Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Leviticus 1:1
And the LORD called unto Moses, and spoke unto him out of the tabernacle of the congregation, saying,
1. And the Lord called ] The tabernacle had been reared up, and the cloud had covered it (Exo 40:17-34); Moses, who was not able to enter into the tent of meeting (Exo 40:35), remains without, and receives the first ordinances issued from within the tent. The verse connects these ordinances about sacrifice (chs. 1 7) with Exo 40:35, and the erection of the tabernacle.
out of the tent of meeting ] The place from which God issues His commands is more exactly described (Exo 25:22; Num 7:89) as ‘from above the mercy-seat, from between the two cherubim.’ The tent (‘tabernacle’ A.V.) is called the ‘tent of meeting’ (Heb. ’Ohel M‘d) because it is the appointed place of meeting where the Lord meets Moses (Exo 25:22; Exo 30:6; Exo 30:36), and the children of Israel (Exo 29:43). The account of the tent of meeting in Exo 33:7-11 (E), though different in some points from that of P, describes it as the place where the Lord meets Moses (‘the pillar of cloud descended, and stood at the door (opening) of the Tent: and the Lord spake with Moses’). See Driver’s notes on Exo 27:21, and on the passages here quoted, and Intr. to Pent. pp. 84 f. The translation of A.V. tabernacle of the congregation renders m‘d (‘appointed meeting place’) as if it were ‘ dh (congregation), and suggests that the tabernacle was the place where the children of Israel assembled. But they were not allowed to come near it (Num 17:13); only priests and Levites were permitted to draw nigh.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
The Lord – In the Hebrew text of Leviticus, Jehovah yehovah is the name by which God is usually called. Where ‘elohym occurs, it is generally with a possessive pronoun, so as to designate Him as the God of the chosen people (Lev 2:13; Lev 11:45; Lev 18:21; Lev 19:12, Lev 19:14, Lev 19:32, etc.).
The tabernacle of the congregation – Rather, the tent of meeting. See Exo 22:21 note. When Jehovah (Yahweh) was about to give His people the Law of the Ten Commandments Exo 19:3 He called to Moses from the top of Mount Sinai in thunders and lightnings and a thick cloud. When He was now about to give them the laws by which their formal acts of worship were to be regulated, He called to Moses out of the tabernacle which had just been constructed at the foot of the mountain. Exo 25:22.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Lev 1:1
The Lord called unto Moses, and spake.
The origin and authority of Leviticus
These words evidently contain by necessary implication two affirmations: first, that the legislation which immediately follows is of Mosaic origin–The Lord spake unto Moses; and secondly, that it was not the product merely of the mind of Moses, but came to him, in the first instance, as a revelation from Jehovah–Jehovah spake unto Moses. And although it is quite true that the words in this first verse strictly refer only to that section of the book which immediately follows, yet, inasmuch as the same or a like formula is used repeatedly before successive sections–in all, no less than fifty-six times in the twenty-seven chapters–these words may with perfect fairness be regarded as expressing a claim respecting these two points, which covers the entire book. The words say nothing, indeed, as to whether or not Moses wrote every word of this book himself; or whether the Spirit of God directed and inspired other persons, in Moses time or afterwards, to commit this Mosaic Law to writing. They give us no hint as to when the various sections which make up the book were combined into their present literary form, whether by Moses himself, as is the traditional view, or by men of God in a later day. They simply and only declare the legislation to be of Mosaic origin and of inspired authority. Only, be it observed, so much as this they do affirm in the most direct and uncompromising manner. (S. H. Kellogg, D. D.)
God speaking
Leviticus is replete with the gospel of the grace of God. While it paints the blackness of sin, and the depths to which man has fallen, it paints likewise, in glowing colours, the amazing love of God, in the full, rich, and complete provision He has made to meet mans every need in Christ Jesus our Lord.
I. the lord . . . spake. So they are Gods words, not mans, to which we are called to listen in this deeply instructive book. Then let us give it attentive hearing (Mat 11:15). Moses here records the very words of God, and the Holy Spirit alone can bring to our apprehension His own teaching (Joh 14:26; Joh 16:13).
II. The lord spake unto moses. God had before spoken unto him, specially on two memorable occasions.
1. From the burning bush (Exo 3:1-22.), when He came down in grace to deliver His people Israel from bondage in Egypt–as now He delivers from the bondage of sin and Satan–revealing Himself as Jehovah, the self-existent I AM, able to destroy their enemies, and rescue them (Exo 6:1-30).
2. From Mount Sinai, after the deliverance from Egypt, when the people had rashly undertaken (apparently in their own strength) to do all that the Lord had spoken (Exo 19:8), God spake the words of His Holy Law, the fiery law (Heb 12:18-21; Exo 19:18-20; Rom 7:12; Deu 33:2). That law showed the exceeding sinfulness of sin, but provided no way of salvation for those who disobeyed it, therefore could only condemn (Rom 7:13; Rom 7:10-11), as all have sinned (Rom 3:23), and sin is the transgression of the law (1Jn 3:4), or lawlessness (R.V.); but in the passage before us–
III. The lord spake out of the tabernacle of the congregation; and this tells, not only of deliverance from bondage, but of the Lords dwelling in the midst of His people, as their Leader and Guide (Exo 13:21; Exo 40:38), meeting and communing with His servant Moses from the mercy-seat (Exo 25:22; Exo 30:6; Num 7:89), and establishing a medium for worship and access.
IV. god hath spoken unto us by his son, who is the Revealer of the Father (Joh 1:18). But even now, as we listen to the words of God out of the Tabernacle, it is God speaking to us by His Son; for the Tabernacle is a type of Jesus. The glory of the Lord filled the Tabernacle (Exo 40:34); Jesus is the Brightness, or outshining of Gods glory (Heb 1:3). He is the true Tabernacle, For in Him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily (Col 2:9). God was in Christ reconciling, &c. (2Co 5:19). Christ is the manifestation of the Fathers love (1Jn 4:9-10). He brings untold glory to God in the salvation of sinners (Joh 17:4); and the saved ones He will take to share His glory hereafter (Luk 9:30-31), as the blessed result of His decease.
V. The Lord would speak by the church, also typified by the Tabernacle. It was sprinkled . . . with blood (Heb 9:21); the Church of God was purchased with His own blood (Act 20:28). The Tabernacle was anointed with holy oil (Exo 30:25-26; Exo 40:9); the Church has an unction from the Holy One (1Jn 2:20). The Lord dwelt in the Tabernacle (2Sa 7:6); the Church is builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit (Eph 2:21-22). The Spirit reveals the deep things of God, the things of Christ (1Co 2:10-12; Joh 16:14-15); the Church is the fulness of Him that filleth all in all (Eph 1:23); hence it is Gods purpose that unto the . . . might be made known through the Church the manifold wisdom of God (Eph 3:10, R.V.).
VI. God would speak through each member of the Church. First He speaks to, and then by them. He spake to Moses, that he might speak unto the children of Israel. In like manner He acts now: Have we received blessing to our soul? If so, God would have us help others (Mar 5:19). (Lady Beaujolois Dent.)
The Tabernacle of the congregation.
The way of access to God
I. In our approach to god nothing is left to human invention.
1. There are conditions to our acceptable approach.
2. There are minutely revealed conditions for our approach.
II. For our rightful approach to him, God has made full and gracious provision.
1. A place for meeting God.
2. A sacrificial basis of acceptance.
3. A mediatorial ministry.
III. By such arrangements for our acceptable approach, God has laid us under most solemn obligations to seek him.
1. Shall God wait in vain within the Holy Place, and none draw near?
2. Can sinful man despise the sacrifice of Jesus offered for his propitiation?
3. With such a Priest within the Holy Place, have we no mediation to ask, no sins to confess, no offerings to bring? (W. H. Jellie.)
The essential significance of the Tabernacle
The essential significance of the Tabernacle may be inferred from the names customarily given to it. These names may be divided into three classes:
1. Those which, like house, tent, dwelling, dwelling of the testimony, convey the general idea of a place of Divine residence (Exo 23:19; Exo 25:9; Exo 26:36; Exo 38:21).
2. Those which, like tent of meeting, or tent-house of meeting, express the idea of a meeting-place for God and man (Exo 27:21; Exo 39:32).
3. Those which, like sanctuary, draw attention to holiness as an attribute of the place itself (Exo 25:8). Now a house where God was, or was supposed to be, must be a place for worship, and a place for Divine worship must of necessity be holy ground; thus one fundamental idea lay at the root of all these appellations, viz., that the Tabernacle was a meeting-place between Jehovah and His covenant people. There Jehovah was to be thought peculiarly present, and therefore peculiarly approachable. By the Jew the Lord God Almighty was not to be sought in woods or fountains or valleys, but in this house which He had appointed . . . It must be remembered, however, that approach to Jehovah was conditioned by the terms of the Sinaitic revelation. Whilst, therefore, the Tabernacle as the dwelling-place of the Most High, was by the Divine condescension a place where God and the Jew might come together, that contact was arranged in accordance with the characteristics of the Mosaic dispensation. The whole structure was a place of meeting where man and God could congregate; but it was in the court only that the common Israelite could approach Jehovah, and that by mediation in the person of the appointed priestly representatives; in the Holy Place, to which the priests alone had access, the worshippers also approached the throne of Deity by mediation, being admitted, so to speak, to the anteroom of the Divine audience-chamber by the adoration of their chief; whilst to the high priest alone, and that after solemn preparation, was it permitted on one day in the year to pass within the veil, and gaze unhindered upon that mercy-seat, aglow with gold, where rested the shadowy cloud of the Shechinah. Further, if the Tabernacle was the appointed sanctuary where man might meet with God on the fulfilment of certain conditions, be it noted that the several altars were, so to speak, the points at which those conditions could be best fulfilled. Every square inch of the sacred enclosure was a place of meeting between Jehovah and His people, according to the terms of the Divine revelation: but it was at the altar of burnt-offering in the court that the non-priestly worshippers approached most nearly to their God; it was at the golden altar in the Holy Place that the priests were admitted to closest access; and it was as he approached most directly the space beneath the outstretched wings of the cherubim that the high priest drew nearest to the throne of intercession. The several altars were the shrines, so to speak, of the several sanctuaries, in which their essence was concentrated, and from which their power radiated. The essential significance of the peculiar sanctuary of Judaism lay, then, in the fact that, being the visible dwelling-place of Jehovah, it testified to the possibility of human approach to God so long as the conditions of the related laws were observed–these conditions being, so far at least as the theocratic status of the worshippers was concerned, that the Israelite might come near to God in the person of His priests in the court, and especially at the altar of burnt-offering; that in the Holy Place, and especially at the altar of incense, the priesthood might do homage to Jehovah as enshrined behind the veil; and that in the Holy of Holies, and especially at the high altar of the mercy-seat, the high priest might, by careful obedience to the prescribed conditions, occasionally regard that cloud by which the Almighty condescended to reveal and at the same time to conceal His presence. (A. Cave, D. D.)
God known in the Tabernacle; or, redemptive relations
The redeemed people of God only know God in the Tabernacle; and none, who belong not to that Tabernacle on earth, can belong to God in heaven. All who are of faith–all who have fed on the Passover Lamb, belong to the Tabernacle; but Egypt is the type of the position of all besides. How important to remember this, when so many efforts are being made to destroy the distinctions which redemption has constituted, and to speak of mans natural condition as having in it the elements of saving relation to God! Men wish to sweep, as it were, from the earth the Tabernacle and its lessons, and to sanctify Egypt in the name of God. Israel themselves knew nothing of the Tabernacle whilst in Egypt: it was a gift reserved for them after they had entered the wilderness. They were led into the wilderness not merely to learn its solitude and its sorrows, but to become acquainted with God–His service and His ways. The holy vessels of the Tabernacle, the inner curtains of blue, and purple, and scarlet, the priest robed in garments of glory and beauty, stood in strange contrast with the waste and howling scene around them; yet faith has still to know the same contrast, whilst learning here respecting Christ and the various relations in which we stand to God and to Him. The heart that lingers in Egypt, and refuses, as it were, to enter the wilderness, will little learn the lessons of the Tabernacle; hut all who recognise how truly redemption has separated them for ever from that land of nature and of curse, will find, in the knowledge of the Tabernacle, their daily solace, till the hour comes for them to enter into the abiding rest. In the Tabernacle we typically learn the relations of God to His redeemed people. We are there taught respecting the sacrifice provided for us in Christ–its fulness, its various relations to God and to ourselves. There we learn the ground on which we worship and serve Him, meeting Him in the blessings of peace through redemption. (B. W. Newton.)
God found in His sanctuary
But when the Lord had arranged a tent of meeting with His people, He spoke to Moses out of the tent of meeting. It is all very well for the man who is in the wilderness or on the mountain-top, in the line of duty, to listen for the sound of the Lords voice there; but when a man can find his way into the sanctuary there is where he may expect to be spoken to by the Lord. If he leaves the sanctuary to wander among the thorn-bushes, or to clamber the mountain peaks, with the idea that it is in Natures temples that he is to find the God of nature, he will miss a meeting with the covenant-making and covenant-keeping God in the place of meeting. There is no more likely place to find God than where God says He may be found; no more hopeful place for meeting God than in Gods meeting-place. Thy way, O God, is in the sanctuary! Help us to find Thee there! (H. C. Trumbull.)
The pardoning presence of Jesus
The Tabernacle was a figure of Christ, and was intended to teach us some important lessons respecting Him. We have in the Tabernacle a beautiful illustration of one of the precious names of Jesus our Saviour. Just before He came into our world, the angel Gabriel was sent to Joseph, His reputed father, to tell him about that wonderful Child that was to be born unto Mary his wife. And this is what the angel said: They shall call HIS name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us (Mat 1:23). This name is wonderful. It is full of meaning. But many find it difficult to understand its meaning. And so God ordered the Tabernacle to be built in the wilderness, that in it He might dwell among the people, and thus be a figure, or illustration to them of the way in which Jesus now dwells in the hearts of His people by faith. The Tabernacle was a definition of this name–Emmanuel. As God was present with the Israelites in the wilderness, in the Tabernacle, so Jesus is present with His people in this world. And as we study the different parts of this Tabernacle we are taught much that is interesting and profitable concerning the presence of Jesus with His people. The Tabernacle taught that there was to be pardon connected with His presence. The brazen altar, or the altar of burnt sacrifice, was the part of the Tabernacle that taught this lesson. That was the first thing one would see on entering the court of the Tabernacle. Here the daily sacrifice was offered. Here the blood of the slain animals was shed, that it might be sprinkled both on the priests and on the people. No one was allowed to enter the Tabernacle or to worship God there till he had first been to this brazen altar, and had the blood of the sacrifice sprinkled upon him. And the great blessing represented by the shedding and sprinkling of the blood was the pardon of sin. There was no power in the blood of those animals to put away sin, or to procure pardon. But it pointed to the blood of Christ, through which alone all pardon comes. And this is what the Apostle Paul teaches us, when he says that, without the shedding of blood there is no remission (Heb 9:22), or no pardon. If Jesus had not shed His precious blood there never would have been any pardon for sin. But that blood was shed. And now there is pardon for all who repent and believe in Him. His presence with His people is a pardoning presence. He has power on earth to forgive sins (Mat 9:6). There is nothing that we need more than pardon. We are born in sin. We sin every day, and we are always needing pardon. And it is a blessed thing to know that we can have this pardon at any time by seeking it in the right way. Jesus is–ready to forgive (Psa 86:5). His promise is that–He will abundantly pardon (Isa 55:7). Here is an illustration of the pardoning power of Jesus. It was told by a sailor who witnessed it, who was made a Christian by it, and afterwards became a chaplain. Our vessel lay at anchor, said he, off the coast of Africa. The yellow fever had broken out on board, and several of the men had died. It was my duty every morning to go through that part of the vessel used as a hospital, and see if any of the men had died during the night. One morning as I was passing through this sick ward, a poor fellow lying there took hold of me with his cold, clammy hand. I knew him very well. He was an old shipmate, and one of the wickedest men on board. I saw in a moment that he had not long to live. Oh, Jim, he said, for Gods sake, let some one come and read the Bible to me before I die! None of the sailors had a Bible; but at last I found that there was one on board belonging to the cabin-boy. I told him to get his Bible, and bring it into the sick ward, and went back there myself. Presently the boy came with a small Bible in his hand. In the meantime a number of the Kroomen, or native Africans, who were working on board, gathered round the sick man, not to see him die, but, as one of them said, to see what de good book do for poor Massa Richie. I told the boy to read a chapter. He sat down by the sick man, and, opening at the third chapter of St. John, he began to read. The poor fellow fixed his eyes on the reader, and listened most earnestly to every word he spoke. Presently the boy came to the beautiful words in the sixteenth verse, God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life I I watched the face of the dying man as these words were read. I never saw such earnestness and anxiety in any face as were in his. The boy was going on with the next verse, when the sick man exclaimed, Stop my boy, stop! Bead that verse again, and read it slowly. The boy repeated the verse, and was going on again. But he was interrupted a second and a third time with the earnest cry, Stop, my boy, stop! Read that verse again. And when he had done so a number of times, the dying man said, Dont read any more. Thats enough. And then, as he grew fainter and fainter, we heard him, in a low voice, repeating to himself those wonderful words, and making his own remarks on them, Whosoever–that means anybody. That means me. Whosoever believeth. I do believe this. Well, what then? Whosoever believeth shall not perish. No, not perish, but have everlasting life. Not perish–not perish–but have everlasting life. These were his last words. With these upon his lips, he passed away, and entered into heaven–one pardoned sinner more, saved through the precious Mood of Christ. The presence of Jesus which the Tabernacle illustrates is–a pardoning presence. (Richard Newton, D. D.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
THE THIRD BOOK OF MOSES CALLED LEVITICUS
-Year before the common Year of Christ, 1490.
-Julian Period, 3224.
-Cycle of the Sun, 27.
-Dominical Letter, D.
-Cycle of the Moon, 9.
-Indiction, 6.
-Creation from Tisri or September, 2514.
CHAPTER I
The Lord calls to Moses out of the tabernacle, and gives him
directions concerning burnt-offerings of the beeve kind,
1,2.
The burnt-offering to be a male without blemish, 3.
The person bringing it to lay his hands upon its head, that it
might be accepted for him, 4.
He is to kill, flay, and cut it in pieces, and bring the blood
to the priests, that they might sprinkle it round about the
altar, 5, 6.
All the pieces to be laid upon the altar and burnt, 7-9.
Directions concerning offerings of the SMALLER CATTLE, such as
sheep and goats, 10-13.
Directions concerning offerings of FOWLS, such as doves and
pigeons, 14-17.
NOTES ON CHAP. I
Verse 1. And the Lord called unto Moses] From the manner in which this book commences, it appears plainly to be a continuation or the preceding; and indeed the whole is but one law, though divided into five portions, and why thus divided is not easy to be conjectured.
Previously to the erection of the tabernacle God had given no particular directions concerning the manner of offering the different kinds of sacrifices; but as soon as this Divine structure was established and consecrated, Jehovah took it as his dwelling place; described the rites and ceremonies which he would have observed in his worship, that his people might know what was best pleasing in his sight; and that, when thus worshipping him, they might have confidence that they pleased him, every thing being done according to his own directions. A consciousness of acting according to the revealed will of God gives strong confidence to an upright mind.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Moses stood without, Exo 40:35, waiting for God’s call.
Out of the tabernacle of the congregation; from the mercyseat in the tabernacle.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
1. the Lord . . . spake . . . out ofthe tabernacleThe laws that are contained in the previousrecord were delivered either to the people publicly from Sinai, or toMoses privately, on the summit of that mountain; but on thecompletion of the tabernacle, the remainder of the law was announcedto the Hebrew leader by an audible voice from the divine glory, whichsurmounted the mercy seat.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And the Lord called unto Moses,…. Or “met him”, as the phrase is rendered in Nu 23:4. The word , translated “called”, the last letter of it is written in a very small character, to show, as the Jews b say, that he met him accidentally, and unawares to Moses: other mysteries they observe in it, as that it respects the modesty of Moses, who lessened himself, and got out of the way, that he might not have the government laid upon him, and therefore the Lord called him; or to denote the wonderful condescension of the Lord, whose throne is in heaven, and yet vouchsafed to dwell in the tabernacle, out of which he called to Moses, and from Mount Sinai, and out of the cloud c. The word “Lord” is not in this clause, but the following, from whence it is supplied by our translators, as it is in the Syriac version, and as the word “God” is in the Arabic version; the two Targums of Jonathan and Jerusalem paraphrase it,
“the Word of the Lord called to Moses,”
by an articulate voice, though it may be it was a still small one; and which some think is the reason of the smallness of the letter before mentioned; and Aben Ezra says that Moses heard it, but all Israel did not hear:
and spoke unto him out of the tabernacle of the congregation; from off the mercy seat, between the cherubim over the ark, where the glory of the Lord, or the divine Shechinah and Majesty took up its residence, and from whence the Lord promised to commune with Moses, Ex 25:22:
saying; what follows concerning sacrifices; which shows, that these were not human inventions, but of divine institution, and by the appointment of God.
b Vid. Buxtorf. Tiberias, c. 15. p. 39. c R. Abraham Seba, Tzeror Hammor, fol. 92. 1. 2.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
The Burnt-Offering. – Lev 1:2. “ If any one of you present an offering to Jehovah of cattle, ye shall present your offering from the herd and from the flock.” ( Corban, from to cause to draw near, to bring near, or present, an offering) is applied not only to the sacrifices, which were burned either in whole or in part upon the altar (Lev 7:38; Num 18:9; Num 28:2, etc.), but to the first-fruits (Lev 2:12), and dedicatory offerings, which were presented to the Lord for His sanctuary and His service without being laid upon the altar (Num 7:3, Num 7:10., Num 31:50). The word is only used in Leviticus and Numbers, and two passages in Ezekiel (Eze 20:28; Eze 40:43), where it is taken from the books of Moses, and is invariably rendered in the lxx (cf. Mar 7:11 “ Corban, that is to say a gift ”). ( from the cattle) belongs to the first clause, though it is separated from it by the Athnach; and the apodosis begins with ( from the herd). The actual antithesis to “the cattle” is “the fowl” in Lev 1:14; though grammatically the latter is connected with Lev 1:10, rather than Lev 1:2. The fowls (pigeons) cannot be included in the behemah , for this is used to denote, not domesticated animals generally, but the larger domesticated quadrupeds, or tame cattle (cf. Gen 1:25).
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
| The Law Concerning Offerings. | B. C. 1490. |
1 And the LORD called unto Moses, and spake unto him out of the tabernacle of the congregation, saying, 2 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, If any man of you bring an offering unto the LORD, ye shall bring your offering of the cattle, even of the herd, and of the flock.
Observe here, 1. It is taken for granted that people would be inclined to bring offerings to the Lord. The very light of nature directs man, some way or other, to do honour to his Maker, and pay him homage as his Lord. Revealed religion supposes natural religion to be an ancient and early institution, since the fall had directed men to glorify God by sacrifice, which was an implicit acknowledgment of their having received all from God as creatures, and their having forfeited all to him as sinners. A conscience thoroughly convinced of dependence and guilt would be willing to come before God with thousands of rams,Mic 6:6; Mic 6:7. 2. Provision is made that men should not indulge their own fancies, nor become vain in their imaginations and inventions about their sacrifices, lest, while they pretended to honour God, they should really dishonour him, and do that which was unworthy of him. Every thing therefore is directed to be done with due decorum, by a certain rule, and so as that the sacrifices might be most significant both of the great sacrifice of atonement which Christ was to offer in the fulness of time and of the spiritual sacrifices of acknowledgment which believers should offer daily. 3. God gave those laws to Israel by Moses; nothing is more frequently repeated than this, The Lord spoke unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel. God could have spoken it to the children of Israel himself, as he did the ten commandments; but he chose to deliver it to them by Moses, because they had desired he would no more speak to them himself, and he had designed that Moses should, above all the prophets, be a type of Christ, by whom God would in these last days speak to us, Heb. i. 2. By other prophets God sent messages to his people, but by Moses he gave them laws; and therefore he was fit to typify him to whom the Father has given all judgment. And, besides, the treasure of divine revelation was always to be put into earthen vessels, that our faith might be tried, and that the excellency of the power might be of God. 4. God spoke to him out of the tabernacle. As soon as ever the shechinah had taken possession of its new habitation, in token of the acceptance of what was done, God talked with Moses from the mercy-seat, while he attended without the veil, or rather at the door, hearing a voice only; and it is probable that he wrote what he heard at that time, to prevent any mistake, or a slip of memory, in the rehearsal of it. The tabernacle was set up to be a place of communion between God and Israel; there, where they performed their services to God, God revealed his will to them. Thus, by the word and by prayer, we now have fellowship with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ, Acts vi. 4. When we speak to God we must desire to hear from him, and reckon it a great favour that he is pleased to speak to us. The Lord called to Moses, not to come near (under that dispensation, even Moses must keep his distance), but to attend and hearken to what should be said. A letter less than ordinary in the Hebrew word for called, the Jewish critics tell us, intimates that God spoke in a still small voice. The moral law was given with terror from a burning mountain in thunder and lightning; but the remedial law of sacrifice was given more gently from a mercy-seat, because that was typical of the grace of the gospel, which is the ministration of life and peace.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
LEVITICUS
Note: Commentary on Pentateuch, including Leviticus, was written by Dr. G.F. Crumley. (verse by verse commentary follow chart and introduction)
Chart on LEVITICUS
The Way Of Daily Cleansing
I. How Sinners and Saints approached God, Le 1:1
to 10:20.
