Leviticus Chapter 17
The Sanctity of Blood
A. Prohibition of Sacrifice Outside the Tabernacle
1. (Leviticus 17:1–4) Sacrifice must be at the tabernacle and by the appointed priests.
And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, “Speak to Aaron, to his sons, and to all the children of Israel, and say to them, ‘This is the thing which the LORD has commanded, saying: “Whatever man of the house of Israel who kills an ox or lamb or goat in the camp, or who kills it outside the camp, and does not bring it to the door of the tabernacle of meeting to offer an offering to the LORD before the tabernacle of the LORD, the guilt of bloodshed shall be imputed to that man. He has shed blood; and that man shall be cut off from among his people.”’
This command established that sacrifices could only be made at the appointed place and by the appointed mediators. When God set up the tabernacle, He also established a clear system of worship that centered entirely on His presence among the people. Any man who killed an ox, lamb, or goat as an offering to the LORD was required to bring it to the door of the tabernacle of meeting, where the priest would properly offer it according to divine instruction.
The phrase “who kills an ox or lamb or goat in the camp” refers specifically to the act of sacrifice, not merely to the slaughter of an animal for food. The Hebrew word shachat, translated as “kills,” is the same technical term used elsewhere for the act of sacrificial slaughter, such as in Leviticus 1:5, Leviticus 3:2, and Leviticus 4:4. It was never used for common butchering when used in a context of worship. This precise word choice makes clear that God was addressing sacrificial acts, not ordinary meals.
The command “bring it to the door of the tabernacle of meeting” served as a safeguard against idolatry and syncretism. In the pagan cultures surrounding Israel, it was common to build private altars on hilltops, in groves, or at any location that seemed sacred to the worshiper. This decentralized approach led to great corruption and the blending of pagan practices with supposed acts of devotion. God’s command centralized worship to prevent His people from inventing their own methods of approaching Him.
The warning that “the guilt of bloodshed shall be imputed to that man” emphasized the seriousness of disobedience. To offer a sacrifice anywhere other than at the tabernacle was to reject God’s ordained order, and it was counted as blood guilt—a moral crime worthy of being cut off from among the people. This phrase means being exiled from the covenant community, deprived of fellowship and protection under the covenant of Israel.
This regulation also reinforced the truth that sinful man cannot determine the terms of his approach to God. Access to the LORD must always be on His terms, through His appointed mediator, and by His prescribed sacrifice. The tabernacle was not only a place but a system that pointed forward to Jesus Christ, who would later declare, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.” (John 14:6).
The modern world often rejects this truth. In contemporary culture, religion is treated as a matter of personal preference. People believe they can create their own private spirituality, their own “way” of connecting with God, apart from Scripture, doctrine, or the Church. This self-made approach mirrors the ancient paganism that Israel was forbidden to imitate.
Sociologist Robert Bellah recorded such a mindset in his book Habits of the Heart, where a woman named Sheila Larson described her faith as “Sheilaism”—a belief system centered on her own feelings and private spirituality. She said, “I believe in God. I’m not a religious fanatic. I can’t remember the last time I went to church. My faith has carried me a long way. It is ‘Sheilaism,’ just my own little voice.” This perfectly illustrates the individualistic religion of our age, which disregards the holiness, order, and authority of God.
Yet, Scripture consistently rejects that notion. God never leaves the method of approaching Him to human imagination. From the sacrifices of Leviticus to the final redemption in Christ, the principle remains the same: worship and atonement must be offered according to God’s instruction, not man’s innovation.
2. (Leviticus 17:5–7) The right way to bring sacrifice — to the tabernacle, through the priest.
To the end that the children of Israel may bring their sacrifices which they offer in the open field, that they may bring them to the LORD at the door of the tabernacle of meeting, to the priest, and offer them as peace offerings to the LORD. And the priest shall sprinkle the blood on the altar of the LORD at the door of the tabernacle of meeting, and burn the fat for a sweet aroma to the LORD. They shall no more offer their sacrifices to demons, after whom they have played the harlot. This shall be a statute forever for them throughout their generations.”
This passage defines the right way to approach God in worship and sacrifice. Israel was commanded to bring every offering to the door of the tabernacle of meeting, where the priest would properly present it to the LORD. This was not a mere matter of religious formality but a divine safeguard to ensure that worship remained pure, unified, and centered on the true God rather than corrupted by pagan influence.
