Scriptures, setting food before the hearers in a threefold way? Do you wish us to bring forward examples of a similar mystery from the Gospels too? Let us recall the Lord's words, where he says that at midnight someone came to his friend, knocking at his door, and said: “Friend, lend me three loaves, because a friend of mine has come to me from a journey, and I have nothing to set before him.” In this, to touch on it briefly, the night is the time of this life, and the three loaves are: one which is baked in the oven, another in the frying pan, the third on the griddle.

After this he says: “And every sacrifice made in oil, or not made, shall be for all the sons of Aaron, for each equally.” What sacrifice is made in oil, or what is not made in oil? 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 he says: “He shall not put oil on it, because it is for sin.” For that which is for sin, neither the oil of gladness nor the incense of sweetness is put on it. For of those who sin the Apostle says: “And I may mourn those who sinned before and did not repent.” Nor is there in it the odour of sweetness, because it is said in the person of the sinner: “My wounds have grown putrid and corrupt.” These things, for the time being, we have observed on the preceding chapter, where the law of the sacrifice for offence is written. But I do not doubt that there are many things which escape us and surpass our understanding. 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 are open that are hidden within the secret of the letter in the laws of the sacrifices. For if I deserved to be given the mind of Christ, I too would say in these things: “that we may know the things given us by God, which we also speak.” But now, content with the smallness of our understanding, let us look at the beginning of the second chapter.

“This,” he says, “is the law of the peace offering which they shall offer to the Lord. If he offers it for praise, he shall bring for the sacrifice loaves of praise made of fine flour in oil, and unleavened wafers anointed with oil, and fine flour mixed with oil. Over leavened loaves he shall offer his gifts, for it is the sacrifice of praise of his peace offering; and he shall offer from it one out of all his gifts, a portion set apart for the Lord, for the priest who pours out the blood of the peace offering; and the flesh of the sacrifice of praise of the peace offering shall be his, and on the day on which the gift is offered they shall eat it, and they shall leave none of it until morning.” The sacrifice which is called the peace offering he divides into two parts, and he names one the sacrifice of praise, the other of a vow; yet both are named peace offerings. But since it is not for us now to restore sacrifices according to the letter, let us seek in ourselves who is so great and of such a kind as to offer to God a peace offering and a sacrifice of praise. I think he is the one who in all his actions causes God to be praised, and through whom is fulfilled what our Lord and Saviour says: “That men may see your good works and glorify your Father who is in heaven.” He, then, has offered a sacrifice of praise on account of whose actions, teaching, precepts, word, conduct, and discipline God is praised and blessed; just as, on the contrary, there are those of whom it is said that “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 mixed with oil are set down, and the peace offering is again offered with a threefold sacrament; and finally, “It shall be,” he says, “for the priest who pours out the blood of the peace offering.” Above he said: “It shall be for the priest who makes propitiation.” Here: “It shall be for the priest who pours out the blood of the peace offering.” He uses a fitting order; for first propitiation must be sought, and after this the peace offering (literally “saving sacrifice”) offered. For no one can have salvation unless he first makes God propitious to himself. “And the flesh,” he says, “of the sacrifice of praise of the peace offering shall be his.” We have already said that flesh in the Scriptures signifies solid food and perfect teaching. According to the Scriptures I know that there is a certain food of the soul which is milk, another food of the soul which is vegetables, and another which is flesh, as the Apostle himself says of certain people: “I gave you milk to drink, not food; for you were not yet able, nor are you able even now, for you are still fleshly.” And again elsewhere he says: “One believes he may eat everything, but he who is weak, let him eat vegetables.” And again elsewhere: “But solid food is for the perfect,” and so on. Here, then, the flesh of the peace offering, which is offered for praise, is commanded to be the priest's own. Of the fine flour offered in three ways, as we said above, only the one which pleases the priest is assigned to him; the rest belong to the lay offerer, yet so that they are eaten within the day and nothing of them remains till 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 teaching, in virtue, in conduct. For if they do not have this in themselves, they will not eat of the flesh of the sacrifices. And in that one portion which is set apart as the choicest of the three prescribed from the fine flour, I think is designated that part of knowledge of which we spoke above, which indicates perfect and deep teaching. But perhaps you will ask how, when above he utterly rejected leaven from the sacrifices, he now commands the sacrifice to be put upon leavened loaves. But look more carefully: the leavened bread is taken not for the sacrifice but for the service of the sacrifice. Let us see, then, what this means. The Lord in the Gospels calls leaven the human teaching of the Pharisees, who handed down as traditions the precepts of men, when he says to the disciples: “Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees.” Likewise, then, human teaching is, for example, the art of grammar, or rhetoric, or also dialectic. From this teaching nothing is to be taken up for the sacrifice, that is, in what we must believe about God; but clear speech, the splendour of eloquence, and the method of argument are fittingly ordered to be admitted for the service of the word of God. Did not he have the sacrifice of the word of God set on this leaven who said, “Evil company corrupts good morals”? And: “Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy bellies,” and other such things taken from the leaven of the Greeks.