A.Through the offerings, Le 1:1 to 7:38.
B.Through the priests, Le 8:1 to 10:20.
II. How the Redeemed Walked With God, Le 11:1 to
27:34 Thru Sanctification:
A.Laws Concerning Purity, Le 11:1 to 15:33.
B.The Law of Day of Atonement, Le 16:1-34.
C.Laws Regulating Sacrificing, Le 17:1-16.
D.Laws Regarding Standards of Conduct, Le 18:1 to 20:27.
E.Laws Regarding Standards for Priests. Le
21:1 to 22:16
F.Laws Regarding Offerings, Le 22;17-33.
G.Laws Regulating Festivals, Le 23:1-44.
H.Laws Regarding, Oil, Bread, and Blasphemy, Le 24:1-23.
I.Laws Concerning the Sabbatical year, Le
25:1-7.
J.Laws Regarding the year of Jubilee, Le 25:8-55.
K.Laws Concerning Obedience, Le 26:1-46.
L.Laws Regarding Vows and Tithes, Le 27:1-34.
INTRODUCTION TO THE BOOK OF LEVITICUS
AUTHOR: Fundamental Bible scholars agree that Moses wrote the book of Leviticus. Wellhausen, in 1877, advanced the theory that Leviticus was the work of anonymous priests and writers as late as BC 450. Recent archaeological finds disprove this theory. There is no valid reason to question the Mosaic authorship of the Book.
DATE: Likely about one month following the close of the Book of Exodus. Leviticus closely follows Exodus in historical continuity. Although it contains some historical materials, it is primarily a book of legal and ritual provisions.
TITLE: “Leviticus” comes from the Latin rendering of the Greek title, “Levitikon,” or “Liber Leviticus.” The Hebrew title is the first word of the text, “And He Called,” wayyiqra.
SUBJECT: Leviticus may be described as a technical manual of procedures governing the physical, moral, and spiritual life of Israel. As the name suggests, it was written primarily for the priests and Levites, as the custodians of holy things and instructors of moral and religious values, as follows:
Chapters 1-7: details of procedures involved in various offerings and sacrifices. These include both animal sacrifices and food sacrifices.
Chapters 8-10: liturgical, describing consecration rites of the priesthood.
Chapters 11-15: listing of various clean and unclean beasts; regulations regarding rules of hygiene.
Chapter 16: the important “Yom Kippur” sacrifice, the Great Day of Atonement.
Chapters 17-20: ethical laws, and the penalties for violation.
Chapters 21-27: holiness, consecration, promises, and vows.
LEVITICUS – CHAPTER ONE
Verses 1-9:
The various sacrifices, prescribed in the Levitical code, were not for the purpose of obtaining pardon from sin for the offerers, Mic 6:6-8; Ps 40:6-8; Heb 10:1-6. They were figures (types) of various aspects of the complete work of Jesus Christ, Heb 9:8-14; 10:7-14.
The whole burnt offering pictures the complete self-surrender of Christ, in the sacrifice of Himself as the Substitute for sinners, Isa 53; Php 2:5-8. The entire animal was to be utterly consumed in the sacrificial flames – nothing was spared. This pictures Jesus’ giving Himself in His entirety – His body to be broken (1Co 11:24), His mind to suffer agony (Mt 26:38), His spirit to be separated from the Father (Mt 27:46; Mr 15:34). In His sacrificial death, Jesus suffered everything any person will ever have to suffer in hell. He became the complete sacrifice for sin.
“And (the Lord) called,” wayyiqra, is the designation of the Book, in the Hebrew text. “Leviticus” was first adopted by the Septuagint, as indicated of the main subject of the Book, being the duties of the priests and Levites.
“And” connects this book to the Book of Exodus.
The text implies that the giving of Leviticus occurred shortly after the erection of the tabernacle (Ex 40:16).
This does not mark the institution of sacrifices. Burnt offerings and other sacrifices had existed since the fall (Ge 4:3, 4). Leviticus is the regulation of the offerings already in use among the Israelites.
“If any. . .bring an offering,” not a command, but a provision for the voluntary offerings which any could bring. Other passages designate certain specific times when offerings were to be made.
“Burnt offering,” olah, “that which ascends.” In De 33:10, the term is Kaleel, “whole offering.” An Israelite bringing this offering must fulfill these conditions:
1.He must offer either (1) a young bull; (2) a young ram; (3) a young he-goat; (4) a turtle-dove; or (5) a pigeon.
2. If a bull, ram, or goat, the sacrifice must be brought to the entrance of the tabernacle in front of the brazen altar.
3. The offerer must place his hand upon the animal’s head.
4. The offerer, or a Levite, must kill the animal
5. The sacrifice must be flayed (skinned).
6. The offerer must separate the sacrificial animal into various portions.
7. The offerer must wash the intestines and legs.
In fulfilling all these conditions, the offerer was personally identified with the sacrifice, and thus affirmed his personal need and his faith in the efficacy of his deed. This typifies the sinner’s personal involvement in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on his behalf.
The priests also had a role to fulfill in this sacrifice. They must catch the blood in a basin and sprinkle it upon the altar. They must arrange the fire upon the altar, and then arrange the various parts of the sacrifice on the altar. The following morning, the priests must take the ashes of the whole burnt offering from the altar, place them on the east of the altar, then carry them outside the camp to a clean place for proper disposal.
Four separate parts constituted this offering:
1. The oblation (presentation) of the sacrificial victim.
2. The immolation or slaughter of the sacrificial victim.
3. The offering of the blood, or “life for life.”
4. The consumption of the entire sacrifice.
The first two were performed by the offerer. The third was by the priest. The fourth indicated God’s acceptance of the sacrifice.
“Without blemish,” a condition to be met in all offerings. This typifies the sinless life of Jesus, who became the sinner’s substitute, 2Co 5:21.
The sacrifice must be offered of one’s “own voluntary will,” lit. “for his own acceptance.” This is two-fold, indicating: (1) the offerer’s voluntary acceptance of his own guilt and the efficacy of the sacrifice; and (2) faith in being accepted on the merits of the sacrifice. This typifies that the sinner must recognize his own guilt and the efficacy of Jesus’ death on his behalf; and he must trust in the merits of Jesus Christ for his salvation.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
1. And the Lord called unto Moses. In these seven chapters Moses will treat generally of the sacrifices. But since we read of many things here, the use of which has passed away, and others, the grounds of which I do not understand, I intend to content myself with a brief summary, from whence, however, the reader may fully perceive that whatever has been left to us relative to the legal sacrifices is even now profitable, provided we are not too curious. Let those who choose to hunt for allegories receive the praise they covet; my object is only to profit my readers, and it will suffice briefly to sum up what I think useful to be known. Although in this chapter burnt-offerings only are treated of, yet the rule which is laid down respecting them has a more extensive application, since Moses teaches what animals God would have offered to Him, so as that they may be acceptable, and also by whom and with what ceremonies they are to be offered. He enumerates three kinds, of the herd, of the flocks, and of fowls; for the case of the red heifer, from which the ashes of atonement were made, was different and peculiar; and here the question is as to the ordinary sacrifices, by which private individuals used either to atone for their sins or to testify their piety. He commands, therefore, that the cattle as well as the lambs and kids should be males, and also perfect and free from all blemish. We see, then, that only clean animals were chosen for the sacrifices, and again that all clean animals did not please God, but only domestic ones, such as allow themselves to be directed by the hand and will of men. For, though deer and roes are sometimes tamed, yet God did not admit them to His altar. This, then, was the first rule of obedience, that men should not offer promiscuously this or that victim, but bulls or bull-calves of their herds, and male lambs or kids of their flocks. Freedom from blemish is required for two reasons; for, since the sacrifices were types of Christ, it behooved that in all of them should be represented that complete perfection of His whereby His heavenly Father was to be propitiated; and, secondly, the Israelites were reminded that all uncleanness was repudiated by God lest his service should be polluted by their impurity. But whilst God exhorted them to study true sincerity, so he abundantly taught them that unless they directed their faith to Christ, whatsoever came from them would be rejected; for neither would the purity of a brute animal have satisfied Him if it had not represented something better. In the second place, it is prescribed that whosoever presented a burnt-offering should lay his hand on its head, after he had come near the door of the tabernacle. This ceremony was not only a sign of consecration, but also of its being an atonement, (249) since it was substituted for the man, as is expressed in the words of Moses, “And it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him.” (Lev 1:4.) There is not, then, the least doubt but that they transferred their guilt and whatever penalties they had deserved to the victims, in order that they might be reconciled to God. Now, since this promise could not have been at all delusive, it must be concluded that in the ancient sacrifices there was a price of satisfaction which should release them from guilt and blame in the judgment of God; yet still not as though these brute animals availed in themselves unto expiation, except in so far as they were testimonies of the grace to be manifested by Christ. Thus the ancients were reconciled to God in a sacramental manner by the victims, just as we are now cleansed through baptism. Hence it follows that these symbols were useful only as they were exercises unto faith and repentance, so that the sinner might learn to fear God’s wrath, and to seek pardon in Christ.
(249) Lat., “ piaculum.” Fr., “ mais aussi de la malediction a cause du peche.”
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
THE MEANING OF THE WHOLE BURNT OFFERING
Leviticus, chapter 1.
THE typology of the Old Testament is a scientific demonstration of the truth of the New. No man can study the symbols of the former without seeing the Saviour of the latter; and only the God of infinite wisdom and a perfect plan can possibly have so interlinked and related them.
In the Book of Exodus, God speaks to Moses out of the mount; His presence is a flame; His voice a thunder, and the people are made afraid. In the Book of Leviticus, He has come within the narrow confines of the Holy of Holies, and now speaks out of the tabernacle of the congregation, and from the very spot known as the Mercy Seat.
God, then, was a God of grace two thousand years before Christ was born. The revelation of His mercy did not wait manifestation in Jesus, but was revealed instead in types and symbols.
Few of these interesting adumbrations are a more wonderful revelation of that grace than was the whole burnt offering. On careful study it falls naturally under four suggestions: The Spotless Sacrifice; The Shedding of Blood; The Sinners Substitute, and The Complete Surrender.
THE SPOTLESS SACRIFICE
Speak unto the Children of Israel, and say unto them,
If any man of you bring an offering unto the Lord, ye shall bring your offering of the cattle, even of the herd, and of the flock.
If his offering be a burnt sacrifice of the herd, let him offer a male without blemish: he shall offer it of his own voluntary will at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation before the Lord.
And he shall kill the bullock before the Lord: and the priests, Aarons sons, shall bring the blood, and sprinkle the blood round about upon the attar that is by the door of the tabernacle of the congregation (Lev 1:2-3; Lev 1:5).
These symbols are full of suggestion. To three of them let me call special attention.
There is a symbol in the sex. Let him offer a male. From that symbolism the law of the offering never departed. It applies whether he take his offering from the herd, from the flock, or from the fowls. The masculine pronoun, his, is everywhere employed to express that sex. In other words, God, from the beginning, proposed that His final and sufficient sacrifice should be His Son. He never meant that Mary should express in her person any saving power; and He never intended that Mary Baker Eddy, or any other woman, should be His special ambassador or the worlds Saviour. When the great Prophet Isaiah received his wonderful revelation concerning the worlds Redeemer, he wrote: Unto us a Child is born, but immediately hastened to explain,
Unto us a Son is given; and the government shall be upon His shoulder; and His Name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The Mighty God, The Everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace (Isa 9:6).
Not a few of the false religions of the world have been originated by women. The true faith found its exponent in a man. God therein honors His own ordination, for Adam was first in the creation and our salvation rests with the Second Adamthe Lord from Heaven.
There is a reason for this! The virility of the mighty God is best expressed by a man Child. Behold the Man was not merely the flippant sentence of a petty potentate, but rather the exclamation of human wonder at the sign of Gods representative in a wicked world.
The spotlessness is also suggestive. The further phrase is, Let him offer a male without blemish. The point at which Jesus Christ was differentiated from mankind was not that of sex, but rather that of sanctity. He was holy. Harmless as the sheep; undefiled as the dove, yet more holy than either. That is why Paul could write to the Hebrews (Heb 9:13-14),
For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:
How much more shall the Blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the Living God?
Jean Paul Richter had long contemplated the character of Jesus when at last he broke out with the words: Jesus Christ, the holiest among the mighty, and the mightiest among the holy, who lifted with His pierced hand empires from their hinges, turned the stream of centuries out of the channel and still governs the ages.
Carnegie Simpson, writing regarding Jesus, argues sanely enough, More wonderful than His greatest miracle was His spotless character. To this opinion even rationalists like Daub, Rosencranza, Watke; and liberal theologians like Hause, Schenkel; and destructive critics like Lipsis, have been compelled to consent; while believers never cease from marvel as they come closer to the heart of this matchless life. Many of them would join with Richard Wagner, the great musician, who wrote of Jesus: We hear it said there have been saints and martyrs in the world; why should we hold that Jesus Christ alone among men is Divine? But all the saints and all the martyrs became such in the process of time, by Divine grace, by a special illumination, and experienced an inward conversion which transformed sinners into superhuman and sometimes anti-human beings. Buddha himself was a voluptuous prince living in his harem, when he was enlightened by the truth; in his renunciation of the pleasures of the world he appears to us heroic and sublime, but not Divine. In Jesus, on the contrary, we find from the very beginning a complete holiness with no admixture of evil passions, an absolute purity of nature which appears to us Divine. And, nevertheless, there is in Him nothing grotesque, anti-human; His perfect Divinity is allied with a perfect humanity, which takes hold of men and inspires them with sympathy and compassion. His figure is unique. All other saints have had need of a Saviour, but He is Himself the Saviour.
The spontaneity of this offering is symbolic. He shall offer it of his own voluntary will at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation before the Lord (Lev 1:3). From the beginning God intended that men should not be coerced in coming to Him; that sinners should not be dragged to salvation. The willing spirit He made fundamental in the whole process of redemption. Whosoever will was the law of the Old Testament as well as the opportunity of the New. David said:
Let all those that seek Thee, rejoice in and he glad in Thee: and let such as love Thy salvation say continually, Let God be magnified (Psa 70:4).
And Solomon put into a proverb, They that seek the Lord understandeth all things Again it is written, Blessed are they that keep His testimonies, and that seek Him with the whole heart (Psa 119:2). Isaiah joins in enjoining us, Seek ye the Lord while He may be found, call ye upon Him while He is near. There is not a Prophet of the Old Testament who fails to lay emphasis upon voluntary religion. Malachi, the last of that prophetic college, gives promise of the Coming Lord, to them that delight in Him. A man, then, who wants salvation can find it. It is not only true, as the Lord said: My people shall be willing in the day of My power, but the converse is equally truethe day of His power is the one of our willingness, and our text is the illustration of it.
THE SHEDDING OF BLOOD
The further study of our text brings us to a phrase from which certain critical spirits have started back, namely, the shedding of blood, and yet, for their sakes, we cannot afford to change the Scriptures,
He shall put his hand upon the head of the burnt offering; and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him.
And he shall kill the bullock before the Lord: and the priests, Aarons sons, shall bring the blood, and sprinkle the blood round about upon the altar that is by the door of the tabernacle of the congregation (Lev 1:4-5).
Here again, three remarks will illuminate for us the wonderful lesson:
The work was done by sinful hands. He shall kill the bullock before the Lord. Mark you, this was the sinners hand, not that of the priest. The crucifixion of Jesus Christ, while in perfect accord with the Divine prophecy, was not actuated by the Holy Spirit. On the Day of Pentecost, Peter exploited the animus of that murder, when, facing the men who fifty days before had nailed Him to the Cross, he said:
Ye men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you, by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by Him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know;
Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain (Act 2:22-23).
At a later point in his ministry, when the high priests and certain Sadducees laid hands on the Apostles and put them in the common prison, but were later compelled by the fear of the people to bring them forth again, Peter was no sooner released than he said to his opponents, We ought to obey God rather them men. The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree.
However plainly crucifixion was a part of the Divine plan, the criminality of the act in accomplishing it, has never been called into question; and God dealt in judgment with the masters of that infamy. Have you ever inquired into the fate of our Saviours murderers? Judas, who betrayed Him, hanged himself. The rope broke, and as he fell his very body was torn asunder and his bowels gushed out. Herod, who participated in it, is reported to have been dethroned by Caesar and to have died in infamy and exile. Pilate, who weakly allowed it, was stripped of the very power he was seeking to retain, and even banished from his land, and the tradition is that he put an end to his own life rather than endure the infamy following him. The house of Annas was set upon by a mob and his son was first walked through the streets and then scourged. In 1870 Jerusalem was taken by the Romans and thousands of the Jews were taken and many of them as cruelly crucified as the Saviour Himself, and thousands upon thousands of them were sold into slavery, the price for some of them being a more miserable pittance than that which they had paid to Judas for betraying their Lord. From that moment until this, Palestine has endured oppression, famine and war, and every Jew who cried, Crucify Him, has been the outcast of nationsostracized, scorned and hated. Little did they know the meaning of their own words, or imagine the mighty Gods wrath against this crime when they said: His blood be upon us and on our children.
But let no man imagine that these were the only hands that were stained with the Blood of the Son of God. I bring against you an indictment of particips criminis, and I hang my head with shame and confess that I too had part in the driving of those cruel nails and in the thrust of that rending spear, for after all, it was sin that shed His Blood.
The way of it was a ruthless slaughter. How marvelously this burnt offering typifies that fact. The bullock was not alone to be killed, but was to be flayed and cut into pieces. That is the way they treated the Son of God. They drove the nails into the tender hands; they thrust the spike through the bleeding feet; they wreathed the brow with a crown of thorns; they stripped from His person the robe with which He would fain cover Himself; they gashed His side as though it were no greater sacrifice than rending the bullock. One day He told them why; Ye seek to kill Me, because My Word hath no place in you (Joh 8:37).
You remember Tintoretto, the great Italian painter, completed three crucifixes of Christ. One of these, now at Venice, represents the executioner as having completed his work, and as just reaching down from the ladder to take the title of the inscription from the hands below. The three crosses are in a diagonal line. The thieves are painfully alive. They turn their faces to the spectators in mortal agony. It represents our Lords face in profilenoble, fine, calm, not a hint of suffering in any feature of it. The Virgin is seated on the ground, and at her side, St. John. They are looking and listening while He is evidently making known to the latter that he is to make Mary his mother. There is a partial truth in this work of art. There was a calmness of soul, of spirit that remained undisturbed; but as for mortal agony, He suffered more than a thousand thieves could have done. And as for slaughter, His was more ruthless than was othersa thousand fold. That is why Isaiah wrote: His visage was so marred more than any man, and His form more than the sons of men.
Did you ever stop to think how graphically, and yet how truly the same great Old Testament Evangel depicted this scene? The scorn with which they looked upon Him, seeing no beauty in Him which they should desire? The ruthlessness with which they rejected Him, despising the face of that Man of sorrows, and the spirit of that One acquainted with grief? He was despised; He was stricken; He was smitten; He was wounded; He was oppressed and He was afflicted. Strange words, these! They painted the mortal agony of the Man from Nazareth, the unspeakable suffering of the Son of God. His was a ruthless slaughter.
And yet, the third suggestion is never to be forgotten.
This wickedness of man was Divinely overruled.
God breaks in upon the animosity of man for the Divine purpose, saying Thou shalt make His soul an offering for sin. * * And the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in His hand. He shall see of the travail of His soul, and shall be satisfied (Isa 53:10-11).
The marvel of Gods grace is that He can make everything work together for good to them that love Him. For where sin abounds, He can make grace much more to abound; yes, even the wrath of man He can change to His praise. I knew a man to go on a beastly drunk. For two weeks he never drew a sober breath. Yet out of that sin, God wrought his salvation, as Samson extracted honey from the festering corpse of a lion. Caiaphas perhaps did not know all the meaning of his own words when, in the time of his high priesthood, he said to the people:
Ye know nothing at all, nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one Man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.
And this spake he not of himself; but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation;
And not for that nation only, but that also He should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad (Joh 11:49-52).
THE SINNERS SUBSTITUTE
The heart of the Gospel is in the whole burnt offering. The method of procedure here is not one whit different from that found in the New Testament plan of salvation. The sacrifice once provided, three steps are fundamental.
The sinner must accept that sacrifice and confess it. He shall put his hands upon the head of the burnt offering; that is an acknowledgment that it stands in his stead. That is a public profession of his faith and that he has found a substitute. To him that worketh not, but believeth on Him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Jesus, then, had a reason for demanding not only an acceptance but a public confession of Himself. Concerning this necessity His Word is plain (Luk 12:8-9):
Whosoever shall confess Me before men, him shall the Son of Man also confess before the angels of God:
But he that denieth Me before men shall be denied before the angels of God.
There are quite a few people who are professing to have repented their sins, who are claiming a certain degree of sanctity, and who are yet striving to be secret disciples. Let it not be forgotten that there was a way in which this lamb was to be acceptedthat the atonement thereof was in public and could not be made in private; and the man who does not openly confess Christ has neither repented his sins, nor secured the substitute.
The second suggestion of the text follows, namely:
For he shall be accepted. The reason is assigned. To make atonement for him. Now, in this connection, the word atonement is of special interest. It means, to be made one with Him. Can any man who is trying to hide away the fact that he is a follower of Jesus imagine that he is at one with God?
Paul is an Apostle of grace to the Gentiles as well as of Gospel to the Jews, and Paul took pains after having discussed this whole burnt offering, to admonish his Hebrews,
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? (Heb 10:29).
No wonder he follows that with the statement, It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the Living God (Heb 10:31).
No, the man who has experienced Christ, will publicly confess Christ. In other words, only the man who accepts the Lamb of God as his substitute and takes Him as both Saviour and Lord, will have that Son accepted for him to make an atonement. The priest alone could present the blood; for that service the sinner had no fitness. The blood must precede him into the Holy of Holies. He could never enter there until it had cleared the way. Let no one of us forget that the unregenerate man can shed innocent blood, but he cannot approach the holy God. The high priesthood of Jesus alone can open the path into the Divine Presence. After He has gone there with His own Blood, we can follow without danger of judgment. Esther clothed herself with beauty and presented herself before the king, but she went not to plead her own cause, but rather that of her people instead. Our righteousness is as filthy rags; we have no garments with which to clothe ourselves that we might appear before God; but if the Great High Priest precedes us, He will bring back from the Lord of the House to every guest of Divine grace a wedding garment.
Finally,
THE COMPLETE SURRENDER
The offering itself must be complete. The terms of the text are, The priest shall bring it all, and burn it upon the altar (Lev 1:13). Not one whit could be held back. This contains a double suggestion. Christ kept nothing from the Cross. On it His body was broken; and there He made an offering of His soul for sin. He has a right, then, to demand a full surrender from those who have received the salvation there wrought out. Paul quite correctly called upon the Romans, saying, I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service (Rom 12:1).
Only the men who have thus utterly devoted themselves have received the fullness of the Divine approval. Florence Nightingale said, I have consciously kept nothing back from my God. Dwight L. Moody said, If it remains to see what God could do through a perfectly surrendered man, I offer myself. Morrison, the great missionary to China, said, My desire, oh, Lord, is to engage where laborers are most wanted. George McCorkindale of Scotland, who met his death in a blizzard on the Alps, in 1870, has inscribed upon the stone that marks his resting place the words, Where the Cross is there is the homeland.
The eleventh chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews is a chapter of devoted livesthe history of men who put their all on the altar. It is a tale of Christian heroism that has thrilled all the centuries. Consecration is indeed the call of God to every Christian in every century.
The offering must be clean. Mark the care in this connection. His inwards and his legs shall he wash in water (Lev 1:9). Without blemish with which to begin; without uncleanness with which to end. There never was a devils delusion exceeding that of the man who supposes that he can live an unclean life and yet combine it with true consecration. Consecration is a word that contains more than the suggestion of strenuous endeavor. It has in its very heart the idea of sanctity. The complete Christian life, then, is not one that commences the day at an early hour and continues in effort long after the down-going of the sun, but takes little or no account of motive, thought or conduct.
The offering must be consumed. The priest shall burn it upon the altar, upon the wood that is upon the fire: it is a burnt sacrifice, an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the Lord (Lev 1:17). It was once written of Jesus. The zeal of Mine house hath eaten Me up. Of every follower of the Nazarene, men and angels should be able to say the same. What a poor notion of Christianity we have anyhow! Some of us look upon it as a mere watchword with which to get to Heaven. Let it be remembered that Christ said, Not every one that saith unto Me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the Kingdom of Heaven; but him that doeth My will. Some look upon it as a state to be paraded, like the Pharisee who stood and prayed with himself, and pronounced his virtues in the presence of the people.