The phrase “that they may bring them to the LORD at the door of the tabernacle of meeting” emphasizes that worship must always follow God’s appointed pattern. An Israelite could not simply follow his feelings, impulses, or private convictions in how to approach God. The LORD Himself determined both the place and the manner of worship. To honor God rightly, the worshiper had to come to the designated location, the tabernacle, and through the appointed mediator, the priest.
Throughout Israel’s history, there were rare exceptions when God Himself authorized sacrifices to be offered at places other than the central sanctuary. These were not acts of rebellion but of divine instruction, often through prophets or priests under direct revelation from God. Examples include 1 Samuel 7:9—“And Samuel took a sucking lamb and offered it as a whole burnt offering to the LORD. Then Samuel cried out to the LORD for Israel, and the LORD answered him.”—and 1 Kings 18:20–23, when Elijah built an altar on Mount Carmel in obedience to the LORD’s command to expose the false prophets of Baal. Such exceptions were by God’s permission, not human initiative. As Matthew Poole notes, “Though men were tied to this law, God was free to dispense with His own law when He saw fit.”
When sacrifices were brought properly, the priest would sprinkle the blood on the altar of the LORD at the door of the tabernacle of meeting and burn the fat as a sweet aroma to the LORD. This ritual affirmed that the life of the animal, symbolized by the blood, belonged to God. The burning of the fat represented complete devotion, rising as a pleasing offering to Him.
However, the command also carried a negative counterpart: “They shall no more offer their sacrifices to demons, after whom they have played the harlot.” Before this law, many Israelites had imitated the pagan practices of Egypt and Canaan, offering sacrifices in open fields or to spiritual entities other than the LORD. These so-called “gods” were, in reality, demonic beings masquerading as objects of worship.
The Hebrew word translated “demons” is sair, literally meaning “hairy ones,” often referring to male goats. The same term appears in Isaiah 13:21 and Isaiah 34:14, where it describes wild or goat-like demonic figures. The English Standard Version calls them “goat demons,” while other translations render them “goat idols.” The ancient world often represented evil spirits in the form of goats, and this imagery persisted in occult symbolism throughout history.
Herodotus, in The Histories (2.46), recorded that various ancient peoples worshipped goat-gods, which may have been early manifestations of demonic deception. Such practices likely influenced Israel during their time in Egypt, as they were familiar with goat idols and other bestial deities. The LORD was therefore severing Israel from this demonic association, commanding that all sacrifices be brought only to His altar.
The Apostle Paul later echoed this same truth in the New Testament, explaining that pagan sacrifices are not offered to imaginary beings but to literal demonic powers. “Rather, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice they sacrifice to demons and not to God, and I do not want you to have fellowship with demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons; you cannot partake of the Lord’s table and of the table of demons.” (1 Corinthians 10:20–21). Paul directly affirmed that false religion is energized by spiritual wickedness.
The phrase “after whom they have played the harlot” conveys deep spiritual infidelity. Israel was the covenant bride of Yahweh, and to worship other gods was to commit spiritual adultery. The Hebrew word zanah, translated “played the harlot,” literally means “to go astray” and is often used for marital unfaithfulness. Spiritually, it refers to turning from the LORD to idols, as seen again in Leviticus 20:5–6, where God warns against those who “play the harlot after Molech” and “after familiar spirits.” This metaphor portrays idolatry as a betrayal of the most intimate relationship possible—covenant union with the living God.
This law was meant to purify Israel’s worship and keep the people faithful to their God. Pagan sacrifices were not only forbidden but seen as moral and spiritual treachery. By commanding that all sacrifices be made at the tabernacle, God was centralizing worship to ensure that every offering was purified through the priestly mediation He had established, protecting His people from the corrupting influence of demon-inspired worship.
3. (Leviticus 17:8–9) Repeating the command to bring sacrifice to the tabernacle.
Also you shall say to them: “Whatever man of the house of Israel, or of the strangers who dwell among you, who offers a burnt offering or sacrifice, and does not bring it to the door of the tabernacle of meeting, to offer it to the LORD, that man shall be cut off from among his people.”
This command restates and reinforces the absolute requirement that all sacrifices be presented at the tabernacle, through the priesthood, and in accordance with God’s prescribed order. The repetition is deliberate, showing how seriously God regarded proper worship and how dangerous it was to deviate from His revealed will.
The phrase “whatever man of the house of Israel, or of the strangers who dwell among you” broadens the scope of the law to include both Israelites by birth and foreigners who had joined themselves to the covenant community. The worship of Yahweh was not limited by ethnicity but by faith and obedience. Anyone who sought to approach God had to do so through the means He had established.
