When Israel left Egypt a large group, consisting principally of Egyptians, left with them. The Bible calls them the “mixed multitude,” literally, a “numerous mingled throng” (Ex. 12:38; Num. 11:4). An even better word might be “rabble,” which some versions use. They were a source of constant trouble, and ever the leaders in rebellion. They were the ones who instigated the demand for flesh food, which resulted in the death of thousands (Num. 11:4-6, 18-20, 31-33). Though they daily witnessed God’s miracle in sending manna from heaven, they were unthankful and unholy. Like so many who live on the charity of others, their demands constantly increased.

 It is reasonable to assume that this mixed multitude would seek to continue their pagan sacrificial feasts. In Egypt were to be found some of the most degraded forms of heathenism. Among these, devil worship was probably the worst (Lev. 17:7), in connection with which he-goats, or “satyrs” (RSV), were sacrificed. These abuses had begun to creep in among the Israelites, and a reformation was needed.

Before the establishment of the sanctuary, the father of the household was also its priest, and as such offered sacrifices. When the tabernacle was erected and the priests took charge of the offerings, a great change came about in the life of Israel. The father surrendered some of his former prerogatives to the Levites, and this may have occasioned dissatisfaction.

 The thing that occasioned most difficulty was the rule that all slaughtering of animals should henceforth be done at the sanctuary, and that the feasts ordinarily celebrated in connection with slaughtering should also be held there. This would in itself cause no hardship to Israel, for the sanctuary was centrally located in the wilderness, of easy access to all. But this arrangement would automatically end the convivial feasts of the mixed multitude that many Israelites, we may suspect, had enthusiastically adopted. The lengths to which the Israelites had gone in this idolatrous worship is clear from the injunction in v. 7.

 Of all the sacrifices, peace offerings lent themselves most readily to abuse. In general, the others that involved blood were either given to the priest or burned, after the blood had been sprinkled and the fat removed. In none of these cases did the offerer himself receive any part of the sacrifice. But in peace offerings the Lord received the blood and the fat, and the priest, the breast and right shoulder (ch. 7:34); the remainder belonged to the offerer and his invited guests (Deut. 27:7; see on Lev. 7:15).

 From the mere human viewpoint the peace offerings had another advantage. Ordinarily a sacrifice had to be perfect to be accepted (chs. 22:21; 3:1), but a peace offering presented as a freewill offering need not be perfect. It could be used even if it had “any thing superfluous or lacking in his parts” (ch. 22:23). If a man wished to make a feast, he might select an animal that was deformedbut not diseased. Henceforth he was required to bring it to the tabernacle and present to the Lord, that is, to the priest, that which God required. Some in Israel had failed to do this. Henceforth, no Israelite might participate in any celebrations except those held within the camp. These, presumably, would be conducted in harmony with the religious and social standards implicit in the law of God.

The removal of the slaying and the festivities would accomplish other desirable results. The text seems to imply that all slaughter of animals should take place under the immediate supervision of the priests. Thus even the slaying of a beast was made a semireligious act. The command, thus understood, would emphasize the fact that God should be acknowledged in all things, that He claims a portion of all we possess, in this case the blood and the fat. It would teach Israel to honor God with their substance, and to share with the priests the part that belonged to them. Especially would the shedding of blood, and the blood itself, take on a new meaning, for the people were to treat it with the greatest respect, and might under no circumstances eat it.

These principles are as valid now as they were then. God has a claim on all we possess. Even in eating and drinking God is to be honored. Also, God would have His people separate themselves from the mixed multitude. There are dangers for both young and old in associating with the world. Attachments are easily formed, and the results are often fatal to the faith of the believer. Attendance at worldly schools is fraught with danger. Their social functions are a snare, as are also classes and graduation exercises on the Sabbath. Whoever goes “without the camp” is in need of special protection and should first have a sure call from God to do so.