Let it not be forgotten that he went down to his house condemned.
Some of us look upon it as a profession, as did the Levite and priest who passed by on the other side. Let us never forget that their conduct was excoriated by the Son of God. What is the meaning of this teaching that the offering must be consumed? What else is it than that we are to give ourselves, body and soul and spirit to the service of Our King?
There is but one supreme use for a splendid physique, and that is to do the work of God with effectiveness. There is but one true occasion of a keen intellect, and that is to accomplish the Divine purpose. There is but one occasion for a saint in the world, and that is sacrificial service.
How poorly we interpret this plan of God! How abominably we employ our own powers! Some men regard their bodies as little better than instruments of sensuous excitement to be fed and fattened and excited and satisfied. Some men regard their intellects as commercial conveniences with which to amass fortunes and move like kings of finance in the midst of their fellows. Some men regard their souls as merely immortal instruments with which to defeat time and enjoy eternity.
I call myself and you to a better conception. I believe every healthy body should be wholly the Lords, a splendid engine of service, wearing itself out with the Divine will, saying with Jesus, and saying with truthfulness, Lord, I come to do Thy will. Every mind should be a medium for the Masters use to be dominated by the Spirit of God, and consecrated to a work that shall seek His glory; and every soul as an agent capable of giving eternal praise. Shall we eat then? Yes, not to gratify appetite only but to give further strength for a bigger task. Shall we educate them? Yes, for the cause of Christ and the Church. Shall we cultivate the soul? Yes, that men may see in us the image of our God and be filled not with fear, but with holy affection.
Fuente: The Bible of the Expositor and the Evangelist by Riley
The Law of the Burnt Sacrifices
SUGGESTIVE READINGS
Lev. 1:1.Lord called and spake. From within the Tabernacle: Gods first habitation among men. Never before had He dwelt with men on the earth; He speaks now for the first time from His holy tent in Israels midst. It foreshadowed the Word tabernacling among us (Joh. 1:14). The Lord called is a phrase specially used when important communications were to follow; as from the burning bush (Exo. 3:4), and from Sinais heights (Lev. 19:3-20). The law of commandments was given to Moses amid flames and thunder, as being condemnatory of mans sin. Now, the law of sacrifice is given in gracious communication through Moses, as revealing Gods plan of mercy. For us, in these Christian times, the gentler teachings of the Mount of Beatitudes form our law of duty and of life.
Lev. 1:2.If any man of you bring. God assumes
(1) That men would seek Him; would draw near to Him in the sacred tent, wherein He had come so near to men. If so, surely more readily and gratefully we should seek Him in Jesus. God was in Christ, etc. (2Co. 5:19).
(2) That men will seek Him, bringing offerings; some presentation as a token of homage and gratitude for His gifts to them; or some propitiation as a lament over their sin and an appeal to His mercy. God still looks for offerings as we come before His presence; what shall we render? what worthiest presentation can we take?
Lev. 1:3.A burnt sacrifice. This expressed the offerers surrender of himself unto God as a living sacrifice (Rom. 12:1). The victim must have no blemish, must be the choicest product of his pastures; for God asks, and will only receive, our best (Mal. 1:14). It must be offered of his own voluntary will, or rather for his own acceptance, expressing his great concern to win Gods gracious regard; and indeed, we ought to concern ourselves supremely for this; in Thy favour is life. And he must offer it at the door of the tabernacle, as being unworthy to enter. With humility and reverence, and a lowly sense of demerit, we should venture near God.
(a) Christ is herein typified; our Sacrifice without blemish, offered for mans acceptance, ere He entered the holy place (Heb. 9:12-24).
(b) The Christian is prefigured; yielding himself alive unto God, holy and acceptable, ere he is admitted into covenant privileges within the Church now, and finally into Gods presence in heaven.
Lev. 1:4.Put his hand upon the head. An act of transfer: threefold; signifying transference of his right of possession in the victim, his sense of sin to the victim, and his substitution for suffering of the victim. Thus the Christian gives up all rights of self-possession (Ye are not your own): thus also the sinner lays all his sin, and the believer all his hope, on Christ his sacrifice and substitute. It must be the individuals own act, none can do it for another; every one must himself lay his hand on Christ.
Lev. 1:5.He shall kill the bullock. Thereby he identified himself with the victim designated to die, and thereby claimed the atonement effected by its sacrificial substitution. To be saved we must also be identified with Christ in His death, and thereby inherit His atonement. The priest shall bring the blood, not the offerer; for the priestly offices of Christ are essential; man must let Jesus do all the work of propitiation. Sprinkle the blood round about upon the altar; attesting thereby that life had been given up in sacrificial Buffering unto God. Christs death is the sinners death, and the blood of sprinkling testifies that He made His soul an offering for sin. Diffused round about upon the altar, the blood is the memorial of an accomplished atonement, the seal of an accepted sacrifice.
Lev. 1:6-9Fire upon the altar an offering made by fire. Once lighted, that fire was never more to go out (ch. Lev. 6:13). Yet every part of the victim must be washed faultlessly clean before being placed on the altar: only the absolutely clean can be acceptable to God. And then the entire victim, every part thereof, must ascend in sacrificial fire unto God. Thus
(1) Christ our atonement-offering must Himself be holy, harmless, undefiled; and must also be completely sacrificed for mans sin. And
(2) Christian life must likewise be both thoroughly sanctified and wholly devoted unto God. Therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are Gods (1Co. 6:20).
A sweet savour unto the Lord. The very virtue and essence of the offering ascended by fire from the altar on earth to God in heaven. Duly offered by fire, the sacrifice was a sweet savour to the Lord. Christs sacrifice was: He gave Himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet smelling savour (Eph. 5:2). Christian self-consecration is: For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ (2Co. 2:15). Christian life perpetuates on earth and yields continually to heaven the incense of a pure offering, an odour of a sweet smell, a sacrifice acceptable, well-pleasing to God (Php. 4:18).
Lev. 1:10-13.A burnt sacrifice of the flocks. Only the wealthier offerers could bring the oostlier sacrifice of the herd (Lev. 1:3). God equally provides for the less opulent among the people; gives directions for their sacrifices just as specific, denoting that He valued their presentation as much as the costlier offering. Our straitened lot does not release us from Gods claims, neither is our humbler gift depreciated by God. But He requires entirety in all our sacrifices, that we devote to Him our utmost, our all. Bring it all and burn it upon the altar.
Lev. 1:14-17A burnt sacrifice of fowls. Thus God, with minute care, arranges for the poorest, that none may feel Gods requirements too heavy for them to meet, or deem their poverty a disqualification for approaching Him acceptably. In this instance, however, the priest was to bring the bird to the altar and slay it (Lev. 1:15), thereby giving peculiar importance to the poor mans offering as worthy special attention; for God has always put honour on the sacrifices of the poor, as our Lord did on the widows mite. Yet insignificant as was the offering of the poor, it must as fully denote entire self-devotion to God. He prizes the love which shows itself in our casting in all our living (Mar. 12:44).
INTRODUCTORY HOMILIES
(A). THE LEVITICAL RITUAL
That Moses was the author of this Book is acknowledged by most competent scholars. The events of the Book cover only about a month of time, i.e., from the erection of the tabernacle to the numbering of the people, and they relate to the establishment of sacrificial worship among the Hebrews in the wilderness of Sinai.
I. Although the words of Leviticus were written by Moses, they were dictated by the Lord.
The first verse of the Book decides this point, Moses records the utterances that proceeded from the tabernacle. So far then as Leviticus is concerned, we have the thoughts of God in the words of God, and, as such, they deserve our reverent attention, as indicating Jehovahs desire for our acceptable approach to Him.
Note that
(1) the pure ethical teaching of the Levitical ritual could not have been invented by a people so perverse and prone to corruption as Israel;
(2) and they would not voluntarily have put themselves under such restrictions if they could. The revelation of God to Israel, through His servant Moses, was the outcome of the Divine disposition to communicate to and commune with man, of His deep concern for human holiness and happiness; this the basis and spring of all revelation and blessing to our race. [See Illustrative Addenda, p. 18, Revelation.]
II. Although the rites of Leviticus have been superseded, its moral teaching has not been abrogated.
If read in connection with the Epistle to Hebrews (which is its best commentary) lessons upon Christian work, worship, witnessing may be gathered. Christ came not to destroy the law, but to give it a fuller and deeper significance, to exemplify and enforce the principles therein taught. The perfect ethics of the Gospel have their germs and roots in the law, both enjoin holiness to the Lord.
III. Although the sacrifices of Leviticus have been discontinued, the one offering of Christ abideth for ever.
We need no material altar or sacrifice; and, therefore, no human priest. Christ finished His atoning work upon the Crossappears now as Lamb in the midst of the throne, showing that while He was once a victim (Lamb) He is now a victor (throne). The law is our schoolmaster to lead us to Christ. Except read in light of the New Testament, Leviticus becomes a form without power, shadow without substance. With joy we may draw water out of these wells of salvation. In its typical rites we may apprehend Him who hath obtained eternal redemption for us.Rev. F. W. Brown.
(B). COMMUNION WITH GOD BY A REDEEMED PEOPLE THROUGH ALTAR OFFERINGS
The Exodus sacrifices, those offered by the children of Israel while in Egypt, i.e., the paschal lamb and unleavened bread, had reference and significance wholly to their redemption: deliverance from death and bondage. The Levitical sacrifices were those of a saved people, and were appointed for their acceptable approaches to God their Saviour. Instead, therefore, of seeing Christ as redeeming us, we see Him in His work for those already redeemed; bringing them into fellowship with God and restoring them when they fail or fall. To hold communion with God they need Christ both as Offering and Mediator, Sacrifice and Priest; thus He appears in the tabernacle services. Gathering all the tabernacle offerings into one view, remark that:
I. Altar offerings and tabernacle ministries all reach their completion in Christ.
He is the Burnt Offering, Meat Offering, Peace Offering, Sin Offering, Trespass Offering for His people. When He said, sacrifice and offering and burnt offering and offering for sin Thou wouldst not, neither hadst pleasure therein, which are offered by the law; then said He, Lo I come to do Thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that He may establish the second (Heb. 10:8-9). By the one oblation of Himself He has stood in all those relations; relations precious to God, needful to His Church.
1. In each offering three distinct objects are present: the offering, the priest, the offerer. Christ is each of and all these. So manifold are the relations in which Christ has stood for man and to man that all types are required to represent His fulness. First He comes as Offerer; but we cannot see the Offerer without the offering; and the Offerer is Himself the Offering; and He who is both Offerer and Offering is also the Priest.
(1) As offerer, we see Him our Substitute, fulfilling all righteousness.
(2) As priest, we see Him our Mediator, ministering between God and Israel.
(3) As offering, He is seen the Innocent Victim, a sweet savour to God, yet bearing the sin and dying for it.
(1) The offerer sets forth Christ in His Person; who became man to meet Gods requirements.
(2) The offering presents Him in His character and work, as the victim by which atonement was ratified.
(3) The priest shows Him in His official relation as the appointed intercessor.
2. The difference in the several offerings asks notice; the Burnt, the Meat, the Peace offerings, etc. They represent different aspects of Christs offering. [For their different meaning compare Homilies on each.]
3. The offerer himself also reflects Christ in His diverse aspects. The faithful Israelite stands, in one instance, as a sinless offerer, presenting a sweet smelling savour for acceptance with God, not propitiating for sin; in another as a convicted sinner, offering an expiatory sacrifice which bears the pain and penalty of his transgressions.
The offering of Christ was but one, and but once offered; but as Christs fulness and relations are so manifold, all aspects are needful to represent Him in those manifold relations and His various work for us.
4. The different grades in the various offerings is equally significant; the bullock, the lamb, the dove. And these denote the different estimates and apprehensions formed of Christ by His people. Christs work is so complete that each aspect may be differently apprehended according to the measure of light in the believer. Some never go beyond the conception of Christ as their Paschal Offering, securing their redemption from Egyptian bondage and death. Others, however, see Him as their Burnt Offering, wholly devoted to God for them; while to others He is as the passive Lamb silent and submissive in affliction; and to others the mourning Dove gentle and sorrowful in His innocency.
II. Altar offerings and tabernacle ministries were designed for Israels acceptable communion with God.
The types of Leviticus, in distinction from the types of redemption or deliverance from doom, give us the work of Christ in its bearing on worship and communion.
1. They meet the needs of a ransomed people in providing for their access to God. If they come for consecration they bring the burnt offerings: if for grateful acknowledgment of Divine bounty and graciousness, they bring the food offerings; if for reconciliation after ignorant misadventure or neglect of duty or temporary transgression, they bring their peace or trespass offering, &c. But they all provide a basis for access to and acceptance with God.
How thoroughly all these qualities unite in the one offering of Jesus is manifest; so that we, redeemed by Him, come before God with His merits and graces, and are accepted in Him. Therefore, being justified by faith, we have peace with God, through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand. and not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement (Rom. 5:1-2; Rom. 5:11).
2. Christs work as connected with the communion of His people, must be viewed under manifold representations. The Offering first: for His one oblation
Provides for those who come to God
An all-prevailing plea.
Yet how few believers enter earnestly into the manifold aspects and alms of Christs one offering represented in the various victims and the arrangements for their sacrifice. They read of Him as the Sin Offering, the Burnt Offering, &c., but no corresponding thought is suggested to them by this distinction. It is enough for them that the blood of the Paschal Lamb has been sprinkled on their door post and they are saved: they inquire not more concerning Him. But they who would know the joy of communion must go from strength to strength in the knowledge of the grace and work of Jesus. Have they known Him as the Paschal Lamb? They will then seek to know Him as the offering within the Tabernacle. Have they learnt Him in His different relations as offering? They will then seek to know Him in His Offices as Priest: His ministrations for us within the Holy Place: His grace and acceptableness as our Mediator at the altar: His free entrance on our behalf into the presence of God.
Thus, redemption being known, the Levitical sacrifices relate to the access of a chosen people to God: and show Christ as He is discerned by one who already knows the certainty of redemption; Christ the Priest, the Offerer, the Offering: Christ as meeting all that a sinner saved needs in approaching to God: Christ for the believer, and all that Christ is to the believer as keeping up his daily communion with God, meeting his needs in his access to Jehovah.Homiletically arranged by Editor from Jukes on the Offerings.
SECTIONAL HOMILIES
Topic.WORSHIP BY SACRIFICE (Lev. 1:1-9)
A great change had now occurred in the conditions of worship. God had hitherto declared His will amid terrible manifestations. The people had stood afar off in fear. Only through Moses, as a daysman betwixt them, had God spoken to men, or men approached Him. Now the Lord had commanded, Build Me a tabernacle that I may dwell among them (Exo. 25:8). Within their camp was a smoking altar, whose incense was a voiceless but constant prayer; and a Holy of Holies, in whose mysterious recesses dwelt the unseen Jehovah. To Him all the people were to approach, presenting their sacrificial offerings to Him for propitiation and consecration.
I. ACCEPTABLE WORSHIP MUST BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH DIVINE DIRECTION.
1. Many approach God with the feeling that He is glad to have the attention of men, and will welcome them under any circumstances. But He has made conditions for acceptable worship. It must be with
(a) An obedient spirit. Not every one that saith, Lord, Lord, etc., but he that doeth the will of My Father.
(b) A reverent spirit. Put thy shoes from off thy feet.
(c) Faith. He that cometh to God must believe, etc.
The people who had been so awestricken by the voice from the Mount that they entreated that the word should not be spoken to them any more would not venture to approach Jehovah unless called, nor in any way than the appointed. God has a right to prescribe the methods by which He shall be worshipped, and it is a proof of His mercy that He entered into minute details.
2. In any way that God commands, worship is a priceless privilege.
Here He appoints approach through sacrifices. Origin of sacrifice seems to have been mans feeling of sin and need, and conviction of obligation to God. First recorded sacrifice is Abels offering. From that time sacrifice became a common method of worship. God took this method of expressing religious feelings and thoughts, and taught the people to use it in approaching Him, but in elevated and refined forms. It was figurative and symbolic.
3. Gods appointed way for the approach of men to Him has always been by sacrifice. The object of sacrifice was to awaken and maintain reverence for God, and express mens feelings towards Him. Not now by the blood of bulls and goats, but the blood of Christ is the sacrifice by which we come to God. He taketh away the first that He may establish the second. But except through sacrifice no man may draw near. True religion is a revealed way of approach to God.
II. SACRIFICIAL WORSHIP WAS ORDAINED AS EXPRESSIVE OF THE WORSHIPPERS VOLUNTARY AND ENTIRE DEDICATION TO GOD.
The burnt offering was the oldest symbol by which was sought communion with God. Its Hebrew name means an ascending. They declared by it
(a) Their aspiration after Him; (b) Their desire to do His will; (c) Their self-surrender to Him.
It was this devotion of soul which made the offering a sweet savour unto Him. Therefore the worshipper took prominent part in the act of sacrifice. Laid his hand on the victim to make it his representative. Then slew it. Priest dashed its blood against the altar, then cut it up and burned it. Blood signified the life, that by which life is supported. The word used for blood in earliest Old Testament times was soul. Blood was holy; never to be taken as food; was symbol of the immaterial and immortal. It meant, when dashed against the altar, that the real inward life must be devoted entirely to God; that the sacrificer offered himself, soul and body, in submission to Gods will.
III. SYMBOLIC WORSHIP BY SACRIFICE FINDS ITS FULL ELUCIDATION IN CHRISTIAN WORSHIP.
1. The burnt offering suggests the holiness of God. All Jewish sacrifices express the feeling from which a religious life flows as its source, the sense of sin and of the divine holiness. That ritual is pervaded with this recognition of holiness. The tabernacle, vessels, garments, the priests who minister and the people who worship, all must be holy. But in the burnt offering this was concentrated. Infinite holiness claims the life of men. Mounting upwards towards God by self-sacrifice; that is His will. That is the central idea of Christian livingpresent your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, etc.
2. The burnt offering suggests the spirit of acceptable Christian worship. It must be pure; and we are not pure. It is sacrilege to offer a polluted object in sacrifice to a holy God. New purposes, good resolutions, good acts, do not fit one already stained by sin to offer himself as an acceptable sacrifice. The burnt offering was always preceded by a sin offering. And Christ has offered Himself a sacrifice for sins for ever; we may therefore offer ourselves as living sacrifices, acceptable to God.
3. The burnt offering suggests the character of the acceptable Christian worshipper. He is indebted to Christ for access to the throne of grace; he knows that all his hope is in the sacrifice of Jesus. His only return, therefore, is the offering of himself as the sign and expression of the love of his heart. This offering of ourselves is (a) a whole self sacrifice; (b) a continual sacrificebreathing life out in voluntary consecration. Such a breathing forth of self to Christ requires a constant kindling of spirit in love and devotion; a strong faith, and a habit of regarding ones self, in all relations, as created to live for His glory.
All the solemnity of the temple, all the significance of its worship, and all the glory of the Divine presence in it, are realised in every consecrated life.
For man the living temple is:
The mercy-seat and cherubim
And all the holy mysteries,
He bears with him.Rev. Albert E. Durning.
Topic: A SWEET SAVOUR FOR ACCEPTANCE (Lev. 1:9; Lev. 1:13; Lev. 1:17)
Thrice reiterated: It is a burnt sacrifice, an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the Lord.
Notable differences between the burnt offerings and the sin offerings: Burnt offerings were (a) sweet savour offerings (b) for acceptance; whereas sin offerings were (a) not of a sweet savour, and (b) were required as an expiation for guilt. (a) The sweet savour offerings, i.e., the burnt, the meat, and the peace offerings, were offered on the brazen altar, which stood within the court of the tabernacle. (b) The unsavoury offerings, i.e., the sin and trespass offerings, were not consumed on the altar, some being burnt on the earth without the camp, others were sprinkled by blood and ate by the priest. (a) In the sweet savour offerings sin is not seen or thought of; it is the faithful Israelite giving a pleasant offering to Jehovah. (b) In the sin offerings it is the reverse, it is a sacrifice charged with the sin of the offerer. Thus: in the sweet savour offerings the offerer comes for acceptance as a worshipper; whereas in the sin and trespass offerings he comes as a sinner to pay the penalty of guilt. Therein is suggested and pictured
I. A HOLY WORSHIPPER, PRESENTING BEFORE GOD A PERFECT AND PLEASANT OFFERING.
Not that the offerer himself is holy; but his offering, which God accepts in his stead, is a representative of perfectness, and its quality of perfection is transferred to the offerer. The act typifies a perfect man, in his approach to God, standing the test of fire, i.e., Gods searching holiness, accepted as a fragrant savour; the offering all ascending as a sweet offering to Jehovah.
1. The transaction represents man giving to God what truly satisfies Him. It is not a transaction symbolic of a sinner bearing his sin (that appears in the sin offering), but of man giving to God an offering so pleasing to Him that the sweet savour of it satisfies and delights Him. With our experience of what man is, it seems wondrous that he should ever perfectly perform his part. But in Christ man has so performed it; His offering was a sweet savour unto the Lord. Hence we are in the burnt sacrifice brought to consider, not Christ as the Sin Bearer, but
2. Christ, as man in perfectness, meeting God in holiness. The work of Jesus here is not God hath made Him to be sin for us; but rather, He loved us, and gave Himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God of a sweet-smelling savour (Eph. 5:2). He appears in the burnt offering for us as man offering to God something which is most precious and most pleasing to Him.
Here note:
(a) The altar is the table of the Lord (Mal. 1:12); whatever was put thereon was the food of God. Here, therefore, God finds that which suffices His longings; an offering which satisfies Him.
(b) The fire from heaven, emblem of Gods holiness, consumes the offering; and it all ascends as sweet incense before Him; betokening that all was worthy His acceptance, without fault.
(c) The victim was without blemish; and because of Christs unblemished sacrifice, His perfect spotlessness and devotedness was a sweet feast to the God of heaven.
II. A PERFECT AND PLEASANT OFFERING OFFERED TO GOD FOR HIS GRACIOUS ACCEPTANCE.
In itself a sweet savour, the burnt offering was presented for acceptance [the words in Lev. 1:3 of his own voluntary will should read to be accepted; and are so rendered in the Sept. Vulgate, Targum, etc.]. It was offered to God to secure the acceptance of the offerer. Observe now Christs position as Offerer. He stood as Man for man under the law; hence:
1. His acceptance depended upon His perfectness. God made man upright; he erred and fell. God gave him opportunities and aids, for age after age, that he might again render himself acceptable to God: but in vain his efforts. The law then came; it taught him the conditions of righteousness; but none could fulfil it, and there was none righteous, no not one. How then could man be brought to meet Gods requirements? One way only remained (Rom. 8:3-4): the Son of God undertook it for us. As mans representative, He took our place; and there offered a perfect obedience, a sacrifice without blemish, for our acceptance; and thus answered the question and demand, Could Man bring an offering so acceptable as to satisfy God? He offered Himself; and His offering was accepted (Tit. 2:14).
2. His complete acceptance guarantees His peoples also. And that it was completely accepted is assured by its being all burnt on the altar; nothing rejected, nothing left remaining. God gathered it all up in the incense of fire, as welcome and pleasant to Him; so that He received it all. All the virtue of that satisfactory offering is transferred from the offering to the offerer. And the believer is the offerer; his faith identifies him with Christ; he lays the hand of identifying trust on the Lord Jesus. Hence by one offering He hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified (Heb. 10:14). We are sanctified by the offering of the body of Jesus once for all (Heb. 10:10). Christs atonement was the satisfaction God receives for the perfectness which the offerer presents to Him. Christ only ever did this perfectly, and was accepted for us; and we are complete in Him.Developed from Jukes on the Offerings.
Topic: SIGNIFICANCE OF THE BURNT OFFERING (Lev. 1:3-9)
Probably we see the meaning of the Mosaic ritual more clearly than Hebrews did, for we look at it in the light of New Testament elucidation. Those who offered the sacrifices in the tabernacle knew only in part, and saw as through a glass darkly; now that the Great Sacrifice has been offered, we look at those rites face to face.
Among the Jews the burnt offering was the oldest and most significant, and announced, every day, truths of transcendent importance. Such sacrifices were symbolic of the kind of worship God requires of the human race. Notice:
I. THE NATURE OF THE BURNT OFFERING. Neither valueless nor unclean creatures were to be presented, but living, wholesome, sound, and valuable gifts; the pride and prime of the flocks and herds, a male without blemish. So God demands, as well as deserves, the first and best of all that we possess. He will not accept the refuse and dregs of our time and talents. Youth, strength, worth, and beauty are to be ungrudgingly, unreservedly given.
II. THE CHARACTER OF THE BURNT OFFERING.
(a) Voluntary. He shall offer it of his own voluntary will. Though commanded, it was not extorted; obedience was to be willing, not compelled. God treated Israelites as men, not machines; as servants, not slaves. Men have always been allowed to choose whom they would serve; it is so still, we may accept or reject the Great Sacrifice; we must present ourselves voluntarily to the Lord, none other is acceptable service.