This inclusion of “strangers”—foreigners who lived among the Israelites—demonstrated that the covenant nation was to be a witness to the nations. As the LORD had told Abraham, “In you all the families of the earth shall be blessed” (Genesis 12:3). These strangers, or gerim in Hebrew, were expected to observe the fundamental laws of worship and morality that governed Israel’s relationship with God. They were not permitted to establish their own methods of sacrifice or bring their own religious traditions into the land.
Because of how the term “strangers” is used again later in Leviticus 17:13 and 17:15, it is likely referring to Gentiles who had converted—either fully or partially—to the worship of Israel’s God. As Rooker explains, “The alien who lived in the land of Israel after the conquest may have in fact been what we would call a proselyte. As such he was subject to many of the same Old Testament laws and regulations as the Israelite.” God did not allow one form of worship for Israel and another for Gentiles within the same land; all who sought His favor were bound by the same covenant principles.
The prohibition concluded with a stern warning: “That man shall be cut off from among his people.” This phrase is repeated often in Leviticus, carrying the full weight of divine discipline. To be cut off (karath in Hebrew) meant more than a temporary exclusion—it implied separation from the blessings and identity of God’s covenant people. It was both a social and spiritual penalty.
Practically, this could happen in several ways. In some instances, the offender was executed under the Mosaic law for defiant sin. In others, as Peter-Contesse observes, the person might be “outlawed from his people”—banished, isolated, and regarded as outside the fellowship of the covenant. The New Jerusalem Bible translates this as, “that man will be outlawed from his people,” reflecting the seriousness of being excluded from Israel’s communal and spiritual life. In less severe cases, the person might be ostracized or denied participation in temple worship, which effectively cut him off from God’s presence and forgiveness.
The underlying principle is clear: no one, whether Israelite or foreigner, had the right to approach God on their own terms. God alone defined how He was to be worshiped. Any attempt to invent a private form of religion or substitute personal devotion for divinely commanded worship was a direct act of rebellion.
In a broader theological sense, this verse foreshadows the exclusivity of the Gospel. Just as the Israelites were commanded to bring every offering to the tabernacle, believers today are called to come to God only through His appointed Mediator, the Lord Jesus Christ. As it is written in John 14:6, “Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” All other ways, whether religious, moral, or mystical, are rejected by God just as surely as the private altars of the Israelites were.
B. Prohibition Against Eating Blood
1. (Leviticus 17:10–12) The command against eating blood and the reason for the command.
“And whatever man of the house of Israel, or of the strangers who dwell among you, who eats any blood, I will set My face against that person who eats blood, and will cut him off from among his people. For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul.” Therefore I said to the children of Israel, ‘No one among you shall eat blood, nor shall any stranger who dwells among you eat blood.’”
This command emphasizes the sacredness of blood and its central role in God’s plan of atonement. The prohibition against eating blood applied to both Israelites and to the foreigners dwelling among them, showing that God’s moral and ceremonial laws concerning life and atonement were universal within the covenant community.
The phrase “whatever man of the house of Israel, or of the strangers who dwell among you” makes it clear that this law was binding on all who lived under Israel’s covenant system. No one, whether born into Israel or joined by faith, was exempt from this divine decree. Israel was a theocracy, where God Himself ruled as King and His commands defined righteousness, purity, and holiness in every part of life.
God declared, “I will set My face against that person who eats blood.” This statement conveys divine hostility and judgment. The Hebrew expression “set My face against” means to turn one’s presence toward someone in wrath or rejection. Peter-Contesse notes, “The basic meaning is ‘to reject’ or ‘to repudiate,’ implying hostile action.” To have the face of God set against someone was to be opposed by His power and excluded from His covenant favor.
The command forbade eating “any blood,” whether human or animal. In many ancient pagan religions, the drinking of blood was a ritual act believed to impart vitality, strength, or mystical power. People thought that consuming blood transferred the life force of the slain being into the one who drank it. This practice was widespread among the barbaric nations of antiquity, and even later among various pagan and occult groups. God’s command sharply separated Israel from such demonic and superstitious customs.