As to his saying, “It shall be eaten within the day, and none of it shall be left until morning,” let us compare it with the other sacrifices and see what reason there is that in this peace offering he commanded the things offered to be eaten on the same day, while in another sacrifice he allows them to be kept even to the second day, and up to the third, but on the third day commands that what is left be given to the fire, so as not to pollute the offerer. Let us see, then, what this difference means. But truly we need the help of God, that he may deign to cut away all the fat that covers our inward parts and remove every veil of grosser sense, so that we may perceive these things according to what is said to be commanded by God. Let us compare, then, the divine Scripture with itself, and follow whatever path of solution it opens to us. For we find concerning the sacrifice of the Passover, which is commanded to be sacrificed in the evening, that a command is likewise given that nothing of the flesh remain until morning. It is not idle, then, that the divine word does not want us to feed on yesterday's flesh, but always on fresh and new, especially those who sacrifice to God the sacrifice of the Passover or the sacrifice of praise: he commands them to eat new and fresh flesh of that very day, and forbids yesterday's. I remembered that the prophet Ezekiel too says something similar, when the Lord had commanded him to bake his bread on human dung. For he answered the Lord and said: “Lord, my soul has never been defiled, and nothing that died of itself or unclean has entered my mouth. Nor has yesterday's flesh entered my mouth.” I often asked myself about this, what this exultation of the prophet was, by which he brought forward before God, as something great, and said that he had never eaten yesterday's flesh. But, as I see, taught from here and steeped in these mysteries, the prophet said these things to the Lord: “I am not so abject and degenerate a priest as to feed on yesterday's, that is, old flesh.” Hear these things, all you priests of the Lord, and understand more attentively what is said. The flesh which is assigned to the priests from the sacrifices is the word of God which they teach in the church. For this reason they are admonished by mystical figures that, when they begin to bring forth a discourse to the people, they should not bring forth yesterday's things, nor speak out old things which are according to the letter, but by the grace of God should always bring forth new things and always find spiritual ones. For if you bring forth today in the church what you learned yesterday from the Jews, this is to eat yesterday's flesh of the sacrifice. If you remember, in the offering of first fruits too the lawgiver used the same word, that they should 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 perhaps, when you bring forth old things in the church, your lips speak and your mind is without fruit. But hear what the Apostle says: “If I speak in tongues,” he says, “my spirit prays, but my mind is without fruit. What then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the mind also; I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the mind also.” So you too, unless from spiritual learning, from the teaching of the grace of God, you bring forth a present and fresh word in the praises of God, your mouth indeed offers a sacrifice of praise, but your mind is reproached 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 command it to be kept until the next day. Perhaps this mystery is contained also in his not commanding bread to be carried on the journey, so that you may always bring forth fresh the loaves of the word of God which you carry within you. Indeed, those Gibeonites are condemned and become hewers of wood and carriers of water for this reason, that 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 is left be eaten even on the second day, but nothing be kept to the third day; of this we shall see in its place. But let this too not escape us: that there is a certain time in which it is a blessing to feed on old things. For of the seventh year, which is called the year of remission or the sabbatical year, it is said: “You shall eat old things, and the oldest 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 a great digression to dwell on each of these things and, on the occasion of testimonies, to wander farther afield, when the explanation of the sacrifices is now in hand.