(b) Vicarious. And he shall put his hand upon the head of the burnt offering, and it shall be accepted for him, to make atonement for him. This act indicated the identification of the offerer with the offering, and the transference of his guilt to it. The perfect suffered for the imperfect, the guiltless for the guilty. So Christ suffered in our stead, and bore our sins, the just for the unjust, to bring us to God. As we lay our hand, by faith, upon the spotless Lamb of God, we become identified with Him, and our guilt is transferred to Him. [See Addenda, p. 19 Propitiation.]
III. THE MANNER OF THE BURNT OFFERING. Not only strict injunction about what to be offered, and when, and where, but how the offering was to be presented.
(a) Orderly. Order Heavens first law. Minute directions given even to washing inwards and legs of victim, the plucking away of the crops of the pigeons and doves. Thus obedience was enjoined, resignation taught, and respect paid to Divine sovereignty. Voluntaryism was not to be latitudinarianism; God still requires order in our worship; forms may exist without frigid formality; and method, without mechanical monotony. Unrestrained religious fervour is only fanaticism or will worship and strange fire.
(b) Openly. At the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, not secretly in the tent, not away from open gaze in some hidden place, but publicly. Thus the worshipper became a witness and confessor before God and man. Witnessing for God, confession of Christ still required of all who profess to believe and worship. Our light is to shine before men, we are to be living epistles known and read of all men.
(c) Devoutly. Before the Lord. This expression repeated to remind the offerer he was observed and judged by the searching Eye that looks into the secrets of the heart. Consciousness of being before the Lord would beget humility, sincerity, solemnity. Let us remember that all we think and say and do is in the light of God. All things are naked and opened unto the eyes of Him with whom we have to do.
(d) Cheerfully. A sweet savour unto the Lord. As the fragrant flame ascended from the sacrifice, gladness and gratitude were symbolised, indicative of a joyful heart, and willing mind. God still requires sincerity and truth in the inward parts, and in the hidden parts we need to know wisdom. The holocaust thus taught the need of ardent love, aspiring desire, entire surrender, as the first essentials of real religion. In the self-sacrificing life and love of Christ those features meet in harmony and perfection. Though we are exempted from repeating the burnt offerings, we may present to God the sacrifice of a broken and contrite heart with the assurance it will not be despised.F. W. Brown.
Topic: VARIETY IN SACRIFICE (Lev. 1:10-17)
He who had, in Egypt, appointed for every household the one sacrifice of the Passover, now directs sacrifices of a wider and various order, graduated to the personal ability, and spiritual condition of each worshipper. These sacrifices which are to be brought to the Lord to propitiate His graciousness to them, are themselves the appointment of His graciousness to them. So absolute are His decrees concerning what is to be presented, and how, when and by whom to be presented, that to vary them at any suggestion of priest or priests, under any impulse of devotion, gratitude or fear, or through sense of dread and distress, would be to commit one of these transgressions which the sacrifices themselves were provided to meet. [See Maurice, Doctrine of Sacrifice.]
I. THE CONSCIOUSNESS OF SIN AND NEED FOR PROPITIATION PERVADES THE VARIED RANKS OF HUMAN SOCIETY.
Guilt is universal. Rich and poor meet together, in sense of personal transgression and necessity for a sacrifice. Hence the wealthy who could offer sacrifice of the herd, the middle class who could only bring offering of the flocks, and the poorest whose impecuniosity compelled them to bring an offering to the Lord of fowls, are all provided for in Gods arrangements for propitiatory sacrifices. [See Addenda, p. 19, Sacrifices of the Poor.]
1. The condition and history of every people showed the desire for sacrifice; that it could only be stifled when the strongest and deepest convictions of humanity were stifled. But where there was sense of guilt, dependence, obligation, thankfulness, there sacrifices were offered.
2. The entire Jewish people, irrespective of social gradation, had experienced Gods redeeming mercy, which constrained them all to seek Him with offerings. The Lord had ransomed them all, and was now drawing them into privileged relationship with Himself. He was no respecter of persons: all alike were within Divine grace. And equally the grace of God which bringeth salvation hath appeared unto all men (Tit. 2:11).
3. In every human heart there dwells the condemnation for sin and the promptings to seek propitiation with God.
For though each man bears his own special sin, and each class in society carries its own distinctive transgression; yet all know that all have sinned, and that God requires of every wicked man that he forsake his way and return unto the Lord (Isa. 55:7).
II. DIVINE PROVISION FOR PROPITIATION IS VARIED TO SUIT ALL GRADATIONS OF HUMAN SOCIETY.
In no demand He makes does He exact more than our iniquity deserveth Nay, He relieves the weight of requirement that none should find the yoke other than easy, and the burden light.
1. The resources and ability of the offerer are considered. God is no hard taskmaster. None can be discouraged by sense of inability.
2. No one is exempted from the demand of a propitiatory offering. The poorest are included in Gods arrangement equally with the wealthiest.
3. Liberty of choice is allowed that each may prove his sincerity by bringing his utmost and best. God tests us thus.
4. Humblest offerings were as acceptable with God as the costliest: evidenced in the minuteness of Gods directions for the poor mans offering of the fowls.
5. Supreme importance was attached to the spirit in which the offering was brought (Lev. 1:3). Thus let us draw near with a pure heart (Heb. 10:22).
III. AMID ALL VARIETY IN SACRIFICES THE ONE QUALITY OF PROPITIATION WAS CONSPICUOUS AND INHERENT.
1. The quality of the offering, as faultless, was specified, indicating that substitution could only be effective as giving to God a sinless victim in place of a sinful offerer.
2. The identifying act of the offerer denoted his sense of deserving the fate of the victim about to die.
3. His being detained at the door of the tabernacle until the sacrifice was offered impressed the truth that God was too holy for sinful man to approach until propitiated by sacrifice.
4. By the process of cleansing, flaying, and burning, a typical foreshadowing was enacted of the atoning sufferings of Christ, as the worlds atonement, the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the whole world (1Jn. 2:2). And in that all-inclusive sacrifice every variety of the human family has a share; none too poor to be excluded, none too wealthy to be exempted; for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.
OUTLINES ON VERSES
Lev. 1:1.Theme: GOD WITHIN THE TABERNACLE. And the Lord spake unto him out of the tabernacle of the congregation.
The tabernacle was erected in the midst of a people supernaturally separated from the rest of mankind to be the recipients and mediators of a revelation which Jehovah would make of Himself to the world. In it a constant worship was to be maintained by the priests in the name of the holy nation.
I. Within the sanctuary God makes His presence known.
He may do it by calling men to Him there, or by speaking to them in messages of truth and life. Many have found, who entered the sanctuary, surely God is in this place. He is there
1. Invisible. Moses saw not God; but no man hath seen God at any time. He is the King immortal, invisible. Yet there are solemn realities which eye hath not seen. The material world has in it many invisible facts: forces and agencies hidden from physical sight. Life also is crowded with invisible activities, energies of vast influence which elude vision. Holy places are not void scenes, an Unseen Presence is there.
2. Recognised. A solemn symbol dwelt in the tabernacle: the shekinah cloud. We have no visible sign; but none the less God makes His presence realised in His tabernacles now. He has spiritual resources for attesting that He is amidst the congregation still.
3. Gracious. Not as on Sinai, too awful for men to bear the sight; but gently dwelling above the mercy-seat. How graciously the Lord reveals Himself in His holy place now; to arouse the heedless, allure the sinful, heal the stricken, reveal His compassion, cleanse the contrite, save the trustful soul.
II. Within the tabernacle God sends His messages of redemption to the congregation.
Here the Lord sent directions for sacrifices which should be for an atonement. The messages through Moses contained a system of religious truth answering all the spiritual necessities of Israel, revealing:
(1) The nature and character of God.
(2) The covenant relation between Him and them.
(3) Provision for the pardon and restoration of the penitent transgressor.
(4) The condemnation of the wilfully and persistently disobedient.
In these Christian times He sends tidings and offers of redemption unto His people; gracious messages of salvation in Christ to the congregations who gather.
1. By His minister and representative: as by Moses.
2. Based upon the merits of atoning sacrifice.
3. Requiring mans response and cooperation.
III. Within the sanctuary God is willing to meet every soul who will seek Him.
If any of you, etc. No restriction. True we may meet the Lord elsewhere than in His sanctuaries now; yet none but may find Him there. Only in order to meet Him acceptably, now as then, each must
1. Come with sacrificial offering: i.e., resting on the atonement of Christ.
2. With thorough earnestness of desire. Not perfunctorily, not in alien mind, but of his own voluntary will, i.e., with personal effort to meet Him acceptably, and in His own way.
3. With self-dedication. Suggested in the burnt offering. Lay yourself before God, He will receive you graciously.
Lev. 1:2.Theme: REVELATION OF PROPITIATION. Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, Ye shall bring your offering of the herd and of the flock.
I. The Author of Divine RevelationGod. The Lord called unto Moses.
God could reveal: He knew what man needed: would not remain silent, and let man perish for want of light additional to that of Nature.
II. The Medium of Divine RevelationMan. To a representative and brother of our race Divine communications came. Most reasonable and appropriate vehicle. Glorifying to God: dignifying to man.
III. The Scene of Divine RevelationTabernacle. Sacred place fitted to be audience chamber with Deity. Revelations given in sacred spots, as well as to select persons.
IV. The Means of Divine RevelationSpeech. The Lord spake unto Moses, used human speech, though imperfect; other language would have been unintelligible and useless.
V. The Purpose of Divine RevelationRedemption. To sanctify from guilt, to save from consequences of bin, to recover holiness in man here and for ever. Such redemption
(1) Mediatorialthrough priest;
(2) Sacrificialthrough oblations.F. W. B.
Lev. 1:2.Theme: THE WAY OF ACCESS TO GOD. If any man of you bring an offering unto the Lord, ye shall bring your offering of the cattle, even of the herd, and of the flock.
Human liberty is here recognised, but it is a liberty emphatically restricted. Any man might bring an offering if he desired; but if he did, he must bring it according to absolute directions. In our dealings with God there must be acceptance of a Will beyond our own will; obedience to commands; reverent and humble observance of Divine authority. Who art thou that repliest against God? Hath not the potter power over the clay? etc. Whatsoever He saith unto thee, do it. If ye be willing and obedient, etc.
I. In our approach to God nothing is left to human invention.
1. There are conditions to our acceptable approach. Therefore, he who would draw nigh should pause and ask solemnly: Wherewith shall I come before the Lord, or bow before the high God? Do not rush in where angels fear to tread. Think Whom you approach, and inquire how to draw near aright.
2. There are minutely revealed conditions for our approach. Neither priest nor people might take one step except as directed (Lev. 8:36; Lev. 9:6-7). We may be sincere and even devout in spirit when adopting methods and ideas of our own in spiritual behaviour; but God will not have our way, but His way. It must be according to the revelation of God.
II. For our rightful approach to Him God has made full and gracious provision.
1. A place for meeting God (Lev. 1:1). Within the sanctuary; at the mercy-seat; in the secret place of the tabernacle of the Most High God asks us apart. Having boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus. Israel had a worldly sanctuary, because then the way into the holiest was not yet made manifest while as the first tabernacle was yet standing. Now there is no outer court for the people and inner temple for the priest; all may meet God in heavenly places, in Christ, Jesusdrawing near God in blessed privacy.
2. A sacrificial basis of acceptance.
Being guilty man needs propitiatory sacrifice. Without shedding of blood there is no remission. This basis of a propitiatory sacrifice constituted Israel an acceptable people with God. The atonement of Christ is the guarantee of our welcome also. Through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all we may approach in full assurance of faith.
3. A mediatorial ministry The priests shall bring the blood (Lev. 1:5). We have such a High Priest a minister of the sanctuary, etc (comp. Heb. 8:1-2). Jesus represents us there continually; in the presence of God for us; and He presents to God our sacrifices and gifts; by Him, therefore, let us offer the sacrifice, etc. (Heb. 13:15)
III. By such arrangements for our acceptable approach, God has laid us under most solemn obligations to seek Him.
1. Shall God wait in vain within the holy place, and none draw near? He says, Seek ye My face. Surely our hearts shall say to Him, Thy face, O Lord, will I seek.
2. Can sinful man despise the sacrifice of Jesus offered for his propitiation? Nay! My soul looks backs to see, etc.
3. With such a Priest within the Holy Place, have we no mediation to ask, no sins to confess, no offerings to bring?
Lev. 1:3.Theme: NECESSITY OF SACRIFICE. If his offering be a burnt sacrifice.
The fall of man necessitated the republication of the religion of Nature (as Butler says) with additional truths and additional proofs. Man required to be taught how depraved he had become, and how he might be delivered from the guilt and consequences of that fallen state. The burnt offering was eminently calculated to impress upon worshippers in the tabernacle services
I. The heinous nature of sin.
II. The wickedness of idolatry.
III. The oneness of Israels nationality.
IV. The duty and privilege of Divine worship.
V. The need of substitutionary sacrifice in order to salvation.
VI. The sovereign claim of Jehovah upon His peoples life and love.
The doctrine of mediation and vicarious sacrifice is taught in Nature, we get the principles there; but the eternal and spiritual truths, which those principles illustrate, are presented in the Levitical Ritual; and pre-eminently in the Redemption wrought by Jesus Christ. The directions concerning the burnt offering show that the recognition of the existence of sin and the need of its removal in order to acceptable service lies at the foundation of the Mosaic and Christian economies.F. W. B.
Lev. 1:3.Theme: VOLITION IN WORSHIP. He shall offer it of his own voluntary will.
As expressive of our Saviours act in devoting Himself to be mans sacrifice, it accords with the grand statement, Lo I come to do Thy will, O God; Thy law is within My heart. And as expressive of the souls act in coming before God with his own offerings of love and service, or with the free exercise of trust in Jesus atonement, it suggests the right state in which to seek God. The offering is not the chief thing in the transaction, but the spirit of the man occupied in it.
I. True worship springs from the soul. Should be
1. Spontaneous. As a joy, not constrained, not reluctant.
2. Grateful. Recognising the privilege, seizing the gracious opportunity.
3. Earnest. With a whole heart in the act.
II. Acceptable worship depends on the offerers will. On
1. The thoroughness of his purpose. Christ asks, What wilt thou? and makes His answer wait upon our desire.
2. The ardour of his approach. Come with intensity of aim, ask large things, cry, I will not let Thee go except Thou bless me.
3. The individuality of his suit. Every man must be himself in worship, not echo others prayers, not repeat others acts, but stand before God as a worshipper, having something which is his ownto repent of, to ask for, to offer
III. Sacrificial worship is the transgressors personal transaction.
1. The victim must be one which the offerer himself brings. We must bring our sacrifice now, come before God with the mention and merits of Christ.
2. The offerer must exert his own faith in the act of substitution. Claiming Christs merit, identifying himself with the atonement of Calvary by his appropriating faith.
3. The transaction must be wholly one of volition. God does not force us unwilling. We must act with a prompt and earnest spirit, or miss the precious benefits of the Redeemers sacrifice.
Note: Faith, when real, acts eagerly. Love is always swift in volition. Misery (as over sin) goes willingly to the Lord with its sacrifice of a broken heart, or with trust in the redemption of the Cross.
IV. Self dedicatory worship draws its virtues from the free will which prompts it.
1. Only thus is it sincere. Yet some offer themselves to God moved by example, induced by companions, under transient excitement, agitated by alarm, but void of full, and earnest, and determined action of the will.
2. Only thus is it pleasing to God. He loveth a cheerful giver. Whatever we bring, it should be with enentirety, resoluteness.
3. Only thus can it gain us spiritual benefit. With what measure we mete it shall be measured to us. If we are heedless and heartless in going to God, He will return leanness to our souls. But He has abundant pardon, plenteous redemption, abounding grace, for earnest souls.
They who give themselves wholly and voluntarily to the Lord, He receives graciously and loves freely. [See Addenda, p. 19, Consecration.]
Lev. 1:4.Theme: ACCEPTANCE WITH GOD. And he shall put his hand upon the head of the offering.
This book might be called the Gospel according to Leviticus, for it exhibits the gospel in its spirit, though under figurative rites. One of the fathers says that every syllable of this book contains a mystery, and Paul tells us that the law was a shadow of good things, etc.
If a man happen to find a monument of antiquity with inscriptions of old letters and characters, how anxious is he to decipher the meaning and reveal the hidden mystery! Much more should we be anxious to examine and investigate the figures of this book. Every sacrifice was a kind of silent sermon presented to the eye, indicating the nature of Christs office and the design of His death. And by such visible signs the gospel was preached; just as when John said, Behold the Lamb of God.
I. That God alone is competent to reveal the nature of the sacrifice and the method of our acceptance.
He strongly resents every neglect of His prescribed institutions and every invasion of His prerogative.
The Lord called to Moses and spake unto him, etc. In the setting up of the tabernacle, every particular is closed with As the Lord commanded Moses. Learn, then, how sweet commanded obedience is. In vain do ye worship by tradition.
If none of the outward offices were left to human invention, how much less able is man to originate the terms of acceptance with God! None but God knew the evil of sin, the value of the soul, the conditions of worthy approach, etc. God prescribes a method of acceptance and worship for all classes. All stand in equal need of an interest in the atonement; all must seek it on the same terms, by Gods prescribed rule; all shall derive the same benefit. The rich were to present a bullock; but where the ability differed the offering differed. Those next in degree were to present a sheep or goat, and those poorer still were to present turtle doves or young pigeons.
It should be remembered that the offering of the Virgin Mary at the birth of our Lord was not a costly, but a simple, onethe humblest; no more than a turtle dove and two young pigeons. To put honour on humble poverty Jesus was born in a borrowed manger, and was buried in a borrowed grave. Foxes have holes. God dwells with the poor in spirit.
II. That God prescribes not only the offering itself but the spirit in which it should be presented.
1. It was to be a bullock, to show that the best of our possessions are to be offered to the Lord; and without blemish. God condemns those who brought the blind and lame. And it intimates, too, the purity of the appointed sacrifice. Such an High Priest became us, etc. The excellency and perfection of Christ had much to do with the efficacy of His sacrifice. A lamb without blemish or spot. Who through the Eternal Spirit, etc.
Some are desirous of a cheap religion, but when God provided a sacrifice it was the most costly; not silver and gold, but precious blood. As God deemed nothing too precious for us, we deem nothing too precious for Him.
2. It was to be freely offered. Of His own voluntary will. To show that God does not accept constrained service. The people offered willingly. Thy people shall be willing in the day of Thy power. With my whole heart have I sought Thee. I beseech you, etc. (Rom. 12:1).
3. It was to be openly presentedto show that we publicly confess Christ before men. At the door of the congregation. I am not ashamed of the gospel. Whosoever is ashamed. A public avowalfor the good of others and for the glory of God.
4. The offerer must take a distinct personal part in the transaction. He shall put his hand upon the head of the burnt offering, to show that he was deeply sensible of his need of mercy; to show that he fully concurred in the appointed sacrifice, that he was anxious to transfer all his guilt to the victim, and derived all his hope from it. My faith would lay her hand.
Our devout affections must centre in Christ; our only trust be reposed in Him. We receive the atonement. Not merely driven by the stress of necessity, but a hearty concurrence.
5. Not only was the victim slain, but the blood sprinkled.
6. The whole was to be presented by the priest. Not only at the altar, but within the veil.
III. That God has left us in no doubt of our acceptance when thus approaching Him in faith and prayer. It shall be accepted for him, to make an atonement for him.
1. The substitutionary offering is allowed by God to stand in the sinners steadaccepted for him.
2. The provision of the substitute is even a more welcome arrangement than that the sinner should bear his own punishment. It shall be accepted. God desires not the death of a sinner, is well pleased that we find escape by laying our hand on the Sacrifice of Calvary.
3. It effects a full atonement for the soul, satisfies the Divine requirements, and secures the justification of the believer. There is, therefore, now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus.
4. It makes the offerer himself an object of pleasure in Gods regard Not merely is our substitutionary offering accepted by God, but we become ourselves beloved for the sake of our trust in the Sacrifice. I will accept you, saith the Lord God (Eze. 43:27).
Lev. 1:9.Theme: THE ALTAR FIRE An Offering made by Fire.
The flame devours. The victim is consumed. Seek the truth reflected from the altar fire. The Cross flashes it out vividly. The fire consumes the sacrifice.
I. That fire tells what is sins due.
It portrays what the guilty must bear. Look on the consuming blaze, and think how the fire shall be ever burning, it shall never go out. Remember Christs picture of the sinners doomeverlasting fire; where their worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched. Ponder, therefore, sins sure doom!
II. That fire suggests the anguish of Christ.
Type of the Cross is that altar; and of the sufferings of Jesus, that burning fire. He made His soul an offering for sin.
O, the pangs His soul sustained!
His anguish was as a consuming fire, it raged within Him as a scorching blaze. It was as though Gods wrath was hot and devastating upon Him. Mark, therefore, the Saviours redeeming grace!
III That fire portrays the fervour of Christian consecration.
With burning devotion, and flaming seal, and self-consuming love, ardent, glowing, manifest. Shall Christs zeal consume Him, and ours lack intensity? The entire life of a Christian should be one continuous blaze of flaming love and ardent devotion. [See Addenda: p. 19, Consecration.]
Lev. 1:9.Theme: THE SPIRITS EFFICACY. An offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the Lord.
The Holy Spirit is symbolised by fire. All the grace and virtue of sacrifices depend upon the Spirit
I. Altar sacrifices were consecrated by the element of Divinely kindled fire.
The fire came from heaven (comp. Lev. 9:24): and any fire Lot thus supernaturally originated was offensive (comp. Lev. 10:1). That fire coming out from before the Lord symbolises the Holy Ghost, which came as fire from God on the Pentecost. Only through the Spirits sanctifying could those offerings have become holy.
II. Christs sacrifice was rendered efficacious through the energy of the Holy Spirit.
He suffered in the spirit. Who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God. That Divine fire burned within the soul of Jesus: the Spirit was given without measure unto Him; and His sacred unction consecrated the sufferings of Jesus to be a perfect atonement for human sin.
III. Spiritual sacrifices depend for their sanctity on the Spirit s grace.
Of Jesus it was declared He shall baptise you with the Holy Ghost and with fire. Is not that the Spirit of burning which rendered holy everyone written among the living in Jerusalem ? [See Isa. 4:3-4.] This manifestation of the Spirit (1Co. 12:7; 1Co. 12:11) is the occasion of all Christian sanctity and of all acceptable sacrifice and service. His glowing grace and energy within the soul constrains and seals our devotions; and the unction from the Holy One (1Jn. 2:20) makes our lives and offerings a sweet savour unto the Lord.
IV. All sacrifices sanctified by the Spirit rise as a delightful incense unto God.
When Noah, saved by the ark, burned his sacrifice of gratitude upon the altar he reared, the Lord smelled a sweet savour (Gen. 8:21).
So from the holocaust in the tabernacle there arose by fire a sweet savour unto the Lord. The ransomed Israelites, brought again from captivity to Gods holy mountain, should once more offer their oblations, and God would accept them with their sweet savour (Eze. 20:41). Supremely the Lord Jesus Himself was an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet smelling savour (Eph. 5:2). And we, whom God causeth to triumph in Christ, are unto God a sweet savour of Christ (2Co. 2:15).
Every sacrifice which is the out-flowing of our love and zeal for the Lord, becomes, through the virtue of the Spirit consecrating our gifts, an odour of a sweet smell, a sacrifice acceptable, well pleasing to God (Php. 4:18).
The Holy Spirit is the sacred fire in the Christian life, by whose gracious influences our offerings ascend in sweetness and acceptableness unto the Lord. Quench not the Spirit. [See Addenda p. 19, The Ascending Fire.]
Lev. 1:11. Theme: A LIFE-OFFERING. He shall kill it on the side of the altar.
I. Its substitutionary significance.
1. That the offerer deserved to forfeit his life.
2. That he sought escape from the penalty of his sinfulness.
3 That he believed God would accept the victim in lieu of himself.
4. That substitution not alone sufficed Jehovah, but was more acceptable to Him than the sinners death.
II. Its practical interpretation.
1. Life peculiarly belongs to God: it is supremely His part in creation. Lower things He gives to man; but life is His.
2. Representing thus His olaim on His creatures, it stands as the emblem of what we owe Him. What we owe we ought to pay. We should give our life to God. It is our duty.
3. It denotes that what is most precirus in us, and forms the supremely valuable element in our being, should all and wholly be the Lords. Not the inferior part, not the less essential qualities, not part of the price, but everything in us of worth: our life.
III. Its Gospel foreshadowing.
1. The body of Jesus is the offering pourtrayed. A body hast Thou prepared Me.
2. He yielded to God mans duty: the dutiful life man had failed to surrender to Him.
3. He gave life in its perfectness to God. In Himself perfect, He offered Himself wholly and absolutely and perfectly to God: and the perfectly obedient Man then seeing that all things were now accomplished, cried, It is finished, and gave up the ghost.
Lev. 1:13.Theme: COMPLETENESS IN SELF DEVOTION. The priest shall bring it all, and burn it on the altar.
1. In this particular the Burnt offering differed from the Meat offering and Peace offering; for in these only a part was burnt with fire.