As a result, every animal butchered for food in Israel had to be drained of blood as completely as possible. This became a distinguishing feature of Israelite dietary law. Clarke observed, “It appears from history that those nations who lived most on it [blood] were very fierce, savage, and barbarous, such as the Scythians, Tartars, Arabs of the desert, the Scandinavians, some of whom drank the blood of their enemies, making cups of their skulls.” By contrast, Israel’s obedience in abstaining from blood symbolized reverence for life and submission to the Creator.
This command also formed the foundation of what is known as kosher food preparation. Rooker explains, “The prohibition against eating the blood became an important aspect of ‘Kosher’ food. For food to be kosher the animal’s carotid artery was cut, and the animal had to bleed for a designated amount of time.” This process ensured that as much blood as possible was removed, honoring the divine command and recognizing the holiness of life.
The significance of this law extended even into the early church. In Acts 15, the Jerusalem Council instructed Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia to abstain from eating blood or from animals strangled without draining the blood. This was not a universal moral law binding on all Christians for all time, but a temporary restriction for the sake of fellowship and evangelistic witness among Jewish communities. The apostles said, “For Moses has had throughout many generations those who preach him in every city, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath” (Acts 15:21). This showed their desire to remove unnecessary offense in spreading the Gospel.
The heart of the command is given in verse 11: “For the life of the flesh is in the blood.” This is both a biological truth and a theological principle. Life depends on blood; it nourishes, sustains, and gives vitality to the body. Spiritually, this principle communicates that life belongs to God alone. Since the blood contains life, it is sacred, and only God has authority over it. The pagan says, “The life is in the blood, therefore I will drink it to take that life for myself.” The godly man says, “The life is in the blood, therefore it belongs to God, not to me.”
This divine truth teaches that life is not ours to claim, manipulate, or consume. God alone gives and takes life. To consume blood was to claim mastery over life itself, an act that defied the sovereignty of God. This is why the LORD declared that He would “set His face against” any who violated this law.
Moreover, the LORD said, “I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls.” Blood was not meant for consumption but for consecration. It was the sacred instrument of atonement. In God’s redemptive plan, He appointed blood to serve as the visible symbol and means of reconciliation between Himself and sinful humanity. The life of the innocent was given in exchange for the life of the guilty.
Rooker explains, “Because the life of a creature is in the blood, blood makes atonement for one’s life. One life is sacrificed for another. The shedding of substitutionary blood on the altar makes atonement, since the blood of the innocent victim was given for the life of the one who has sinned.” Thus, the blood of the animal was set apart for a holy purpose—it symbolized the cost of sin and pointed toward the perfect sacrifice of Christ, whose blood would one day make eternal atonement.
This concept is consistent throughout Scripture. The writer of Hebrews declared, “And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission” (Hebrews 9:22). Blood was never to be treated as common or consumed casually because it represented life surrendered for the sake of forgiveness. To eat blood was to profane that which God had set apart for sacred use, effectively trampling underfoot the symbol of redemption itself.
Rooker further notes that most uses of the word “blood” in the Old Testament refer not to blood circulating in the body, but to blood shed in death: “The focal point of the mention of blood was thus not of blood flowing through the veins but rather on blood shed, which indicated that life had ended.” This makes the divine statement in Leviticus 17:11 even more profound: blood is the means of atonement precisely because it represents a life given in substitution.
Therefore, when God says, “I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls,” He declares the foundation of the Gospel long before the cross. The blood upon the altar prefigured the blood of Christ upon Calvary. As Peter wrote, “Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot” (1 Peter 1:18–19).
2. (Leviticus 17:13–14) Respecting the blood of animals hunted and caught.
“Whatever man of the children of Israel, or of the strangers who dwell among you, who hunts and catches any animal or bird that may be eaten, he shall pour out its blood and cover it with dust; for it is the life of all flesh. Its blood sustains its life. Therefore I said to the children of Israel, ‘You shall not eat the blood of any flesh, for the life of all flesh is its blood. Whoever eats it shall be cut off.’”
This command expands the prohibition against eating blood to include animals killed in the hunt. It ensured that even in circumstances outside formal sacrifice, Israel still showed reverence for the sanctity of blood, recognizing it as sacred because it represents life. The divine law here extended beyond ritual worship and into daily conduct, reinforcing the principle that life belongs to God alone.