It is said, then, in what follows, that “if it is a vow, or if he sacrifices his gift as a freewill offering, on whatever day he offers his sacrifice it shall be eaten also on the next day. And what is left of the flesh of the sacrifice until the third day shall be burned with fire. But if he eats any of the flesh on the third day, it will not be accepted for the one who offers it; it will not be reckoned to him; it is defilement. And if any soul eats of it, it will receive sin.” This is no doubt what David too says in the Psalms: “Let his prayer become sin,” when not only no merit but even much guilt is gained from the sacrifices. For you hear the lawgiver decree that if anyone eats of what is left until the third day, he will receive sin. Hence it must be recognized how great a stain of sins threatens the human condition, since sin arises even from that from which the victim of propitiation is offered. Considering this, I believe, blessed David said in the Psalms: “Who understands sins?” It is, then, the sacrifice of a vow and of free will, of which it is lawful to eat even on the second day, but which is wholly forbidden on the third. But he gives a remedy to the negligent. If, he says, you are unable and cannot finish all the flesh of the sacrifice on the second day, eat none of it on the third day, but give what is left to the fire. For if you wish to eat of the sacrifice after two days, you will receive sin. For my part, as far as the capacity of my understanding allows, I think that in these two days the two Testaments are to be understood, in which it is lawful for every word that pertains to God (for this is the sacrifice) to be sought and examined, and for all knowledge of things to be taken from them. But if anything is left over which the divine Scripture does not decide, no other third scripture ought to be accepted for the authority of knowledge, because this is called the third day; but let us give to the fire what is left, that is, reserve it for God. For God did not wish us to know everything in this present life, especially since the Apostle also says this: “For we know in part and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect has come, the things that are in part will be done away.” This, then, is the fire for which we ought to keep what is left over to the third day, and not, with rash presumption, claim for ourselves the knowledge of all things, so that it may rightly be said to us by the same Apostle: “understanding neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertions.” Lest perhaps, then, our sacrifice not be accepted, and this very thing, our desire to take knowledge from the divine Scriptures, be turned into sin for us, let us keep those measures which the spiritual law announces to us through the lawgiver.

“And whatever flesh is 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 peace offering which is the Lord's, while his uncleanness is on him, that soul shall perish from its people. And whatever soul touches any unclean thing, whether the uncleanness of a man, or of unclean four-footed beasts, or any unclean abomination, and eats of the flesh of the peace offering which is the Lord's, that soul shall perish from its people.” The lawgiver has here set out three causes of uncleanness. One, that the flesh of the sacrifices should not be touched by any uncleanness. Another, that he who eats the flesh of the sacrifice should not be unclean, with his uncleanness on him. The third, that even if the flesh is clean and he who eats is clean, he should not have touched anything unclean, whether from cattle or from birds or from any of the things that have been declared unclean. And this indeed is the will of the lawgiver when he ordains the rite of bodily sacrifices. But according to the order of our exposition, where the holy flesh is understood to be the divine words, the observance must be of this kind: that it often happens that clean flesh is touched by something unclean; as, for example, I might say, if someone makes a pure and sincere discourse about God the Father, and about his Only-begotten, and the Holy Spirit, worthy of the mystery of the Godhead, and likewise about all rational creatures as made by God for this purpose, that they might grasp and understand him, but does not add, in the mystery that follows, the resurrection of the flesh as well. His first discourse indeed, since he discussed perfectly and holily, is solid food, is holy flesh; but what is added to it, by denying the resurrection of the flesh, because it is foreign to the faith, joined to the preceding perfect and faithful words, has contaminated and polluted the holy flesh. Therefore, then, the lawgiver commanded that such flesh not be eaten, to which the uncleanness of some