2. It differed also from the Sin offering, which though wholly burnt, was not burnt on the alter.
I. Mans duty to God is the absolute surrender of all.
Not of one faculty or several; but the entirety.
1. This accords with Christs summary of the first commandment: which demands all the mind, all the soul, all the affection, all the strength. Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all, etc. (Mat. 22:37).
2. The minute and all-inclusive devotion of the victim affirms the same truth. The head, the fat, the legs, the inwards all are enumerated. Symbolic: head of thoughts; fat of vigour; legs of walk, conduct; inwards of affections and emotions.
II. Christs performance of Mans duty to God was characterised by absolute surrender of all.
1. Jesus reserved nothing; He gave up all. Had there been but one thought in the mind of Christ not perfectly given to God, one affection in His heart not yielded to His Fathers will, one step in the walk of Jesus not taken for God but for His own pleasure, then He would not have offered Himself, or been accepted, as a whole burnt offering to Jehovah. But all was offered, and all was consumed on the altar.
2. From first to last, in Jesus, self had no place. So entirely was His whole life devoted to His Father that it almost seems He could have had no will of His own. Everything He did or said was for God. His first recorded words were, I must be about My Fathers business; His last, It is finished. Yet as perfect man, He had a human will, and human affections. But no one hour was spent, nor act performed for His own advancement or gratification; all was given in entire devotedness to God.
III. Christian self devotion will attempt to re produce Christs absolute surrender of all.
1. True, this is a conception of life repudiated by the world. Men will praise thee when thou doest well to thyself (Psa. 49:18).
2. Few Christians exhibit such self devotion to God. Our thoughts are for self, our ease, our interest, etc. But if David resolved Neither will I offer burnt offerings unto the Lord of that which doth cost me nothing; if Ananias was punished for grieving the Spirit by keeping back part of the price; surely we whom the love of Christ constraineth should rise to highest devotion of our all to God; and, like our Lord who gave Himself (Eph. 5:2) in all His perfectness, yield ourselves unto God.
ILLUSTRATIVE ADDENDA TO CHAPTER 1
Revelation. Varro, a Roman writer of the first century B.C., states, that in his day he had been at pains to collect the various opinions on the question What is the true object of human life? and had reckoned up as many as three hundred and twenty different answers. How much we need the wisdom which is from above, teaching from God! He reveals what we need to know for our truest good on earth, our acceptance with Him now, and our entrance at last into His presence. We are to listen to Him, and obey His word.
Tis revelation satisfies all doubts,
Explains all mysteries except her own,
And so illuminates the path of life
That fools discover it, and stray no more.
Cowper.
Dr. Taylor of Norwich once said to me (wrote John Newton), Sir, I have collated every word in the Hebrew Scriptures seventeen times, and it is very strange if the doctrine of the atonement you hold should not have been found by me. I am not surprised at this (John Newton answered); I once went to light my candle, and could not, for the extinguisher was on it. Now prejudice, from education, learning, etc., often proves an extinguisher; it is not enough that you bring the candle, you must remove the extinguisher.
The Ascending Fire. The symbolism of this combustion (upon the altar) is manifest. It was a sending of the gift to God. After arranging the divided or the selected portions of the carcase in the heaven-born fire, which had issued forth from the Divine presence at the consecration of the tabernacle, they were burned, that is to say, they were etherialised and they rose to heaven as a sweet savour. To burn was to effectually present.Principal Cave.
Sacrifices of the Poor. The Jews at Jassy still bring offerings of the fowls. In one house records those who were observers of the incident, we came to the window of the house and saw distinctly what was going on within. A little boy was reading the prayers, and his widowed mother stood over him with a white hen in her hands. When he came to a certain place in the prayer, the mother lifted up the struggling fowl, and waving it round her head, repeated these words: This be my substitute, this be my exchange: this fowl shall go to death and I to a blessed life. This was done three times over, and then the door of the house was opened, and out ran the boy carrying the fowl to the shocket, or slayer, to be killed by him in the proper manner. This occurred on the eve of the Day of Atonement.
Sacrifice is the first element of religion, and resolves itself in theological language into the love of God.Froude, Short Stories.
Propitiation. Cowper, the poet, speaking of his religious experiences, says, But the happy period which was to shake off my fetters, and afford me a clear opening of the free mercy of God in Christ Jesus, was now arrived. I flung myself into a chair near the window, and seeing a Bible there, ventured once more to apply to it for comfort and instruction. The first verse I saw was the 25th of the 3rd of Romans: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in His blood, to declare His righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God. Immediately I received strength to believe, and the full beams of the Sun of Righteousness shone upon me. I saw the sufficiency of the Atonement He had made, my pardon sealed in His blood, and all the fulness and completeness of His justification. In a moment I believed and received the Gospel.
Consecration. And here we offer and present unto Thee, O Lord, ourselves, our souls and bodies, to be a reasonable, holy and lively sacrifice unto Thee, etc.Communion Service.
From henceforth thou shalt learn that there is love to long for, pureness to desire, a mount of consecration it were good to scale.Jean Ingelow.
On the seal of the Baptist Missionary Society is the figure of an ox, standing patiently, with a plough on one side, and an altar on the other, with the inscription beneath: Ready for either, to serve or suffer.
Calvins motto was: I give Thee all; I keep back nothing for myself.
Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell
I. THE MEANS OF APPROACH TO GOD, 1:116:34
A. THE LAWS OF SACRIFICE, 1:16:7
a. INTRODUCTION, 1:1, 2
TEXT 1:1, 2
1
And Jehovah called unto Moses, and spake unto him out of the tent of meeting saying,
2
Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When any man of you offereth an oblation unto Jehovah, ye shall offer your oblation of the cattle, even of the herd and of the flock.
THOUGHT QUESTIONS 1:1, 2
1.
Was this the audible voice of God?; if so, how did it sound?
2.
Why not call Moses up on the mount for this conversation?
3.
Please connect this book with the circumstances in Exo. 19:3; Exo. 40:34-35; Cf. Num. 12:4-5. Read these references.
4.
Name the three or four animals to be used as sacrifice.
PARAPHRASE 1:1, 2
The Lord now spoke to Moses from the Tabernacle, and commanded him to give the following instructions to the people of Israel: When you sacrifice to the Lord, use animals from your herds and flocks.
COMMENT 1:1, 2
Lev. 1:1 We want it to be understood from the very first verse to the last that we are indeed interested in the detailed explanation of the text, i.e. we want to clarify any obscure word or phrase and help the Bible student to share the circumstances and meaning of all the details of the text as they occurred. However, we are just as interested in what possible meaning this text has to our life now. Therefore our comments will be critical, devotional, even homiletical in emphasis or expression.
Since the sacrificial and priestly systems are all to function in and around the tabernacle it seems altogether appropriate that the instructions from God should come from the holy of holies in the tabernacle. What an expression of grace and condescension for the Almighty God to come and dwell in the midst of His people! It is not by accident that He spoke from behind the veil which was a type of the flesh of our Lord. (Heb. 10:20) It was from above the mercy seat the voice of God was heard. (Num. 7:89) It was at this place the blood of atonement was sprinkled. Although Israel according to the flesh knew nothing of these typical significances it is good for us to remember we can look on both sides of the veil.
Lev. 1:2 It is of more than passing interest to note that God spoke to the congregation of Israel through His chosen mediator Moses; He has in these last days spoken to us through His Son. (Heb. 1:1-2)
In the case of an animal offering the sacrifice must come from the oxen, sheep or goats, i.e. herd and flock. These animals were readily available and were also valuable. God requires only what man can do, but at the same time He wants man to feel personally responsible in and for the offering.
FACT QUESTIONS 1:1, 2
1.
Why does it seem especially appropriate that God should address the people from out of the tabernacle?
2.
What did the veil in the tabernacle represent? Cf. Heb. 10:20. What was represented by the mercy seat? 1Jn. 2:2; Cf. Num. 7:89.
3.
How do Moses and our Lord compare in this connection? Cf. Heb. 1:1-2.
4.
What is the significance of choosing the sacrifices from among the animals of the herd or flock?
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
(1) And the Lord called . . . and spake.Rather, And he called unto Moses, and the Lord spake, &c. (See Lev. 8:15.) At the end of the previous book we are told that when the tent of meeting was completed, the Lord showed His approbation of it by covering the outside of the edifice with a heaven-sent cloud, and by filling the inside with His glory (Exo. 40:34-38). He therefore, who had filled the sanctuary with his glory now called unto Moses, thus indicating by And he called, which are one word in the original, the intimate connection between the two books. The ancient Jewish synagogue already pointed out the fact that this unusual phrase, And he called unto Moses, is used as an introductory formula on the three different occasions when the Lord made a special communication to this great law-giver. Thus when the Lord first communicated to Moses that He was about to deliver the Israelites from Egypt, He called unto him from the burning bush (Exo. 3:4). When the Lord was about to give to Moses the Ten Commandments for the people of Israel, He called unto him from the top of Sinai (Exo. 19:3; Exo. 19:20); and now when the Lord is about to give to His chosen people, through His servant Moses, the laws by which their Divine worship is to be regulated, He called unto him from the tent of meeting (Lev. 1:1).
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
1. Lord The Hebrew for “Lord” is Jehovah, a name recently disclosed in its fulness of significance. See note on Exo 3:11, and Concluding Note of the same chapter. We shall use it instead of the more indefinite, generic appellative Lord.
Called out The calling is as if with an audible voice. See note on Num 1:1. This is the sixth and last time this word is used in the Hebrew to indicate the method of communicating the Divine will to Moses, beginning at the burning bush. These important occasions are Exo 3:4; Exo 19:3; Exo 19:20; Exo 24:16; Exo 34:6. The next and only person to whom God “called out” is the boy Samuel. 1Sa 3:4.
Tabernacle of the congregation Or, tent of meeting. Primarily, where Jehovah met Moses, and secondarily, where Moses met the Israelites. The word “congregation” in the Authorized Version misleads by conveying the impression that the chief use of the tabernacle was to contain the assembled people, like a modern church edifice. The Israelites, except the priests, were not allowed to enter. They could come only to the door of the holy place, the court of the priests. See the description of the newly erected tabernacle, Exodus 25-27. We cannot agree with Murphy that the tabernacle referred to here is the tent which Moses pitched without the camp afar off, probably on the slope of Mount Sinai, and called by the same name, “the tent of meeting.” The message now given to Moses is the first which ever resounded from the Divine Oracle within the tabernacle. Till now the glory of the Lord had so filled it that Moses was not able to enter. Exo 40:35.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Yahweh Commences Instructing Moses Concerning Offerings And Sacrifices ( Lev 1:1-2 ).
Lev 1:1
‘And Yahweh called to Moses, and spoke to him out of the tent of meeting, saying,’
Notice the ‘and’ at the beginning. This connects the verse to the last verses in Exodus, where ‘the tent of meeting’, that is, the Tabernacle, was dealt with, and where the cloud and fire covered the Tabernacle to denote God’s protective care and presence. Now we are to learn how God spoke to Moses from there, from the midst of the cloud and fire, and the detailed activities which were to take place in that Tabernacle, as revealed by God to Moses. God was, as it were, there and awaited their approach. Note the threefold emphasis on God as actually speaking to Moses from the tent, ‘Yahweh called — and spoke — saying.’ Compare Num 7:89.
“The tent of meeting.” The idea behind this name is that it was the tent where men came to meet with God. All the focus was on God. That was why men assembled there, to meet with God, and that was why it was called the tent of ‘meeting’. The word mo’ed (meeting, assembly) is used elsewhere to describe the assembling of men together.
At this point in time the ‘tent of meeting’ has become the Tabernacle, which has replaced the smaller Tent of Meeting which had been outside the camp (Exo 33:7-11). This one was in the middle of the camp surrounded and guarded by the tents of the priests and Levites (Num 1:53). The tents of the other tribes, divided into their tribes, would then surround these on all four sides at a discreet distance (Numbers 2). Moses would presumably approach the entrance to the Tabernacle where Yahweh would speak to him from the cloud that abode on the tabernacle because of the glory that filled it (Exo 40:34-35), as He had spoken face to face with him in the old Tent of Meeting. At these times the people would probably keep at a discreet distance (compare Exo 33:7-11).
Lev 1:2
‘Speak to the children of Israel, and say to them, When any man of you offers an oblation (qorban) to Yahweh, you shall offer your oblation of the dumb beasts, of the herd and of the flock.’
This day when he approached Yahweh Moses was given instructions for when any man of Israel wished to bring God a qorban (a gift or oblation). This offering is not described as being for any particular reason and is therefore clearly seen as an act of worship and love, as it was with the patriarchs. The whole of the offering goes up to God in dedication and worship. But the way it is offered confirms that it has within it an atonement aspect, a desire to be at one with God through the shedding of blood. This is in fact specifically stated. The oblation is of ‘dumb animals’, either of the herd or the flock, animals that were valuable and could supply labour, milk and clothing, and could be eaten. There had to be a cost. But the dumb beasts had no choice in the matter. The choice lay with the offerer whose offering it was. The offering represented him and those for whom he was making the offering.
The writer to the Hebrews contrasts this fact with what was true about Christ, Whom he sees as fulfilling the reality of which the offering was a ‘type’, a foreshadowing picture. Jesus Christ too was offered at great cost, but in His case He was not led bleating to the place of sacrifice, blandly or resistingly, but offered Himself voluntarily of His own free choice (Heb 10:9), and it was that which rendered His offering of Himself so fully efficacious. He offered Himself up in full yieldedness to God as One Who was fully obedient, and through His blood therefore attained mercy and full reconciliation for all who would come through Him (Rom 3:24-25; Rom 5:9-10). But in His case too each person has to decide whether they will identify themselves with His offering of Himself, and respond to Him. Each of us must personally ‘lay our hand’ on Him to identify ourselves with Him.
“Speak to the children of Israel.” As the people had requested, God now spoke to them through Moses (Exo 20:19 compare Number 7:89). They had already demonstrated their unwillingness to meet God face to face. The ‘children of Israel’ are called such because they looked back to Jacob/Israel as their ‘father’ but this was mainly by adoption for in fact they were a conglomerate people made up of many nations (see e.g. Exo 12:38). Many of them were originally descended from servants of different nationalities in the ‘household’ of Jacob who went down into Egypt with Jacob, and these had been augmented at the Exodus by ‘a mixed multitude’. A large section of ‘the children of Israel’ were therefore adopted children, not truly descended from Jacob/Israel.
“When any man of you.” ‘Man’ is emphasised. The offerer would be the man of the household who would represent the whole household, or sometimes a leader would represent a larger group such as a sub-tribe, as Aaron and his sons would at the highest level represent the whole of Israel.
“Offers.” Literally ‘causes to draw near’ (hiphil of qereb). Thus the qorban is ‘what is brought near’, any offering brought to God.
“You shall offer.” Plural verb. It is assumed that all will at some stage come with their individual offerings. And at times they will all offer together.
“Of the dumb beasts, of the herd and of the flock.” Compare 1:10, ‘of the flock, of the sheep, or of the goats.’ The first stated is the general category which is then divided up into two, they were dumb beasts comprised of herds and flocks.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
The Burnt Offering – Num 1:1-17 deals with the burnt offering. The burnt offering was the only offering where the entire sacrifice was consumed. This is symbolic of man’s initial need to be born again, entirely cleansed. It made atonement for sins (Lev 1:4). This was also called a “whole burnt offering.” The sprinkling of the blood (Lev 1:5) symbolized the necessity of the shedding of blood for sins, which is ultimately found in the offering of the blood of Jesus Christ for the sins of mankind.
Lev 17:11, “For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.”
Heb 9:22, “And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.”
Lev 1:3 If his offering be a burnt sacrifice of the herd, let him offer a male without blemish: he shall offer it of his own voluntary will at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation before the LORD.
Lev 1:3
Lev 1:3 Comments – Throughout the book of Leviticus, the male sheep or goat which is without blemish is taken from the herd. This animal has to be examined by the priest before it is received as an acceptable sacrifice. Note that the priest does not examine the person giving the sacrifice, for he would be found with guilt and blemish, since he had need to bring the sacrifice because of his sins. In a similar way, God accepts Jesus as the perfect sacrifice for our sins, so He accepts our prayers and offerings even though we have weaknesses and failures.
Lev 1:17 And he shall cleave it with the wings thereof, but shall not divide it asunder: and the priest shall burn it upon the altar, upon the wood that is upon the fire: it is a burnt sacrifice, an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the LORD.
Lev 1:17
Gen 15:10, “And he took unto him all these, and divided them in the midst, and laid each piece one against another: but the birds divided he not.”
Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures
Of the Herd
v. 1. And the Lord called unto Moses, and spake unto him out of the Tabernacle of the Congregation, v. 2. Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, if any man of you bring an offering unto the Lord, ye shall bring your offering of the cattle, even of the herd and of the flock. v. 3. If his offering be a burnt sacrifice of the herd, let him offer a male without blemish, v. 4. And he shall put his hand upon the head of the burnt offering v. 5. And he shall kill the bullock before the Lord, v. 6. And he shall flay the burnt offering, v. 7. And the sons of Aaron, the priest, shall put fire upon the altar of burnt offering, and lay the wood in order upon the fire, v. 8. and the priests, Aaron’s sons, shall lay the parts, the head and the fat, v. 9. but his inwards and his legs,
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
PART I THE LAWS AND REGULATIONS RESPECTING SACRIFICES
EXPOSITION
THE SACRIFICES (chapters 1-7). There are five classes of sacrifices instituted or regulated in the first seven chapters of Leviticus, each of which has its special significationthe burnt offering, the meat offering, the sin offering, the trespass offering, and the peace offering. The burnt offering, in which the whole of the victim was consumed in the fire on God’s altar, signifies entire self-surrender on the part of the offerer; the meat offering, a loyal acknowledgment of God’s sovereignty; the sin offering, propitiation of wrath in him to whom the offering is made, and expiation of sin in the offerer; the trespass offering, satisfaction for sin; the peace offering, union and communion between the offerer and him to whom the offering is made.
The burnt offering (Lev 1:1-17) typifies the perfect surrender of himself, made by the Lord Jesus Christ, and exhibited by his life and death on earth; and it teaches the duty of self-sacrifice on the part of man.
Lev 1:1
And the LORD called unto Moses. The first word of the verse, in the original Vayikra, meaning “and called,” has been taken as the designation of the book in the Hebrew Bible. The title Leviticon, or Leviticus, was first adopted by the LXX; to indicate that it had for its main subject the duties and functions appertaining to the chief house of the priestly tribe of Levi. The word “and” connects the third with the second book of the Pentateuch. God is spoken of in this and in the next book almost exclusively under the appellation of “the LORD” or “Jehovah,” the word “Elohim” being, however, used sufficiently often to identify the two names. Cf. Le Lev 2:13, Lev 19:12. And spake unto him. The manner in which God ordinarily communicated with a prophet was by “a vision” or “in a dream;” but this was not the case with Moses; “My servant Moses is not so, who is faithful in all mine house; with him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently” (Num 12:8). The Levitical code of laws, therefore, was delivered to Moses in his ordinary mental state, not in trance, or dream, or ecstasy. Out of the tabernacle of the congregation. The tabernacle had just been set up by Moses (Exo 40:16). It derives its name of the congregation, or rather of meeting, from being the place where God met the representatives of his people (see Num 16:42). Hitherto God had spoken from the mount, now he speaks from the mercy-seat of the ark in the tabernacle. He had symbolically drawn near to his people, and the sacrificial system is now instituted as the means by which they should draw nigh to him. All the laws in the Book of Leviticus, and in the first ten chapters of the Book of Numbers, were given during the fifty days which intervened between the setting up of the tabernacle (Exo 40:17) and the departure of the children of Israel from the neighbourhood of Mount Sinai (Num 10:11).
Lev 1:2
If any man of you bring. Sacrifices are not now being instituted for the first time. Burnt offerings at least, if not peace offerings, had existed since the time of the Fall. The Levitical law lays down regulations adapting an already existing practice for the use of the Israelitish nation; it begins, therefore, not with a command, “Thou shalt bring,” but, if any man of you (according to custom) bring. Any member of the congregation might bring his voluntary offering when he would. The times at which the public offerings were to be made, and their number, are afterwards designated. An offering. This verse is introductory to the ensuing chapters, and speaks of “offerings” in general. “Korban,” which is the word here used for “offering,” derived from karab, meaning “to draw near for the sake of presentation,” is the generic name including all offerings and sacrifices. It is used in speaking of animal sacrifices of various kinds, including peace offerings and sin offerings (Lev 3:1; Lev 4:23 and it is applied to vegetable offerings (Lev 2:1, Lev 2:13) and to miscellaneous offerings for the service of the tabernacle, such as wagons and oxen, silver vessels for the altar, gold, jewels, etc. (Num 7:3, Num 7:10; Num 31:50). It is translated by the LXX. into Greek by the word , equivalent to the Latin donum, and our “gift.” These offerings are now distinguished into their different kinds.
Lev 1:3
If his offering be a burnt sacrifice. The Hebrew term for “burnt sacrifice” is olah, meaning “that which ascends;” sometimes kaleel “whole offering,” is found (Deu 33:10); the LXX. use the word , “whole burnt offering.” The conditions to be fulfilled by an Israelite who offered a burnt sacrifice were the following:
1. He must offer either
(1) a young bull without blemish, or
(2) a young ram, or
(3) a young he-goat, or
(4) a turtle-dove, or
(5) a young pigeon.
2. In case it were a bull, ram, or goat, he must bring it to the door of the tabernacle, that is, the entrance of the court in front of the brazen altar and of the door of the holy place, and there after or present it.
3. In offering it he must place his hand firmly on its head, as a ceremonial act.
4. He must kill it, either himself or by the agency of a Levite.
5. He must flay it.
6. He must divide it into separate portions.
7. He must wash the intestines and legs.
Meantime the priests had their parts to do; they had
1. To catch the blood, to carry it to the altar, and to strike the inner sides of the altar with it.
2. To arrange the fire on the altar.
3. To place upon the altar the head, and the fat, and the remainder of the animal, for consumption by the fro.
4. To sprinkle or place a meat offering upon them.
5. The next morning, still dressed in their priestly garments, to take the ashes off the altar, and to place them at the east of the altar (Lev 6:10).
6. To carry them outside the camp to a clean place, the bearer being dressed in his ordinary costume (Lev 6:11).
There were, therefore, four essential parts in the ritual of the burnt offeringthe oblation of the victim (Lev 1:3, Lev 1:4), the immolation (Lev 1:5), the oblation of the blood, representing the life (ibid.), and the consumption (Lev 1:9)the first two to be performed by the offerer, the third by the priest, the fourth by the fire representing the action of God. The moral lesson taught by the burnt offering was the necessity of self-surrender and of devotion to God, even to the extent of yielding up life and the very tenement of life. As the offerer could not give up his own life and body and still live, the life of an animal belonging to him, and valued by him, was substituted for his own; but he knew, and by laying his hand on its head showed that he knew, that it was his own life and his very self that was represented by the animal. The mystical lessons taught to those who could grasp them were
1. The doctrine of substitution or vicarious suffering.
2. The fact that without the shedding of blood there was no acceptance.
3. The need of One who, being very man, should be able to perform an action of perfect surrender of his will and of his life. The fulfilment of the type is found in the perfect submission of Christ as man, throughout his ministry, and especially in the Garden of Gethsemane, and in the offering made by him, as Priest and willing Victim, of his life upon the altar of the cross. the burnt offering is to be without blemish, for had not the animal been perfect in its kind, it would not have served its moral, its mystical, or its typical purpose. The word , used by the LXX. as equivalent to the Hebrew term, is applied to Christ in Heb 9:14 and 1Pe 1:19; and St. Paul teaches that it is the purpose of God that those who are adopted in Christ should also be “holy and without blemish” (Eph 1:4). A priest had to certify that the victim was free frorn all defects. He shall offer it of his own voluntary will should rather be translated, He shall offer it for his own acceptance. The animal, representing the offerer, was presented by the latter in order that he might be himself accepted by the Lord. This aspect of the offering is brought out more clearly by the minchah, or meat offering, which always accompanied the burnt offering. The place where the presentation took place was the door of the tabernacle, that is, the space immediately within the eastern entrance into the court of the tabernacle, immediately facing the brazen altar, which stood before the east end of the tabernacle, where was the door or entrance which led into the holy place. “The presenting of the victim at the entrance of the tabernacle was a symbol of the free will submitting itself to the Law of the Lord” (Clarke). Cf. Rom 12:1 : “I beseech you that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.”
Lev 1:4
And he shall put his hand upon the head of the burnt offering. This putting, or forcibly leaning, the hand on the victim’s head, which is the most essential part of the oblation of the victim, was a symbolical act implying “This animal is now for present purposes myself, and its life is my life.” It was this act of identification with the offerer which made it be accepted for him to make atonement (literally, covering) for him. The sin offering is the sacrifice which especially symbolizes and ceremonially effects atonement, but the idea of atonement is not absent from the burnt sacrifice. The aspect under which atonement is presented here and elsewhere in the Old Testament is that of covering. But it is not the sin that is covered, but the sinner. Owing to his sin, the latter is exposed to the wrath of a just God, but something intervenes whereby he is covered, and he ceases, therefore, to attract the Divine anger and punishment. No longer being an object of wrath, he becomes at once an object of benevolence and mercy. The covering provided by a sacrifice is the blood or life of an animal, symbolically representing the offerer’s own life freely surrendered by him for his acceptance, and typically foreshadowing the blood of Christ.