The phrase “whatever man of the children of Israel, or of the strangers who dwell among you” once again demonstrates that this command applied not only to the Israelites by birth but also to those foreigners who had joined themselves to the covenant community. It did not necessarily apply to every traveler or outsider in the land, but to proselytes—those who had embraced the worship of Yahweh. This distinction becomes clear when compared with Deuteronomy 14:21, which states, “You shall not eat anything that dies of itself; you may give it to the stranger who is within your gates, that he may eat it, or you may sell it to a foreigner; for you are a holy people to the LORD your God.” Therefore, those bound by covenant law were expected to follow God’s dietary and ceremonial commands, while non-converts were not.
The command “he shall pour out its blood and cover it with dust” prescribed a reverent handling of the animal’s blood, even in hunting. If an animal was caught in the wild and could not be properly butchered as in normal slaughter, the blood still had to be released onto the ground and then covered. This act was symbolic of returning the life of the creature to the earth, acknowledging that its life was not the hunter’s possession but God’s.
Hunting in ancient Israel was not recreational but practical. As Rooker notes, “Hunting was carried out by various means in the Old Testament, including the use of arrows, lances, swords, clubs, and pits and nets (Job 41:26–29; Isaiah 24:17–18; 51:20; Ezekiel 19:4, 8; Psalms 7:15; 140:5). In addition, numerous devices were used for catching birds (Job 18:8–10).” Whether by snare or spear, the method did not diminish the reverence due to the blood.
The instruction to cover it with dust might appear at first to be a way of discarding or hiding the blood, but in reality it was an act of respect and sanctification. It symbolically “buried” the life that had been taken, protecting the sanctity of that life. To leave it exposed would have profaned it, inviting corruption or defilement. Harrison explains, “The life had thus returned to the ground from which it had come, and the hunters and others who chanced to be in the vicinity were protected from the possibility of communicable disease or infection.”
This principle also carried a moral lesson. The act of pouring out the blood acknowledged that life is sacred, even in the context of survival or necessity. No creature was to be killed thoughtlessly or consumed carelessly. Every life, even that of an animal, came from God and returned to Him.
Moreover, this principle pointed forward to the greater truth of the New Covenant. If God demanded reverence for the blood of animals, how much greater reverence is owed to the blood of His Son, which provides eternal redemption. The writer of Hebrews warned, “Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?” (Hebrews 10:29). To disregard the blood of Jesus is to commit the ultimate act of irreverence—rejecting the very atonement that sanctifies and saves.
Therefore, this passage teaches that all life belongs to God, that blood must be treated with reverence, and that even the seemingly ordinary act of hunting was to be governed by the sacred awareness of divine ownership over life and death.
3. (Leviticus 17:15–16) Respecting the blood of animals that die in nature.
“And every person who eats what died naturally or what was torn by beasts, whether he is a native of your own country or a stranger, he shall both wash his clothes and bathe in water, and be unclean until evening. Then he shall be clean. But if he does not wash them or bathe his body, then he shall bear his guilt.”
This law addressed cases where someone might come across an animal that died naturally or was torn by another creature. The command does not forbid eating such meat outright but requires ceremonial cleansing for those who choose to do so. The emphasis again rests on maintaining purity and respect for life, even in unusual circumstances.
The phrase “every person who eats what died naturally or what was torn by beasts” includes both Israelites and proselytes—foreigners who had converted to the worship of Yahweh. As Poole explains, “Understand of the proselytes; either of the proselytes of the gate, who were obliged to observe the precepts of Noah, whereof this was one; or of the proselytes of righteousness, or converts to the Jewish religion; for other strangers were allowed to eat such things (Deuteronomy 14:21).” The distinction between foreigners who were under covenant obligation and those who were not is once again made clear.
Though eating such meat was not morally wrong, it made one ceremonially unclean. The person who did so was required to wash his clothes and bathe in water and remain unclean until evening. This was a temporary defilement, not a permanent stain. After purification and the passing of a day, the person would again be clean and able to participate in normal life and worship.
However, if the person refused to cleanse himself, the law stated, “he shall bear his guilt.” This meant that disobedience to the purification command carried moral responsibility. To neglect the washing ritual was to treat God’s commands as trivial, thereby bearing the guilt of rebellion.
This purification procedure underscored God’s holiness. Even acts that were not inherently sinful could render a person ceremonially unfit to enter His presence. God’s people were to learn that holiness is not merely about avoiding overt sin but also about respecting His standards of purity and obedience in every area of life.
The broader implication of this passage reminds believers of the need for continual cleansing, not through ritual water but through the sanctifying blood of Christ. As it is written, “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:9). Under the Old Covenant, ceremonial washing restored temporary fellowship; under the New, the blood of Jesus restores eternal communion with God.