unbelief is joined. For this reason the Apostle too says: “For let us celebrate the feast not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.” The second kind of uncleanness is that he who eats the flesh should not himself be unclean, with his uncleanness on him; which can be understood in this way: for example, if someone is of flourishing nature and ardent talent, he will not at once seem fit to receive the mysteries of the word of God, but this too is required, that he first be separated from profane actions and unclean works, and so at last become capable of instruction, if he has first become capable of holiness. Something similar we read written in Numbers, where the Lord gave the children of Israel flesh from heaven and says: “Sanctify yourselves for tomorrow, that you may eat flesh,” showing this, that unless they were first sanctified and made clean, God would not give them flesh. And the lawgiver well shows the Lord's clemency in not saying, “Let him not eat the flesh in whom there was uncleanness,” but saying, “in whom his uncleanness is on him.” For hardly anyone is found in whom there was no uncleanness. But one can be found in whom there was indeed uncleanness, but who, having heard the law of the Lord, has it no longer. But if his uncleanness remains in him, and having heard these things he will not be converted and amended, that soul, it says, shall perish from its people. The third kind of uncleanness is that by which one who is clean, if he touches something unclean, is polluted not so much by his own sin as by another's contagion: as, for instance, if someone is joined in friendship and companionship with an envious, or angry, or adulterous man, and he himself does not by his own actions take part in his crimes, yet sees him and understands how he hates his brother and is a murderer, or how he lies in wait for another man's wife and is an adulterer, or how he is sacrilegious in other respects, and, having detected these things, does not withdraw from his companionship: this is the one who has touched something unclean, whether an animal, or a bird, or a carcass, and is polluted by another's uncleanness. Of the differences of unclean things we spoke above, as far as could occur to us. Or did not the Apostle too give commands according to this same pattern, when he says: “But now I write to you in the letter not to associate with the sexually immoral; if anyone called a brother is sexually immoral, or greedy, or an idolater, or a drunkard, or a robber, not even to eat with such a one”? In all of which, what else does he command but that they should not be polluted by others' sins and uncleannesses?

“And the Lord spoke,” he says, “to Moses, saying: Speak to the children of Israel, saying: You shall not eat any fat of oxen, or sheep, or goats; and the fat of animals that died of themselves, and of those caught by wild beasts, may be put to any use, but shall not be eaten as food. Everyone who eats fat from the cattle from which you offer a victim to the Lord, that soul shall perish from its people. And you shall eat no blood in any of your dwellings, whether of cattle or of birds. Every soul that eats blood, that soul shall perish from its people.” The lawgiver forbids the fat of the animals which are offered in sacrifices, and of some others, to be eaten or used, and he forbids the blood of all flesh to be eaten. Earlier, treating the mystical sense, where a calf was given as a burnt offering for sin and the fat was laid on the altar, we took the blood, with which in part the horns were smeared while the rest was poured out at the base of the altar, as a figure of those who are called the remnant of Israel and who hope for salvation in the last days, after the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. And the fat we said was the soul of Christ, which is the church of his friends, for whom he laid down his life. It may be, then, in this place too, that the command that no one eat the fat of what is offered to the Lord is what the Lord too says: “Let no one cause one of these little ones who believe in me to stumble.” And that the blood of no animal is commanded to be eaten may perhaps be what the Apostle says of the Israelites: “You will say, then: Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in. Well: they were broken off because of unbelief, but you stand by faith. Do not be high-minded, but fear.” And again: “Do not boast against the branches”: that is, let no one insult their fall; lest perhaps, as the same Apostle says, you too be cut off, and they, if they do not remain in unbelief, be grafted in. And by the blood I think that people is fittingly understood. For they descend not from the faith nor from the spirit of Abraham, but only from his blood.