Lev 1:5
And he shall kill the bullock. After having made the presentation, the offerer proceeds to the second part of the sacrifice, the immolation or slaying, which was to be performed before the Lord, that is, in front of the tabernacle, on the north side of the brazen altar. Then follows the third part of the sacrifice: the priests, Aaron’s sons, shall bring the blood, and sprinkle the blood round about upon the altar. The priests caught the blood (sometimes the Levites were allowed to do this, 2Ch 30:16), and sprinkled or rather threw it round about on the altar, that is, so as to touch all the inner sides of the altar. “A red line all round the middle of the altar marked that above it the blood of sacrifices intended to be eaten, below it that of sacrifices wholly consumed, was to be sprinkled” (Edersheim, ‘The Temple’). This was in some respects the most essential part of the ceremony, the blood representing the life (Lev 17:11), which was symbolically received at the hands of the offerer, and presented by the priests to God. In the antitype our Lord exercised the function of the sacrificing priest when he presented his own life to the Father, as he hung upon the altar of the cross.
Lev 1:6
He shall flay the burnt offering. The hide was given to the priest (Lev 7:8). The whole of the remainder of the animal was consumed by the fire of the altar; none of it was eaten by the offerer and his friends as in the peace offerings, or even by the ministers of God as in the sin offerings; it was a whole burnt offering. His pieces, into which it was to be cut, means the customary pieces.
Lev 1:7
The priest shall put fire upon the altar. The fire once kindled was never to be allowed to go out (Lev 6:13). Unless, therefore, these words refer to the first occasion only on which a burnt sacrifice was offered, they must mean “make up the fire on the altar” or it might possibly have been the practice, as Bishop Wordsworth (after Maimonides) supposes, that fresh fire was added to the altar fire before each sacrifice.
Lev 1:8
And the priests shall lay the parts, the head, and the fat, in order. The head and the fat are designated by name, because, with the “pieces,” they complete the whole of the animal with the exception of the hide. The order in which they were laid is said to have been the same approximately as that which the members held in the living creature.
Lev 1:9
The priest shall burn all on the altar, etc. The fourth and last part of the sacrifice. The word employed is not the common term used for destroying by fire, but means “make to ascend.” The life of the animal has already been offered in the blood; now the whole of its substance is “made to ascend” to the Lord. Modern science, by showing that the effect of fire upon the substance of a body is to resolve it into gases which rise from it, contributes a new illustration to the verse. The vapour that ascends is not something different from that which is burnt, but the very thing itself, its essence; which, having ascended, is of a sweet savour unto the Lord, that is, acceptable and well-pleasing to him. The burnt offering, the meat offering, and the peace offering, are sacrifices of sweet savour (Lev 2:2; Lev 3:5); the expression is not used with regard to the sin offering and trespass offering. St. Paul applies it to the sacrifice of Christ, in Eph 5:2, “As Christ also loved us, and gave himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling savour;” thus indicating, in an incidental manner, the connection between the Jewish sacrifices and the sacrifice of Christ, as type and antitype.
Lev 1:10
If his offering be of the flocks. The ritual of the burnt offering was the same. whether the victim was a hull, sheep, or goat.
Lev 1:11
He shall kill it on the side of the altar, northward before the Lord. In the sacrifice of the bullock it is only “before the Lord” (Lev 1:5). No doubt the same place is meant in both cases, but it is specified with more exactness here. On the western side of the altar was the tabernacle, on the east side the heap of ashes (Lev 1:16), on the south side probably the ascent to the altar (see Josephus, ‘De Bell. Jud.,’ Lev 5:5, Lev 5:6); on the north side, therefore, was the most convenient slaughtering place, and this is probably the reason for the injunction.
Lev 1:14
If the burnt sacrifice for his offering to the Lord be of fowls. A comparison of Le Lev 12:8 leads us to infer that the permission to offer a bird was a concession to poverty. The pigeon and the turtle-dove were the most easy to procure, as the domestic fowl was at this time unknown to the Hebrews. The first and only allusion in the Bible to the hen occurs in the New Testament (Mat 23:37; Luk 13:30, nor is there any representation of the domestic fowl in ancient Egyptian paintings. The domicile of the bird was still confined to India. A single pigeon or turtle-dove formed a sacrifice, and there was no rule in respect to sex, as there was in the ease of the quadrupeds.
Lev 1:15
The priest shall bring it unto the altar. The difference in the ritual for the burnt sacrifice of fowls is:
1. That the offerer is not commanded to lay his hand on the bird.
2. That the altar is the place of maciation, instead of the space on the north side of the altar.
3. That the priest slays it instead of the offerer.
4. That the blood (owing to its smaller quantity) is pressed out against the side of the altar instead of being caught in a vessel and thrown on it. There is no essential variation here; the analogy of the sacrifice of the animal is followed so far as circumstances permit. It is not certain that the word malak, translated wring off his head, means more than “make an incision with the nail;” but in all probability the head was to be severed and laid on the fire separately, after the manner of the other sacrifices.
Lev 1:16
With his feathers, rather the contents of the crop. This and the ashes are to be placed beside the altar on the east part, as being furthest from the tabernacle and nearest to the entrance of the court, so that they might be readily removed.
HOMILETICS
Lev 1:1, Lev 1:2
The sacrificial system.
The religion of Israel, as exhibited to us in the Law, bears at first sight a strange appearance, unlike what we should have expected. We read in it very little about a future life, and not much about repentance, faith, and prayer, but we find commanded an elaborate system of sacrifices, based upon a practice almost coeval with the Fall.
I. SACRIFICE WAS USED IN ANTE–MOSAIC DAYS AS A MEANS OF APPROACH TO GOD. “In process of time it came to pass that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord. And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof” (Gen 4:4). The covenant with Noah was made by sacrifice: “And Noah builded an altar unto the Lord, and took of every clean beast and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar. And the Lord smelled a sweet savour. And God spake unto Noah, and to his sons with him, saying, And I, behold, I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after you” (Gen 8:20, Gen 8:21; Gen 9:8, Gen 9:9). When Abraham first entered Canaan, he “builded an altar unto the Lord who appeared unto him” (Gen 12:7), as the means of communicating with him. At his next halting-place, “he builded an altar unto the Lord,” as the means of “calling upon the name of the Lord” (Gen 12:8; Gen 13:4). On removing to Hebron, again he “built there an altar unto the Lord” (Gen 13:18). The covenant with Abraham was made by sacrifice (Gen 15:9); and at Jehovah-jireh, Abraham “offered a ram for a burnt offering in the stead of his son” (Gen 22:13). At Beer-sheba Isaac “builded an altar and called upon the name of the Lord” (Gen 26:25). At Shalem Jacob “erected an altar and called it El-elohe-Israel” (Gen 33:20). At Beth-el he “built an altar and called the place El-beth-el” (Gen 35:7). At Beer-sheba he “offered sacrifices unto the God of his father Isaac” (Gen 46:1). During the sojourn in Egypt it is probable that the practice of sacrifice was discontinued through fear of giving offense to the religious feelings of the Egyptians (Exo 8:26); but the idea of sacrifice being the appointed means of serving God was preserved (Exo 5:3; Exo 8:27). Moses, Aaron, and the elders of Israel took part in a sacrificial meal with Jethro in the wilderness (Exo 18:12). And the covenant made at Sinai was ratified by burnt offerings and peace offerings (Exo 24:5). Indeed, the Book of Psalms declares the method of entering into covenant with God to be “by sacrifice.” “Gather my saints together unto me; those that have made a covenant with me by sacrifice” (Psa 1:5). The Christian covenant was thus ratified (Heb 9:15), as well as the covenants of Noah, Abraham, and Moses:
II. THERE ARE THREE CLASSES OF SACRIFICES UNDER THE MOSAIC DISPENSATION, ESSENTIALLY DIFFERING IN CHARACTER
Burnt offerings;
Peace offerings;
Sin offerings;
beside Meat offerings, ordinarily attached to the burnt offerings, and Trespass offerings, a species of sin offering.
III. WHAT WAS THEIR MEANING.
1. In general, they served, as before, as a means of reconciliation between God and man, as a means of access for man to God. This purpose they fulfilled to all humble-minded men, whether their full meaning was understood or no. To the more spiritually minded they were also a means of instruction in sacred mysteries to be revealed hereafter.
2. Specifically, they each taught their own lesson and brought about, symbolically and ceremonially, each their own effect.
The sin offering taught the need of, and symbolically effected, the propitiation of God’s anger and the expiation of man’s sin.
The burnt offering taught the lesson of self-surrender, and symbolically effected the surrender of the offerer to God.
The peace offering taught the lesson of the necessity and joyousness of communion between God and man, and symbolically represented that communion as existing between the offerer and God.
IV. WHENCE THEY DERIVED THEIR EFFICACY. Their efficacy was derived from representing and foreshadowing the sacrifice of Christ on the cross, the sin offering typifying the propitiation and expiation once for all there wrought, the burnt offering the perfect self-surrender of the sinless sufferer, the peace offering the reconciliation thereby effected and continued between God and his people.
Lev 1:3-17
The burnt offering.
It was wholly consumed by the fire of God’s altar; nothing was left for the after consumption either of the offerer or even of God’s ministers, as in the other sacrifices.
I. IT TYPIFIES THE ENTIRE SELF–SURRENDER OF CHRIST TO GOD.
1. In his eternal resolve to redeem by becoming man.
2. In the humility of his birth on earth.
3. In the silence in which his youth was spent.
4. In the narrow limits within which he confined his ministry.
5. In the victory won over his human will in the Garden of Gethsemane.
6. In his yielding his life to his Father on the cross.
II. EXAMPLE HEREIN TO US.
1. We must surrender what is evil
Bad habits, e.g. sloth, drunkenness.
Bad affections, e.g. love of money, bodily indulgence.
Bad passions, e.g. ill temper, pride.
2. We must surrender what God does not think fit to give us, though not in itself evil, such as
Health
Domestic happiness,
Worldly success.
III. THE CHRISTIAN TEMPER RESULTING FROM SELF–SURRENDER.
1. Acquiescence in God’s will.
2. Cheerfulness in rendering that acquiescence.
3. Spiritual peace and happiness arising from the consciousness of having yielded our wilt to our Father’s will.
4. Love to the brethren. Cf. Eph 5:2 : “Walk in love, as Christ also loved us, and gave himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling savour.”
Lev 1:5-9
Medication.
The sacrificial act cannot be completed, though it can be begun, by the offerer alone. The intervention of God’s priest is requisite, and it is his hand which performs the most solemn portion of the rite. Thus there is taught the need of mediation and of a mediator when a work of atonement is to be accomplished. “The expiation was always made or completed by the priest, as the sanctified mediator between Jehovah and the people, or, previous to the institution of the Aaronic priesthood, by Moses, the chosen mediator of the covenant. It is not Jehovah who makes the expiation, but this is invariably the office or work of a mediator, who intervenes between the holy God and sinful man, and by means of expiation averts the wrath of God from the sinner, and brings the grace of God to bear upon him” (Keil). Hence, the great work of atonement, of which all other atonements are but shadows, was performed by the One Mediator between God and man, the man Jesus Christ.
HOMILIES BY R.M. EDGAR
Lev 1:1-17
Entire consecration, as illustrated in the burnt offering.
cf. Rom 12:1.We start with the assumption that the Book of Exodus presents “the history of redemption.” It is an account of how the Lord delivered the people he had chosen out of bondage, and brought them to himself (Exo 19:4). It contains, moreover, an account of the erection of the tabernacle, or “tent of meeting,” where God proposed to dwell as a Pilgrim in the midst of a pilgrim people, and out of which would issue his commands as their Guide and Leader. In this Book of Leviticus, then, we have the Lord speaking “out of the tent of meeting” (verse 1), that is, to a people in covenant relations with himself.
This helps us to understand why the “burnt offering” is treated first. Not only was it the very oldest offering, but it was to be the daily offering (Num 29:6); morning and evening was a holocaust to be presented to the Lord. It was, therefore, manifestly meant to express the proper state or condition of those professing to be God’s covenant people. It is on this account that we entitle this a homily on Entire Consecration.
I. THIS IDEA OF ENTIRE CONSECRATION IS ONE WHICH ALL CLASSES OF GOD‘S PEOPLE ARE EXPECTED TO EXPRESS. The poor, who could only bring “turtle-doves” or “young pigeons,” the representatives of domestic fowls at that time, were just as welcome at the tabernacle as those who could bring lambs or bullocks. Consecration is an idea which can be carried out in any worldly condition. The poor widow with her two mites carried it out more gloriously than her neighbours in the midst of their abundance. Complete self-surrender is not the prerogative of a class, but the possibility and ideal of all.
II. CONFESSION OF SIN IS AN EXPECTED PRELIMINARY TO CONSECRATION. the Jew, whatever was his grade in society, was directed either expressly to “lean” () his hand upon the head of his offering, or, as in the case of the fowls where it was physically impossible, to do so by implication; and this was understood to represent, and some believe it to have been regularly accompanied by, confession of sin. Of course, confession of sin is not of the essence of consecration; we have in the case of our blessed Lord, and of the unfallen angels, similar consecration, where no sense of sin is possible. And we are on the way to consecration in the other life, divorced from the sense of sin. Meanwhile, however, confession is only just, since sin remains with us. Indeed, the consecration of redeemed sinners will not prove very deep or thorough where confession of sin is omitted.
III. THE SPECTACLE OF A SUBSTITUTE DYING IN OUR ROOM AND STEAD IS WELL FITTED TO DEEPEN OUR SENSE OF CONSECRATION. The slaughter of the animal, upon whose head the sins have by confession been laid, must have exercised upon the offerer a very solemnizing influence. There is nothing in like manner so fitted to hallow us as the spectacle of Jesus, to whom these sacrifices pointed, dying on the cross in our stead. The love he manifested in that death for us constrains us to live, not unto ourselves, but unto him who died for us and rose again (2Co 5:14, 2Co 5:15). The moral power of substitution cannot be dispensed with in a sinful world like this.
IV. THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE BLOOD UPON THE ALTAR, THAT IS, OF LIFE AFTER THE DEATH–PENALTY HAS BEEN PAID, ALSO HELPS TO DEEPEN THE SENSE OF CONSECRATION‘. For when the priest by Divine direction, sprinkled the blood of the sacrifice all round about upon the altar, it was to indicate the acceptance on God’s part of the life beyond death. It indicated that God was satisfied with the substitution, that the penalty had been paid by the death of the victim, and that in consequence the blood, that is, the lifefor the life was in the blood (Lev 17:11)could be accepted. Acceptance in and through another was what this portion of the ritual implied, and this is well calculated to deepen the sense of consecration. For, according to the typology, the Person in whom we are accepted is he to whom we ought to be consecrated. It is when we realize that we are accepted in Christ that we feel constrained to dedicate ourselves unto him. The one good turn deserves another, and we are held. under a sense of sweetest obligation.
V. THE CONSECRATION OF THE CHILD OF GOD IS THE COMPLETE SURRENDER OF SELF TO THE OPERATION OF THE HOLY GHOST. Ewald has most pertinently remarked that among the Greeks and other nations such holocausts as were daily presented by the Jews were rarities. The idea of entire consecration is too broad for a heathen mind. Partial consecration was comparatively easy in idea, but a “surrender without reserve” is the fruit of Divine teaching. Now this is what the burning of the holocaust in the sacred fire of the altar signified. For, since all sensation had ceased before the sacrifice was laid upon the altar, the burning could not suggest the idea to the worshipper of pain or penalty. The fire had come out from God as the token of acceptance (Lev 9:24). It is, moreover, one of the recognized symbols of the Holy Ghost. Consequently, the exposure of every portion of the sacrifice to the altar fire represented the yielding of the grateful worshipper in his entirety to the operation of God the Holy Ghost. This, after all, is the essence of sanctification. It is the surrender of our whole nature, body, soul, and spirit, to the disposal of the Holy Ghost. This is devotedness indeed. Nowhere has the idea been more felicitously wrought out than in a little posthumous volume of F.R. Havergal’s, entitled ‘Kept for the Master’s Use.’ We cannot better convey the idea of the burnt offering than by copying her simple foundation lines upon which she has built her chapters.
“Take my life, and let it be
Consecrated, Lord, to Thee.
Take my moments and my days;
Let them flow in ceaseless praise.
Take my hands, and let them move
At the impulse of Thy love.
Take my feet, and let them be
Swift, and ‘beautiful’ for Thee.
Take my voice, and let me sing
Always, only, for my king.
Take my lips, and let them be
Filled with messages from Thee.
Take my silver and my gold:
Not a mite would I withhold.
Take my intellect, and use
Every power as Thou shall choose.
Take my will and make it Thine:
It shall be no longer mine.
Take my heart; it is Thine own:
It shall be Thy royal throne.
Take my love: My Lord, I pour
At Thy feet its treasure-store.
Take myself, and I will be
Ever, only, ALL for Thee.”
R.M.E.
HOMILIES BY S.R. ALDRIDGE
Lev 1:1-14
The weakness of man and the grace of God.
Measureless is the distance between man and his Maker. And it is sometimes emphasized in such a way as to repress thought and stifle the aspirations of the human breast. In Scripture it is not brought forward as a rayless truth, but is shown to be replete with profit and joy. To consider it increases humility, indeed, but also intensifies gratitude and love. For the less has been blessed by the Greater, and we are permitted to say, looking upon the attributes of the Eternal as exercised towards us in mercy and favour, “This God is our God: we will rejoice in his salvation.”
I. MAN IS IGNORANT: THE GRACE OF GOD IS SEEN IN THE DISTINCT ENUNCIATION OF HIS WILL. The light of reason, the voice of conscience, the promptings of emotion,these can inform us only to a slight extent of the worship and service likely to be acceptable to God. Hence the surpassing worth of the full, clear-toned, authoritative utterances of Scripture. That God is Spirit, Light, and Love, that he is holy and almighty, are declarations for which we must be devoutly thankful. The Epicureans pictured the happy gods as dwelling in unruffled serenity far from all cognizance of or interference with the concerns of men. Inspiration removes our suspicions, reassures us with the words, “The eyes of the Lord are over the righteous, and his ears are open unto their prayers.” Errors in the manner of our approach are prevented. Some would have presumptuously drawn near without the accustomed offering; others might bring unsuitable giftshuman sacrifices, unclean animals, etc. A God less kind might suffer the people to incur the terrible consequences of ignorance, but not if Nadab and Abihu perish it shall not be for lack of instruction. “Go ye into all the world, teaching them to observe whatsoever things I have commanded you.”
II. MAN IS FEARFUL AND PERTURBED IN THE PRESENCE OF GOD: IT IS GRACIOUSLY ORDAINED THAT SPECIAL MESSENGERS SHALL BE THE APPOINTED CHANNELS OF COMMUNICATION. “The Lord called unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel.” When God appeared on Sinai and thundered out His Law, the terrified people implored that God might not Himself speak again lest they should die. Their entreaty was regarded, and Moses became the medium of conveying the mind of God. Should Jehovah be for ever appearing in person, his visits would be attended with such overwhelming awe that the purport of his words might be in danger of being lost or mistaken. When embarrassed, man’s thoughts are dispersed, and memory fails. It was better, therefore, that holy men should speak unto men as moved by the Holy Ghost. The striking instance is the assumption of our nature by the Son of God, putting a veil over the features of Deity that weak sinful mortals might draw near without trembling and admire the gracious words proceeding out of his mouth. Even children hear and understand the words of Jesus. And here we may remark that the utterances of the messengers retest be received as coming from the Most High. In the appointed place God talked with Moses, and on his repeating the instructions to the Israelites they were bound to attend to them. It is equally incumbent upon us to respect the decrees of God delivered through prophets and apostles, and above all to honour the Father by honouring the Son, believing his words, trusting him as the Teacher sent from God. Preachers are “ambassadors for Christ.” We would give thanks without ceasing when hearers receive the truth from our lips, not as the word of men, but the word of God (1Th 2:13).
III. MAN IS SINFUL: THE GRACE OF GOD PROVIDES MEDIATORIAL ACCESS TO THE HOLY ONE.
1. Sacrifices appointed. “Bring an offering” without blemish, and place your hand upon its head, to show that it is willingly offered and stands instead of the offerer. And “it shall be accepted to make atonement” for you, to cover your person and works with the robe of mercy and righteousness, so that the Divine gaze may be fastened upon you without displeasure. By the grace of God it was arranged that Jesus Christ should taste death for every man. His was the one offering that, through accomplishing the will of God, sanctifies all who make mention of his name. Who will hesitate to appear before the Most High? Let faith lay her hand upon the Saviour, rejoicing in the conviction that “while we were yet sinners Christ died for us.”
2. A priesthood. The Levites were set apart for the service of Jehovah, instead of all the firstborn of Israel. And of the Levites, the sons of Aaron were to minister continually before the Lord, observing all his regulations and maintaining constant purification of themselves, so that without insulting the holiness of God they might interpose between him and his people. Priesthood bridged the chasm between sinful creatures and a pure Creator. The priesthood sanctified the entire nation, which was theoretically a “kingdom of priests.” Jesus Christ has concentred the priestly functions in himself. He has entered into the heaven as our Forerunner, to sprinkle the atoning blood on the altar. And now with true heart in full assurance of faith we may draw nigh to God.
IV. MAN‘S CONDITION VARIES; THE GRACE OF GOD PROVIDES FOR ITS INEQUALITIES.
1. Notice is taken of the poor, and appropriate offerings permitted. Oriental monarchs often despised and rejected the subjects who were unable to enrich their royal coffers. But God is no respecter of persons. It is one of the glories of the gospel that it has been preached to the poor, and is adapted to their needs. God expects every man to come and testify his respect and affection. The poor may bring “turtle-doves or young pigeons.” The way was thus opened for the parents of him who “became poor for our sakes.” It is to be feared that many withhold a contribution because it seems so insignificant. But the Lord is as sorry to see the mite retained in the pocket as the gold which the wealthy refuse to part with. “If there be first a willing mind it is accepted according to that a man hath.” Do not decline to engage in Christian work on the plea of defective ability! Surely some fitting department of service can be found. It is often the one talent that is hid in a napkin.
2. The offering of the poor is pronounced equally acceptable. Note the repetition of “it is a sacrifice, of a sweet savour unto the Lord” after the 17th verse. It is rather the spirit than the action itself which God regards. Not the results of labour so much as its motives and the proportion of ability to accomplishment.S.R.A.
Lev 1:1-9
The greatness of God.
Too wide a field lessens the thoroughness of observation. Hence it is allowable and advantageous to distinguish in thought what is in reality inseparable, in order, by fixing the attention upon certain parts, to acquire a better knowledge of the whole. Such a method recommends itself in dealing with the attributes of God. To attempt to comprehend them all in one glance is, if not impossible, at least of little result in increasing our acquaintance with His character. Let us observe how the hints in this chapter present us with the greatness of God in varied aspects.
I. THE HOLINESS OF GOD DEMANDS A SACRIFICIAL OFFERING FROM ALL WHO WOULD SEEK HIS FAVOUR. The offerings here spoken of were spontaneous free-will offerings. They indicated a desire on the part of man to draw nigh to Jehovah, and they also manifested a sense of disturbance wrought by sin in man’s relations with his Maker. Once man walked with God in uninterrupted harmony. Then transgression chased innocence away, and shame drove man to hide himself from the presence of God. among the trees of the garden. The consciousness of sin renders an offering necessary, under cover of which (“to make atonement for him”) we may venture to an audience with the Holy One. Thus can fellowship be resumed. The Antitype of these sacrifices, Jesus Christ, is now our peace. He was “once offered to bear the sins of many.” “By one offering he hath for ever perfected them that are sanctified.” The old cry, “How shall man be just with God?” is still uttered, and the response comes, “Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.”
II. THE MAJESTY OF GOD REQUIRES THAT THE REGULATIONS FOR APPROACH WHICH HE HAS APPOINTED BE STRICTLY OBSERVED. The condescension of God in manifesting himself to the Israelites might be fraught with danger if it led to presumption and to holding in light esteem his awe-inspiring attributes. Instructions are consequently given relating to the minutest details; everything is prescribed. God is pleased with the free-will offering, and it will be accepted if the precepts are adhered to; but it must in no wise be supposed that the sincere expression of affection can excuse wilful neglect of appointed rules. The love of an inferior for his superior must not prevent the exhibition of due respect. God will be had in reverence by all that arc about him. Nor is it open to man arrogantly to pronounce that a consecrated way of access through Jesus Christ may be set aside as unnecessary. Christianity may have broadened the road. of approach, but it remains true that there is still an appointed road. To refuse honour to Christ is to treat God with disrespect. “Now is the Son of man glorified, and God is glorified in him.” Christless worship, thanksgiving, and prayer, must be shunned.
