- Adam Clarke
- Keil-Delitzsch
- Jamieson-Fausset-Brown
- John Gill
- Tyndale
Adam Clarke Bible Commentary
He shall not leave any of it until the morning - Because in such a hot country it was apt to putrefy, and as it was considered to be holy, it would have been very improper to expose that to putrefaction which had been consecrated to the Divine Being. Mr. Harmer supposes that the law here refers rather to the custom of drying flesh which had been devoted to religious purposes, which is practiced among the Mohammedans to the present time. This, he thinks, might have given rise to the prohibition, as the sacred flesh thus preserved might have been abused to superstitious purposes. Therefore God says, Lev 7:18, "If any of the flesh of the sacrifice - be eaten at all on the third day, it shall not be accepted, neither shall it be imputed unto him that offereth it; it is an abomination, and the soul that eateth of it shall bear his iniquity." That is, on Mr. Harmer's hypothesis, This sacred flesh shall avail nothing to him that eats it after the first or second day on which it is offered; however consecrated before, it shall not be considered sacred after that time. See Harmer's Obs., vol. i., p. 394, edit. 1808.
Carl Friedrich Keil and Franz Delitzsch Old Testament Commentary
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. Lev 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 Lev 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 (Lev 19:7; Eze 4:14; Isa 65:4), and signifies properly a stench; - compare the talmudic word פּגּל faetidum reddere. Whoever ate thereof would bear his sin (see Lev 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 (Exo 29:34); and in Lev 19:8, where this command is repeated,
(Note: There is no foundation for Knobel's assertion, that in Lev 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 Lev 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 Eze 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).
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary
the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace offerings . . . shall be eaten the same day that it is offered--The flesh of the sacrifices was eaten on the day of the offering or on the day following. But if any part of it remained till the third day, it was, instead of being made use of, to be burned with fire. In the East, butcher-meat is generally eaten the day it is killed, and it is rarely kept a second day, so that as a prohibition was issued against any of the flesh in the peace offerings being used on the third day, it has been thought, not without reason, that this injunction must have been given to prevent a superstitious notion arising that there was some virtue or holiness belonging to it.
John Gill Bible Commentary
But if the sacrifice of his offering be a vow,.... Be on account of a vow made, as, that if he was favoured with such and such benefits, or delivered out of such and such troubles and distresses, then he would offer such a sacrifice:
or a voluntary offering; without any condition or obligation; what from the mere motion of his mind he freely offered, not being directed to it by any command of God, or under any necessity from a vow of his own, and without any view to; any future good to be enjoyed: Aben Ezra describes both the one and the other thus; a "vow" which he uttered with his lips in his distresses, a "voluntary offering", which his spirit made him willing to bring, a sacrifice to God neither for a vow nor for thanksgiving:
it shall be eaten the same day that he offereth his sacrifice; that is, it shall be begun to be eaten then, and if all is eaten up it is very well, but they were not obliged in either of these cases, as in the preceding, to eat up all, and leave none to the morning, for it follows:
and on the morrow also the remainder of it shall be eaten; some of it, if thought fit, and could not be conveniently eaten, might be kept till the day after the sacrifice, but no longer.
Tyndale Open Study Notes
7:15 The thanksgiving offering was given when the worshiper was thankful (Jer 17:26; 33:11). The sacrifice was to be eaten on the same day it was offered so that the event would not fade from the worshiper’s memory.