III. THE HONOUR OF GOD EXPECTS AN OFFERING TO CONSIST OF the BEST THAT MAN POSSESSES. If poor, a turtle-dove would not be rejected, but for a rich man to offer the same would be treated as an insult to God. And the offering from the herd or flock must be “a male without blemish.” Strength and beauty combined are requisite to satisfy the searching eye of the High and Lofty One. We see these requisites embodied in the Lamb of God, the perfect Sacrifice, “holy, harmless, undefiled.” He knows little of God who imagines that he will be put off with scanty service, mean oblations. We ought to ask, not what is there can be easily spared, but how much can possibly be laid upon the altar. Let us not mock him by indulging in our own pleasures, and then giving to him the petty remnants of our poverty! Let us strive so to act that the firstfruits of our toil, the chiefest of our possessions, the prime of our life, the best of our days, shall be devoted to purposes of religion! Bestow upon God the deepest thoughts of the mind, the strongest resolutions of the will, the choicest affections of the heart.
IV. THE PERFECTION OF GOD NECESSITATES ORDERLY ARRANGEMENT IN ALL THAT CONCERNS HIS WORSHIP AND SERVICE. There is an appointed place for the offering, “the tabernacle of the congregation.” The wood must be laid “in order upon the fire” (Lev 1:7), and the different parts of the victim must likewise be placed “in order upon the wood” (Lev 1:8).
To constitute a chaos round about the throne is to derogate from the homage a king inspires. It intimates his powerlessness, his want of intelligent forethought and present control. Law reigns everywhere throughout the dominions of Jehovah. The heavenly bodies speak of the symmetry he loves, and plants, animals, and minerals teach the same grand truth. “Order is Heaven’s first law.” “God is not the author of confusion, but of peace.” In the worship of the sanctuary order and decency are of pre-eminent importance. Whatever shocks a devout mind is likely to be offensive to him all whoso ways are perfect. Arrangement need not degenerate into formality. The Sunday dress, the preparation for God’s house, and the quiet attitude therein, are all important adjuncts to the spiritual education of the young.
Be it observed further that order means economy of space and time. Those who have no room nor leisure to be orderly do least and retain least. The laws of God are ever synonymous with the true interests of man.
V. THE PURITY OF GOD OBLIGES THAT THE OFFERING BE CLEANSED FROM DEFILEMENT. Those parts of the victim naturally subject to defilement are to be washed in water, “the inwards and the legs.” One might deem this a superfluous proceeding, since they were to be so soon burnt upon the altar. But this would mean an extremely erroneous view of the solemnity of a sacrifice. Those who have not time to serve God properly had better not try it at all. He who counts it a trouble to read and pray has little conception of the insult he offers to God. Before we bow before the Lord to render our tribute of adoration and praise, it were well to purify our hearts, to hallow the desires that may have become impure, to call home our wandering thoughts, and to loose the dusty sandals from the feet which have been treading in the ways of the world. The Almighty desires no part to be absent from the offering. The affections, the strength, the time, the money, that have been lavished on unworthy objects are not in themselves sinful, they are unclean and require the sanctifying influence of the blood of Christ, and the water of the Word, and then they are fit to be rendered unto God. and consumed in the fire that testifies his acceptance of the worshipper.S.R.A.
Lev 1:9
Our reasonable service.
The burnt offering appears to have been the most general of the sacrifices presented to Jehovah, and to have had the widest significance. Its spiritual counterpart is furnished in Rom 12:1. Meditation upon the prophetic symbol will abed light upon the “living sacrifice” of the gospel dispensation.
I. THE NATURE OF THE CHRISTIAN OFFERING AS THUS SYMBOLIZED.
1. It is a surrender to God of something that belongs to us. Property inherited and acquired is the material of the sacrifice. Not only what has come to us by natural endowment, but that which is the result of toilthe cattle that were given to us, and the produce we have reared. God demands our hearts, our minds, our talents; and he looks for the devotion to him of any increment that effort may secure. Just as Barnabas sold his land and laid the price at the apostles’ feet, and the Apostle Paul commanded that each Corinthian should “lay by him in store as God hath prospered him.”
2. It is a voluntary surrender. The man “shall put his band upon the head of the burnt offering,” to evince his willingness to part with the animal. All “the cattle on a thousand bills” are really owned by Jehovah, yet does he treat man as proprietor, and does not take by violence the necessary sacrifices for his glory, but leaves it to man freely to recognize his God, and to pay his just dues. “Voluntary” in no wise excludes the force of motives, since every decision has motives, as an antecedent if not as an efficient cause. Freedom implies absence, not of inducements, but of constraint. Man has the power to withhold from the service of God his faculties and possessions. He is ever appealed to in Scripture as a reasonable individual, capable of deciding to what purposes his abilities shall be devoted. “Yield yourselves unto God.”
3. The surrender must be complete. It was not possible to offer part of a goat or lamb, the victim must be given in its entirety. The blood is sprinkled round about, and “all” the parts are burnt upon the altar. The disciple must follow the Lord fully. No putting of the hand to the plough and looking hack. No keeping back part of the price. The believer is bought by Christ, body and soul. The reason why many seem to have offered themselves to God in vain, is because they have done it in a half-hearted way, they have not “sought him with their whole desire.”
II. THE MANNER IN WHICH THE OFFERING IS DEVOTED TO GOD.
1. By the death of the victim. Death is the total renunciation of present enjoymentthe extremest proof of an intention to set one’s self apart for a certain object. If it does not suffice to prove sincerity and entire consecration, then proof is impossible. “All that a man hath will he give for his life.” Like the apostle, it behoves Christians to “die daily.” At baptism there was the emblem of death to the world. “Old things have passed away.” Our death to sin, however, resembles the crucifixion of our Lord, a lingering painful death. We mortify the deeds of the body, crucify the flesh, deny ourselves. “If any man will lose his life he shall save it.”
2. By cleansing water and purifying fire. “Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.” “Having these promises, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit.” “Every one shall be salted with fire.” “The trial of your faith which is much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire.” All that is earthly is consumed. The smoke, rising from the material sacrifice, reminds us of the pure metal that is free from dross, and remains to “praise, honour, and glory.” Learn to welcome the tribulations of your lot as being the discipline that makes the surrender of yourselves complete. Martyrs have experienced actual flames, the fire may assume another shape to you. Perhaps temptations assail you, and difficulties wear away your strength. Glorify God in the fires. Fire is an emblem of the Holy Spirit, and as Christ offered himself through the Eternal Spirit, so does his Spirit abide with his people, to hallow them, to put away sin, to make them pleasing unto God.
3. By means of the ordained mediator. The priest must take the slain animal to perform the necessary rites. Otherwise, however free from fault, the offering will bring loss, not gain, to the offerer. If all believers are now “a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices,” they are only “acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.” Our Saviour must be our “Daysman,” to come between us and God, and present us to his Father. His life, death, and intercession must be the inspiration of our lives, the spring of our hopes, the constraining influence that shall make us dedicate all we have and are to God. “No man cometh unto the Father but by me.” We determine to know nothing save Christ and him crucified. “In Christ Jesus” we “are made nigh.”
III. THE EFFECT OF THE OFFERING.
1. It pleases God. Anthropomorphic expressions are employed, not to degrade the Almighty, but to clarify our conceptions, and to make the truth plain to the dullest eyed. “It is a sweet savour unto the Lord.” The smell is repulsive, and cannot be supposed to be grateful in itself to him who is a Spirit.
But it is the disposition to honour and please God that he delights to observe in his children. A parent may admire the rudest sketch if his little one brings it as a token of love, and may esteem the commonest fare a banquet, and ill-dressed food a feast, if regard and affection have contributed to its preparation. The agony and wounds of the Redeemer were not watched by the Father with unmingled delight. As we shudder at the spectacle of the Holy One made a curse for us, and yet rejoice in the all-sufficiency of his burden-bearing; so the Father felt the keenest pangs that rent the breast of his beloved Son, and only joyed in the sublime manifestation of filial devotion, content to endure torture and insult that the blot on his Father’s world through the presence of sin might be erased even at such infinite cost. Wherein we are partakers if the sufferings of Christ our Sacrifice is fragrant to the Father. The apostles, in preaching the gospel, became “unto God a sweet savour of Christ.” If we walk in love, we cause the incense of love to ascend with sweet odour to heaven (Eph 5:2). Jesus ministered to the wants of many, and the Philippians, in supplying the necessities of Paul, Christ’s servant, were an “odour of a sweet smell, a sacrifice well-pleasing unto God.”
2. It procures for the offerer satisfaction of conscience and the favour of God. The sacrifice is accepted, communion is re-established, sin is covered. There is an inward contentment in all religious acts that is of itself evidence of the reality of religion, and its adaptation to our circumstances. Never did any man abstain from selfish, sinful gratification, or pursue the rugged path of holiness and virtue, without being solaced by the consciousness of having done what was right, what was in harmony with the noblest dictates of his nature. The self-denying, God-serving life is the happiest and most blessed life. Then do we walk in the light of God’s countenance, and drink of the river of his pleasures.S.R.A.
HOMILIES BY J.A. MACDONALD
Lev 1:1, Lev 1:2
Sacrificature.
The Book of Exodus closes with an account of the entrance of the Shechinah into the tabernacle; with the manner in which that sacred structure was enveloped by the cloud of the Divine presence; also that in which, by rising from the tabernacle, God gave his order for his people to march, and, by resting upon it, to halt and encamp. The Book of Leviticus is concerned with the revelations which God gave to Israel from this habitation of his holiness, in which the laws published from Sinai were amplified (comp. Le Lev 7:37, Lev 7:38). The text lays down broad principles upon the subject of sacrificature, which is considered first in order, because of its great importance to the Levitical system, and to that more glorious system of the gospel which it shadowed forth. We learn that
I. SACRIFICATURE HAS GOD FOR ITS AUTHOR.
1. It existed before the time of Moses.
(1) Its prevalence amongst the nations argues its origin to be prior to the dispersion (Gen 11:9). How else can this fact be explained?
(2) We read of it in patriarchal times. The Hebrew patriarchs offered sacrifices (Gen 12:7, et al. freq.). So did Job, who lived in the land of Uz, on the border-land between Idumea and Arabia, probably about the time of Joseph (Job 1:5; see also Exo 18:12). So did Noah (Gen 8:20).
(3) The first family had sacrifices which they presented when they appeared before the Shechinah, which flamed between the cherubic emblems set up eastward of Eden (Gen 4:3, Gen 4:4).
2. It could not have been invented by man.
(1) It was, in the nature of the thing, most unlikely to have occurred to any finite mind.
(2) If it did so occur, would God have accepted it? Does he approve will-worship? (see Le Job 10:1, Job 10:2). What right has a sinner to propose terms of reconciliation to his Maker? His place is to throw himself absolutely upon the Divine mercy, and wait t,, “hear what God the Lord may speak “(Psa 85:7, Psa 85:8).
3. Here we have it authorized by God.
(1) “And the Lord called unto Moses,” etc.
(2) So we find God directing Abraham respecting the manner in which sacrifices should be ordered in his worship (Gen 15:9; see also Gen 22:2).
(3) The “coats of skins” in which our first parents were clothed were presumably from animals offered in sacrifice. Animals were not in those days killed for food (Gen 1:29; comp. with Gen 9:3). Since it was “the Lord God” who clothed them, the institution of sacrificature would date from that time, and be a revelation of mercy immediately from him. God is the Author of reconciliation (Joh 3:16; Rom 5:8; 1Jn 4:9).
II. IT WAS PUBLISHED FROM HIS SANCTUARY.
1. There are revelations of God in nature.
(1) These are exhibited in our treatises on Natural Theology. Who can fail to see the Designer in the works of design?
(2) The Scriptures recognize this voice (Psa 9:1; Psa 19:1, etc.; Act 14:17; Act 17:27; Rom 1:20).
2. But these are evident only after the hight of them is given.
(1) We have no innate ideas. The Namaquans and other African tribes were found by Moffat, Ridsdale, and other missionaries, without a glimmer of an idea of God or of immortality.
(2) The traditions of the Gentiles were originally from a pure source, but became corrupted in transmission.
(3) There are no “deists,” i.e; natural theologians, where the Bible has not been before them. They do not own the source from whence they derive the hints which guide them in their reasonings.
3. Sacrificature is not taught in nature.
(1) The book of nature was written too soon. The Creation preceded the Fall.
(2) That it is, is not presumed. Sacrificature is excluded from the creed of the deist.
(3) This subject belongs to the sanctuary. “And the Lord called Moses and spake out of the tabernacle of the congregation,” etc. Even the Garden of Eden, where, we presume, it was first instituted, was “planted,” and planted to be a temple for Divine worship.
(4) Yet without sacrificature there can be no acceptable worship. Cain, the deist, was rejected because he came before God without blood-shedding (see Le Job 17:11; Heb 9:22). Let no man think he acceptably serves God when he neglects the services of the sanctuary under the pretext of “worshipping the God of nature in the fields.”
III. THE SACRIFICES APPROVED ARE “FROM THE HERD AND FROM THE FLOCK.”
1. They are selected from the animals that are clean.
(1) They have the marks of cleanness, viz. parting the hoof and chewing the cud (Lev 11:3). But all clean creatures were not proper for purposes of sacrifice. Those of the “herd” (, baker) are distinguished as the bull heifer, bullock and calf. Those of the “flock” (, tson) as sheep and goats; for this word is used to describe these animals promiscuously (see verse 10).
(2) This reminds us of the purity of God, who can accept nothing that is polluted”who will in no wise clear the guilty”who requires purity in his worshippers (Psa 24:3, Psa 24:4).
(3) It points to the purity of the Great One sacrificed for us, covered in whose righteousness we are justified or accounted as just persons, and in whose atoning blood we are washed and made clean.
2. They are gregarious creatures.
(1) This feature is prominently noticed here”herd,” “flock.” Man is a social being. He is set in families, tribes, nations, and even internationally united. Solitary confinement is amongst the most horrible of punishments.
(2) Hence guilt and depravity become hereditary. And as we have been represented to our ruin by our common progenitor, so by the representation of the second Adam we have salvation.
(3) Sin is dissocializing. Consider its fruitsHatredvariancestrifesmurders.
(4) True religion perfects the social principle, centres all union in God. A universe tan meet in him. A universe can hold communion in him. The genius of religion is love. The heaven of heavens is love.J.A.M.
Lev 1:3-9
The burnt sacrifice of the herd.
Having given general instructions concerning the great business of sacrifice, the Most High descends to particulars, and here describes the burnt sacrifice of the herd. These particulars contain specific directions
I. AS TO THE QUALITY OF THE VICTIM.
1. It must be a male.
(1) Females were not only admitted for burnt offerings under the patriarchal dispensation, but upon one memorable occasion even prescribed (see Gen 15:9). The ceremonial distinction between male and female was not then, probably, so strongly defined as afterwards it became under the Law. Under the gospel it is abolished (Gal 3:28).
(2) The male is the stronger animal; and the horns, in the ox, which are symbols of power, are more developed in the male. The male, therefore, would represent the excellence of strength.
(3) Thus Christ, as the “Power of God,” would be preindicated (1Co 1:24). By his sacrifice of himself he destroyed him that had the power of death, and became the “power of God unto salvation” to every believer (Rom 1:16; 1Co 1:18).
2. It must be without blemish.
(1) The rabbins reckon no less than fifty things, any one of which would, in their judgment, render an animal unfit for sacrifice; five in the ear, three in the eyelid, eight in the eye, etc.; but they trifle outrageously. Any obvious defect or redundancy of parts would mar it for sacrifice, and so would any disease by which it might be afflicted.
(2) This reminds us that Christ, who is accepted of God as our Sacrifice, is without deficiency or redundancy, weakness or malady (1Pe 1:19). In everything perfect.
(3) We are further taught that the best should be given to God. The best thoughts; the best affections; the best gifts; the best service.
II. As TO THE DUTY OF THE OFFERER.
1. With a view to procuring the acceptance of his offering.
(1) His gift must be offered freely. “He shall offer it of his own voluntary will.” The sacrifice of himself, which Christ offered for us, was voluntary (Gal 1:4; Gal 2:20; Eph 5:25; Tit 2:6, Tit 2:14). God expects the homage of the heart (Joh 4:23, Joh 4:24).
(2) It must be offered at the door of the tabernacle. The altar was at the door. We enter the heavens through the blood of Jesus (Heb 10:19-21). The Jewish sacrifices were never resumed after the destruction of their city and temple, for they hold it unlawful to sacrifice anywhere out of Jerusalem. Yet they will not see that the antitypes have come, and that the types are therefore no longer necessary.
(3) He must lay his hand upon its head. This action expressed,
(a) That the offerer confessed himself a sinner deserving to be sacrificed.
(b) That he ceremonially transferred his guilt to a substitute in anticipation of the Great Substitute promised who should truly bear the punishment of sin (1Pe 2:24).
(c) That he trusted in the mercy of God through the vicarious sufferings of Messiah (Dan 9:26).
2. With a view to the making an atonement for his sin. The direction is
(1) That he should kill the bullock “before the Lord.” The Shechinah was there in the most holy place. The transaction is between the Lord and the soul of the sinner. In all worship we should realize the presence of the Lord.
(2) “He shall flay the burnt offering and cut it into his pieces.” This operation was here performed, not by the priest, but by the offerer. In the time of the temple this was done by the priests, who were then more numerous and better skilled in the proper mode of doing it. For this service they claimed the skin (Lev 7:8; 2Ch 29:34).
(3) People and priests alike were concerned in the Great Sacrifice on Calvary. It was done with “wicked hands” (Act 2:23).
III. As TO THE DUTY OF THE PRIESTS.
1. With respect to the blood.
(1) They were to sprinkle with it round about the altar. The altar upon which Jesus was offered was, in its more restricted sense, the hill of Calvary. On that hill his precious blood was literally sprinkled.
(2) The position of the altar is noted, viz. “by the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.” In the wider sense the altar on which Jesus suffered was this planet, which is, as it were, the entrance or vestibule of the great temple of the universe, of which the heavens are the holy places (see Heb 4:14).
2. With respect to the water.
(1) Water is one of the great purifiers in the kingdom of nature, and is therefore used as an emblem of the Holy Spirit, the Great Purifier in the kingdom of grace (Joh 7:38, Joh 7:39). So a controversy about baptism with water is described as a “question about purifying” (Joh 3:25).
(2) With water the priest was to wash the inwards and the legs. The inwards were a type of the soul; and God requires “truth in the inward parts,” in the “thoughts and intents of the heart.” Every pollution, also, connected with our “walk and conversation” must be laved away. To express this truth Jesus washed his disciples’ feet.
3. With respect to the fire.
(1) It was “put” upon the altar. This does not say that it was kindled by the priest. The fire was of God’s own kindling (see Le Lev 9:24; Lev 10:1, Lev 10:2).
(2) It was, however, fed with fuel by the priests. Human agency cooperates with Divine even in the most sacred things (Php 2:12, Php 2:13).
(3) The parts of the sacrifice were laid in order on the wood. The quarters were laid together in their relative positions. So with the head, the fat, and the inwards. Thus the whole animal was consumed. Our whole being should be offered to God in the flames of love (Deu 6:5).J.A.M.
Lev 1:10-17
The burnt offering of the flock and of the fowls.
The ceremony of the offering of the flock is almost identical with that of the herd described in the verses preceding. In that of the fowls there is a wider dissimilarity.
I. the VARIETY OF THE VICTIMS CLAIMS ATTENTION.
1. Five or six kinds of victims were accepted.
(1) These were beeves, sheep, goats, turtle-doves, pigeons. To these may be added the clean birds, supposed to have been sparrows, which were required in the particular ceremony of the cleansing of the leper.
(2) All these, excepting the last, were proper for burnt offerings. They are notable as mild, gentle, inoffensive, and useful creatures. They are therefore fittingly used as types to describe the innocence and meekness of Jesus (Joh 1:36; Isa 53:7).
(3) As Christians we have nothing to do with the ferocity of the tiger or the rapacity of the wolf. If we have the wisdom of the serpent, it must be associated with the harmlessness of the dove (see Mat 10:16).
2. But what are the lessons conveyed in this variety?
(1) It evinces the insufficiency of the sacrifices of the Law. If one sacrifice or one kind of sacrifice could really take away sin, why repeat it or have recourse to others? Their usefulness therefore was in the manner in which they foreshadowed the better Sacrifice.
(2) By contrast it evinces the sufficiency of the Great Sacrifice of the New Testament. No single sacrifice or kind of sacrifice could body forth all that was required in a sufficient Saviour; therefore the number and variety of the type’s. But Jesus offered himself alone and once, Because everything centred in him. Supplementary sacrifices such as that of the Mass, are blasphemous impertinences.
(3) It further evinces the mercifulness of Divine justice. Here was the bullock for the rich man. Here was the sheep or goat for the man in moderate circumstances. Here were the turtle-doves or pigeons for the poor (2Co 8:12). Here is Christ without money and without price for all.
II. THERE ARE NOTABLE OMISSIONS.
1. The placing of the offerer’s hand upon the head of the victim.
(1) This is mentioned in connection with the offering from the herd (Lev 1:4). Omitted in the description of the offering from the flock. Also from the offering from the fowls. It may have been done nevertheless.
(2) It was very expressive of the transfer of sin to the victim. Possibly Paul refers to this customof course, taking it in its application to the gospelwhen he speaks of the “laying on of hands” as amongst the “first principles of the doctrine of Christ” (Heb 6:2).
(3) If in any case it was omitted, it would then suggest the important truth that the hand of God laid upon Christ the iniquity of us all (Isa 53:6, Isa 53:10).
2. The flaying of the skin.
(1) This is described in the account of the herd, but omitted in that of the flock (Lev 1:6). It appears, nevertheless, to have been done also in the latter case.
(2) The skin is the natural clothing or covering of the animal. If the coats of skins with which God clothed Adam and Eve in substitution for their covering of fig leaves by which they expressed their sense of shame for their sin, were those of sacrificed animals, then it vigorously sets forth the manner in which we receive “beauty for ashes” when invested with the righteousness of Christ.
3. Instead of the “door of the tabernacle of the congregation” which is mentioned in connection with the herd, “northward” is the term used in connection with the flock (comp. Lev 1:5, Lev 1:11). These expressions are generally synonymous (Lev 7:2). Standing at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, the worshipper held communion with God and with the whole congregation. He stood at the north side of the altar, because that was the place of rings to which the victims were fastened in order to be slain. The hill of Calvary also was situate northwest of Jerusalem. How humiliating that our communion with God and his Church must be through suffering and blood!
III. DIFFERENCES ARE NOTICEABLE IN THE BURNT SACRIFICE OF FOWLS.
1. In this case two birds were brought.
(1) One, however, only is offered as a burnt sacrifice. The singular is used in this description.
(2) The other was to be used as a sin offering (see Lev 5:7; Lev 12:8; Lev 14:22).
2. They were cloven but not divided.
(1) This was in accordance with the directions given to Abraham (Gen 15:10).
(2) The cleaving was required for the removal of the intestines, but the wings must not be divided, for the power for flight of Christ to heaven cannot be impaired (Act 2:24).
(3) The head was wrung off, and the blood wrung out by the side of the altar.
3. The crop and feathers were cast into the place of ashes.
(1) This was during the tabernacle “by the side of the altar on the east part.” All the ashes went there (see Le Lev 6:10).
(2) In the temple the place of ashes was a closet under the altar. In allusion to this the souls, that is to say, the bodies, of the martyrs are represented as under the altar, crying for vengeance upon their persecutors (Rev 6:9-11). Reflect: The poor man’s pigeons as truly as the rich man’s bullock was “of a sweet savour unto the Lord” (see Eph 5:2; also 1Pe 2:5).J.A.M.
HOMILIES BY W. CLARKSON
Lev 1:1, Lev 1:2
God in special manifestation.
Always and everywhere God has been revealing himself. There is no time when, no place where, men might not have “seen him who is invisible.” Nowhere has he left himself without witness (Act 14:17). Always might “his eternal power and Godhead have been understood” (Rom 1:20). But the eyes of man were blinded, and his “foolish heart was darkened,” so that by his own wisdom he knew not God. It is certain that he would have remained in ignorance but for those special manifestations of which the sacred Scriptures are the record. The text reminds us that these include
I. His PECULIAR PEOPLE. Out of the human race God chose one people, “the congregation,” “the children of Israel,” to whom he would appear, by whom the knowledge of his nature and will should be retained, and through whom he should be made known to others. To this congregation “were committed the oracles of God;” and while surrounding nations were stumbling in the darkness, Israel was walking in the light of the Lord.
II. HIS OWN HOUSE. “God spake out of the tabernacle,” etc. This his dwelling-place in Israel had just been constructed, and there, in the most holy place, he had signified his presence by the glory-cloud. That was none other than the house of God, his abode in the midst of the congregation.
III. HIS CHOSEN MINISTER. “The Lord called unto Moses.” The experiences of Sinai had shown that there was need of mediation between the Majesty of heaven and the children of earth. God, therefore, chose to reveal his mind through the one man who was fittest for close access, and who would calmly receive and faithfully announce his willthe courageous, devoted, magnanimous Moses.
IV. HIS PARTICULAR DIRECTIONS. “Speak and say “Then follow the instructions of this book of the Law: particular and precise regulations, by attention to which the congregation might worship with acceptance and “live in holiness and righteousness before God.”
In the dispensation in which we now stand we have analogous special manifestations.
1. The Church of Christ is now the congregation of the Lord, the “Israel of God;” not the members of any visible organization, but all those of every society who love and honour Christ, “both theirs and ours.” To such “he manifests himself as he does not unto the world;” in them his Holy Spirit dwells; through them he works on the world without.
2. The Christian sanctuary is now the house of the Lord, the “place of his abode.” There he makes his presence felt; there he causes us to behold his glory, the beauties of his character, the glories of his grace. At the table of the Lord, more especially, the risen Master meets with his true disciples, the Divine Host with his human friends and guests, to receive and return their love, to accept their vows, to impart his benediction and his blessing.
3. The Christian ministry is now the chosen channel of his communications. Not necessarily those ordained with human hands; these if sent by God, but only if sent of him; and beside these, all whose hearts he has touched (1Sa 10:26), whose minds he has filled with spiritual understanding (Col 1:9), and whose lips he has opened (Psa 51:15); all those on whose soul there really rests the “burden of the Lord.”
4. The New Testament now contains the Divine instructions. These are
(1) few in number;
(2) moral and spiritual rather than formal and mechanical in their nature;
(3) adequate to penetrate to the deepest springs of the soul, and to cover the widest particulars of the life.
It becomes us, in view of these special manifestations of God in Christ,
(a) to associate ourselves immediately with the recognized people of God;
(b) to seek, constantly and sedulously, his face and favour and the knowledge of his wilt, in his house;
(c) to hold ourselves ready to speak for him to others or to receive his message from others, as his Spirit shall prompt us or them;
(d) to master and foster those principles of righteousness which Christ has taught us, that we may cultivate our character and regulate our lives according to his holy will.C.
Lev 1:2-17
The true end of sacrifice,-entire consecration to God.
We shall reach the end for which God introduced all that apparatus of Divine worship so elaborately described in this book if we take the following steps:
I. THE SEPARATING PRESENCE OF SIN IN THE HEART AND LIFE OF MAN. But for the sin which “separates between us and our God” there would have been unrestrained communion between man and his Maker in every age and land: no need of mediation, of special arrangements, of careful limitations, of means and media of approach. Every line of this chapter, as also of this book, speaks of sinsin in the soul, sin in the life, sin on the conscience, sin as a hindrance in the way of man.
II. THE EFFORT OF MAN TO FIND A WAY BACK TO GOD. It is impossible to forget that while Israel was offering its sacrifices as God directed, other nations were bringing their victims in such ways as they deemed best. The commonness of sacrifice, its prevalence outside the holy nation, speaks eloquently enough of man’s conscious distance from God, and of his desire and endeavour to find a way back to his favour. “Wherewith shall I come before the Lord?” This is the anxious question of sin-stricken, unenlightened man. “Shall I come with burnt offerings wilt the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams?” This is his suggestion in reply. It is affecting to think of the multitudes of sacrifices under every sky, as instances of men “feeling after” the mercy of an offended God, groping in the dimness or the darkness towards reconciliation and peace.
III. THE DIVINE PROVISION FOR MAN‘S RETURN AND ACCESS TO HIMSELF.
1. Under the old dispensation. Man was to bring to the altar of God suitable offerings; such as were within his reach; the best of the kind; an unblemished male. It might be from his herd (Lev 1:2), or from his flock (Lev 1:10), or it might be a fowl of the air (Lev 1:14). The priest was to pour the blood round about the altar (Lev 1:5, Lev 1:11), and the carcase was to be consumed upon the altar,a whole burnt offering unto the Lord.
2. Under the new dispensation. Instead of “the blood of bulls and goats,” God has provided one offering which suffices for all souls of every land and age, even his own beloved Son. This was the “Lamb of God” (1), absolutely perfect, “without blemish and without spot” (1Pe 1:19; Heb 9:14);
(2) shedding his own blood (Heb 9:12), giving “his soul (his life) an offering for sin” (Isa 53:10); “putting away sin by the sacrifice of himself” (Heb 9:26);
(3) accepted of God; “an offering of a sweet savour unto the Lord” (Lev 1:17; Eph 5:2). Through that shed blood of “the Lamb that was slain” for us we have access at all times, forgiveness of sin, reconciliation to God. But not without
IV. PERSONAL SPIRITUAL PARTICIPATION. The offerer under the Law took personal part in the offering: he brought his victim to the tabernacle (Lev 1:10); he killed it with his own hands (Lev 1:5, Lev 1:11); he also “put his hands upon the head” of the animal (Lev 1:4). The sinner, under the gospel, does not provide the sacrifice: “Christ our passover is slain for us.” But he does take a personal participation: “by faith he lays his hand on that dear head of his;” he acknowledges that he himself is worthy of death; believes and appropriates to his own need the fact that Jesus died. for his sin; earnestly desires that his guilt may be transferred to the Lamb of God; entreats that that shed blood of his may atone for and cover his iniquity.
V. THE END OF SACRIFICE,ENTIRE PERSONAL CONSECRATION. The consumption of the whole animal in the fire pictures the complete dedication of the Saviour, his absolute and entire consecration to the work which the Father gave him to do. It symbolizes ours also. Accepted by God through the atoning blood of the Lamb, we are to dedicate ourselves to him. Our personal consecration
1. Should follow upon and grow out of our acceptance through a crucified Saviour.
2. Should be thorough and complete: including heart and life, body and spirit, things sacred and things secular.
3. Will then be well pleasing to God, “an offering of a sweet savour unto the Lord” (Lev 1:17).C.
Lev 1:2-17
Principles of spiritual sacrifice.
All who know God are engaged, frequently, if not continually, in sacrificing unto him. Here are principles of sacrifice by which we may be guided.
I. THAT GOD DESIRES AND DEMANDS THE BEST WE CAN BRING. If the offering were of the herd, it was to be a “male without blemish” (Lev 1:3); so also if of the flock (Lev 1:10). Not that which was of small account and could be well spared, but the worthiest and best. The best for the Highest. Not “that which costs us nothing” (2Sa 24:24) for him who has given us everything; rather the costliest of our treasures for him who, “though he was rich, for our sakes became poor.” We may well break the rarest alabaster for him whose “body was broken” for our sin; may well pour out the most precious spikenard for him who poured out his life-blood for our redemption. “Worthy is the Lamb to receive riches” (Rev 5:12). When we worship him, or work for him, or give to his cause, we should bring, not our exhaustion, but our vigour; not our languor, but our energy; not costless effort, but that which has taken time and trouble to producethe gold rather than the silver, the silver rather than the pence; not anything that will pass in the sight of man, but the very best we can bring to his presence.
I. THAT GOD ACCEPTS THE BEST WE ARE ABLE TO BRING. If he could not afford a bullock, the Hebrew worshipper might bring a sheep; or if that were beyond his means, a turtle-dove or pigeon (Lev 1:2, Lev 1:10, Lev 1:14). God accepts gifts “according to that a man hath,” etc. (2Co 8:12). He who approved the widow’s mites more than the rich men’s gold still “sits over against the treasury,” and accepts what we can bring, however humble it be, if we bring with it “the willing mind.” In the balances of heaven a conversation in a garret by the bedside of a pauper may weigh more than the greatest sermon before the noblest audience.
III. THAT GOD REQUIRES THE FULL CONSENT OF OUR OWN MIND. “He shall offer it of his own voluntary will” (Lev 1:3). The excellency, the beauty, the acceptableness of our offering lies largely in the hearty good will with which we bring it. “The Lord loveth a cheerful giver” (2Co 9:7). (See 1Ch 29:6, 1Ch 29:9.)
IV. THAT OUR OFFERING MUST BE MADE CONSCIOUSLY UNTO THE LORD. He shall offer it “before the Lord” (Lev 1:3); he shall kill it “before the Lord” (Lev 1:11). When the victim was slain the offerer was to have in his mind the presence of God, and was to present it consciously to him. Whatever form our sacrifice may takeprayer, praise, inquiry of the Lord, contribution, exhortationit must be not mechanical, but spiritual; it must be religious; it must be rendered “as to the Lord, and not unto men.”
V. THAT GOD DESIRES OBEDIENCE IN THINGS BEYOND OUR UNDERSTANDING. Doubtless the priests of the tabernacle failed to see the import of many of the Divine directions. The people also must have been at a loss to understand the reason of many details of the service (Lev 1:6, Lev 1:8, Lev 1:11, Lev 1:15, Lev 1:17). But both priests and people were required to conform under penalty of severe displeasure. In many things unintelligible to them do our children and the uninstructed conform, because they rightly trust to those who are older and wiser. There are many things concerning which we have all to feel ourselves to be the little children we really are in the presence of the heavenly Father, and we must do unquestioningly what he bids us. Let us try strenuously to understand, and when we fail to reach the Divine meaning, trustfully conform.
VI. THAT THERE CAN BE NO WASTE IN THE FULLEST SACRIFICE WE LAY ON HIS ALTAR. In the burnt offering the whole victim was consumed; no part was saved for food. “To what purpose is this waste?” is it asked? We reply:
1. That the God in whom we live and whose we are is worthy of everything we can offer him.
2. That we never so truly realize the end and reach the height of our manhood as when we are devoting ourselves to God.
3. That we may count on a large and generous response at his liberal hand.
4. That we gain in spiritual profit far more than we lose in material reduction.C.
Lev 1:17 (latter part)
God’s pleasure in man.
We believe
I. THAT GOD IS A BEING OF SUPREME BLESSEDNESS. He is the ever-blessed God, the source and fountain of all joy. He who gives such boundless bliss to his creation must be divinely blessed. He could not give what he has not in himself.
II. THAT SOME PART OF HIS JOY HE FINDS IN MAN. What constitutes the happiness of the Supreme? “The Lord will rejoice in his works;” but it is a larger truth that “the Lord taketh pleasure in his people” (Psa 149:4); that “the Lord’s portion is his people” (Deu 32:9).
III. THAT HIS GOOD PLEASURE IN US IS IN
1. Our complete but conscious consecration of ourselves. The “offering made by fire” was “of a sweet savour unto the Lord,” not as typifying the annihilation of our self, absolute absorption of self in God (the Hindoo theory), but as expressing the offerer’s desire to dedicate himself and all that he had to God,voluntary, conscious devotion.
2. Our self-surrender to his Son our Saviour. That which, above all else, God says to us now is, “This is my beloved Son: hear ye him;” and the initial, essential, decisive step for us to take, in order to give him pleasure, is to “receive,” to “believe in,” to accept Jesus Christ as Teacher, Saviour, Lord, and Friend.
3. Our conformity to his revealed will, by
(1) reverence (Psa 147:11);
(2) holy confidence in his pardoning love (Psa 147:11);
(3) patient endurance of wrong (lPe 2:20);
(4) generous service of others (Php 4:18; Heb 13:16).C.
The first part of this book, which may be called the spiritual statute-book of Israel as the congregation of the Lord, is occupied with the laws of sacrifice, chapters 1-7. The underlying fact is that of sin as separation from God; but the book, as regulating the intercourse between the sinful people and the holy object of their worship, is itself a constituent part of the gracious covenant made with Israel. While it deepens the sense of sin, it provides the means of reconciliation and sanctification, and therefore the laws prescribed, while, as laws, restraining liberty and giving form to religious acts, at the same time embody in themselves the grace of God in the covenant relation between Jehovah and his people.
HOMILIES BY R.A. REDFORD
Lev 1:1-17
Law of the burnt offerings.
The object of worship, place, worshipper, offering, are all clearly set forth. The way of obedience made plain.
Lev 1:1
“And the Lord called unto Moses, and spake unto him out of the tabernacle of the congregation.” This is the foundation on which the whole of positive religion is built up, the Divine voice speaking through a mediator, at an appointed place, and in a distinct, authoritative manner. Notice
I. THE DIVINE VOICE. “The Lord,” Jehovah, that is, the God of revelation and covenant.
1. The beginning of all true religion is the gracious manifestation of God. It is a very different spiritual structure which is built upon this foundation from that which is raised on men’s own thoughts. Compare the corruptions of traditionary religions, heathenism, with the Old Testament revelation; the vague and doubtful attempts of religions philosophy to provide an object of supreme reverence. The name Jehovah betokened a progress in special revelation. The Elohistic worship of the earliest ages, while resting, no doubt, on direct communications of God’s Spirit, without which there can be no living intercourse between the creature and the Creator, was elementary in its character, suited to the childhood of the worldGod revealed first as the God of creation, the object of reverential obedience in the sphere of natural life and the simplest laws of righteousness. As the relations of mankind to one another grew more numerous and complicated, the idea of religion enlarged; the object of worship was the God of a people, the God of families, the God whose name was distinctly named, as distinctly as the people’s, between whom and a certain portion of mankind there was a direct covenant, involving gracious vouchsafements on one side, and faithful service on the other. This is the connection between the Book of Exodus and that of Leviticus, which the very opening words remind us is very close. In the former book we are in the presence of Jehovah. In this we are listening to his voice, a voice which speaks clearly and fully what are the ordinances of his will.
2. The invitation and summons. “The Lord called unto Moses.” We must notice here the two elements of law and grace combined, which is the very essence of the book. All the regulations of the Mosaic economy were based upon the fact that Jehovah was in close fellowship with his people. Just as a made road brings the points between which it lies nearer, by opening the means of intercourse, so sacrifices were a token of covenant relation, and a perpetual call of Jehovah to his people to approach him. The Lord called that he might bestow his special grace on those who obeyed his call. He called with the voice of command and authority, that his people might henceforth know fully and without possibility of mistake what they had to do. So still there is a gracious call of the gospel, which invites freely and universally, but it is at the same time the proclamation of a new law of righteousness, as in the Sermon on the Mount, and in the whole revelation of duty in the Christian Church. Notice
II. THE FACT OF MEDIATION. “The Lord called unto Moses, and spake unto him.”
“The Law was given by Moses.” “It was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator,” through the instrumentality of an appointed servant, who should be between Jehovah and his people. Moses united in himself remarkably the three elements of the officethe prophetic, as echoing the voice of God; the priestly, as the medium of offered service; the kingly, as the legislator and ruler, both proclaiming and administrating the Divine Law. We see also represented in the case of Moses the union of the two qualifications for the fulfilment of the office of mediatorthe personal merit and the Divine appointment. Moses stood apart from the people in his character and personal eminence. He was anointed to his office, and manifestly favoured of God with special communications. In all these respects he is the type of the perfect Mediator. Jesus Christ was in himself able to be between God and man. His mediation is fact, history.
III. THE FACT OF MEDIATION WAS BASED UPON THE FACT OF COVENANT, THE RELATION BETWEEN THE PEOPLE AND JEHOVAH, THE GOD OF REVELATION, MUTUAL PLEDGE, AND PROMISE. The whole structure of the ceremonial law was built up on reciprocal obligation. Living intercourse between God and man is the spiritual reality which binds together all the details of this book of the Law. A development, therefore, of the first and greatest commandment, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God,” etc. The acceptableness of religious worship lies in the fellowship of love.
IV. THE PLACE OF MEETING BETWEEN GOD AND MAN. “Out of the tabernacle of the congregation,” or “the tent of meeting.” A temporary provision, afterwards superseded by a more permanent and elaborate structure, but in its external features betokening the dispensational character of the Law. The central fact was a gracious manifestation of God, a meeting-place inviting to intercourse, an appointed form of worship, the stepping-stone to a higher communion. “God dwelleth not in temples made with hands.” The tabernacle was subsequent to the covenant. The life of fellowship preceded the act of fellowship. The people are God’s before they receive the Law. There are three elements in the tabernacle, representative of universal and abiding truth.
1. The Lord speaks out of it. Positive revelation the foundation of positive religion. The soul waits upon God. Gracious messages the beginning of Divine work in and for man. There were gropings of natural religion worth nothing in themselves. The Spirit of God calls the spirit of man to a higher life. The true faith rests on the Word, honours the ordinances, seeks the place where God speaks in the most distinct and emphatic manner. This finds illustration both individually and in the history of God’s people.
2. Tabernacle of the congregation. Fellowship an essential fact of the religious life. Man a moral being, only as he is in society. As it is the fruit of religion, so it is the seed from which springs the true life, both of nations and individuals. The tabernacle or temple the center of the Hebrew national existence. The tent of meeting also the palace-chamber of the Great King. Jehovah’s throne amongst his people the true source of all power and centre of all authority. All places of worship, as meeting-places of the congregation or Church, witness to the presence of Jehovah, of Jesus Christ, the Lord, in the midst of his people, and to the kingdom of God in the world. No doctrine of the Church consistent with this fact of Jehovah speaking out of the tabernacle of the congregation but that which recognizes the position of all believers as the same. “Where two or three are gathered together,” etc.
3. The place of meeting was both the center to which offerings were brought and from which blessings were taken. A true religion must embrace both the passive and the active elementsMind, heart, will. Christianity did not abolish sacrifice and offerings, lifted up the lower into the higher, the local and temporary into the universal and perpetual. No material edifice, no priestly caste, no mere prescription of rites, can limit religious service. The temple of the Jews was destroyed, but in place of it we possess the risen glory of Christ, the spiritual presence of the Living One, the communion of saints, the ceaseless offering up of spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. The Law which was given on the mount from the lips of Jesus requires a higher righteousness than the righteousness of legalists.R.
Lev 1:2
Speak unto the children of Israel
and say unto them, If any man of you bring an offering unto the Lord, ye shall bring your offering of the cattle, even of the herd, and of the flock.” Here is the great fundamental principle, as it were the preamble of the law of offerings. Notice
I. THE DIVINE LAW IS UNIVERSAL. “Any man of you.” No respect of persons with God. Same law to rich and poor, wise and unwise, as to its essential requirements. These private offerings represented personal religion. There may be differences of official duty, but what we bring to God for ourselves must be without respect to anything but the real relation between our soul and God.
II. ALL OFFERINGS MUST BE VOLUNTARY. No compulsion with God but the compulsion of heart and conscience. True worship is not a mere objective obedience. “If any man bring an offering.” It is brought by a willing mind, not out of caprice, not to any place or to any God, but with intelligent acceptance of the will of God as coincident with our own will. When we bring offerings we should know what it is in our hearts to bring, not trust to the impulse of the moment or the variations of fluctuating feelings.
III. THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTERISTIC OF THE OFFERING IS SURRENDER, ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF THE LORD‘S CLAIM OVER US. “Out of the herd or flock.” That is, out of our own possessions, valued, known, intimately associated with ourselves. A religion which costs us nothing cannot be real. The more of one’s self there is in it, the more really offered it is. The mistake of all ritualism is that it leads us to offer up another’s offering instead of our own. We observe the rite, we repeat by rote the words, we listen to the music, but is the offering out of our own herd or flock? Jesus will have no disciple who does not first count the cost.
IV. WHILE THE OFFERING IS VOLUNTARY, IT IS STILL PRESCRIBED. “Ye shall bring your offering of the cattle.” An enlightened recognition of Divine commandments is necessary to acceptable worship. “Faith cometh by hearing, hearing by the Word of God.” “Not every man that saith, Lord, Lord; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven””the things that I say.” The liberty of the gospel is not license. The doctrines, rules, and practical teachings found generally in the New Testament, though not systematized there, are yet positively given. While we are delivered from the bondage of a legal dispensation, we are yet under law to Christ. Will-worship is unchristian. Tendency of our time is to an individualism which is dangerous. The study of the Old Testament in the light of the New a wholesome antidote. Yet our faith must always work by love (vide Gal 5:1-26).R.
Lev 1:3
The burnt sacrifice.
The most ancient, that which represents all others. Notice
I. THE MAIN PRINCIPLE REPRESENTEDSELF–SURRENDER IN ORDER TO SELF–PRESERVATION THROUGH THE COVENANTED MERCY OF JEHOVAH. In this principle there are included these points:
1. Recognition of the supreme claim Of God.
2. Substitutionary surrender, a life for a life, the victim for the offerer.
3. Expiation of sin and acceptance, by the restoration of the covenant relations between God and man, proceeding from Divine love, but resting on the offering as representing a fulfilment on both sides of the contractGod forgiving, man obeying.
4. The union of the two elements of blood and fire, i.e; of atonement and purification, the negative holiness and the positive holiness, justification and sanctification, fulness of grace.
II. DETAILS OF THE SACRIFICE. Lev 1:3.”Of the herd a male without blemish.” God must have our best. We must make our religious service a reality, putting into it our strongest faculties, best opportunities, counting all things but loss for Christ. Examples in the offerings of great faith. Nothing should be blemished in the house of God, in private religion, in acts of charity. “Thou God seest me.” “Of his own voluntary will.” Although a law, it is of no validity but as an appeal to the free heart of man. Anticipation of the gospel, the Law a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ. The highest state of life is when law is absorbed in the activity of the nature: we are likest God when we are by grace a law unto ourselves, “willing to do his will? “At the door of the tabernacle of the congregation before the Lord.” Here are the three elements of religion recognized:
1. Publicity.
2. Fellowship.
3. Divine order.
Secret religion is a contradiction. The profession is part of the sacrifice. “Thy vows are upon me, O Lord. The congregation is a cloud of witnesses, both sustaining personal religion and supplying a constant test of sincerity. And whatever we do, we do before the Lord. His face we desire to seek, and in the light of his manifested favour we rejoice. There are special appointments which all true worshippers will honour: the sabbath, the Word, the congregation, the ordered life of the Christian Church.R.
Lev 1:4
And he shall put his hand upon the head
of the burnt offering; and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him.” A most significant commandment, full of gracious meaning for those who observed it.
I. ALL ATONEMENT RESTS UPON FREE GRACE. “Accepted for him to make atonement.” God sets forth the propitiation, declares his righteousness for the remission of sins. It shall be accepted, not because it is in itself an equivalent, but because a merciful Father accepts it.
II. THE VICTIM ACCEPTED PROCLAIMS THE CONDITIONAL NATURE OF THE GRACE. It is free as being unmerited, and yet it is the expression of a loving will, and comes forth from an infinite nature. God forgives because he chooses to forgive, yet he forgives by the method which he proclaims. The lower sacrifice points to the higher.
III. THE OFFERER‘S FAITH IS AS TRULY NEEDFUL AS THE VICTIM HE BRINGS. “Without faith it is impossible to please God.” The hand put upon the head of the victim signified the identification of the offerer and offered. Whether the confession of sins was included or not is of little importance. Faith is self-surrender. In all atonement there are three parties representedthe offender, the offended, the mediator. The hand of the offender sets forth his whole activity and conscious self. His connection with the victim is itself confession of sin and acceptance of the covenanted mercy of Jehovah. We lay our hand on the head of Jesus by the spiritual identification which includes the application of the mind to his truth, the yielding of the heart to his love, and the consecration of the life to his service.R.
Lev 1:5-9
The killing, flaying, and consuming of the victim.
Full, throughout, of the idea of atonement. The three main elements are
I. The blood.
II. the fire.
III. The sweet savour unto the Lord.
Consider
I. THE SPRINKLED BLOOD. The offerer killed the victim. The priests received the blood and sprinkled it upon the altar. The two chief elements of atonement were thus trottedthe human and the Divine. Atonement is reconciliation on the ground of a restored covenant through sacrifice. The blood shed represented the fact of life for life offered by faith. The blood sprinkled by priests, represented the Divine offer of mercy through an appointed mediation, at the place and time prescribed by God’s gracious will. His will is our sanctification. The sacrifice of Christ is an outcome of Divine love received on behalf of the sinner as being offered by him in believing surrender to God and renewal of the covenant.
II. THE FIRE. The offering flayed and cut in pieces. Fire and wood placed by the priests on the altar, etc. All these details belong to the one fact that the offering is not only presented, but consumed, and consumed in pieces. The idea is that of the mingling together of the will of Jehovah with the offered obedience of his creature. A representation of the promised sanctifying grace which renews the whole man, gradually, but with comprehensive application of the Spirit of God to every part of the being and character. The ablution would convey the idea of the washing of regeneration. All which is specially significant of life and activity, “the inwards and the legs,” is washed in water before placed on the altar. The whole is then termed, “a burnt sacrifice, an offering made by fire.” The fire represented at the same time purification and destruction. As applied in the name of God, it promised his bestowment of the supernatural power which should at once destroy the evil and renew the good. Hence the gift of the Holy Spirit was symbolized by fire. We must be wholly offered, we must be penetrated and pervaded by the Spirit. The application of the fire is not only in a first baptism of the Spirit, but in the sanctifying work of life, in which oftentimes consuming dispensations are required, which, while they burn up, do also renew and recreate. Are we yielding up all to this gracious process on God’s altar?
III. THE SWEET SAVOUR UNTO THE LORD. Fragrant ascent of man’s offering. Nothing is said of the addition of incense, therefore the mere smoke and steam of the offering itself is described as “sweet savour.” The obedience of faith is acceptable to the Lord. Nothing can more decidedly set forth the freeness and fulness of pardon and reconciliation. The Divine will is entirely reunited with the human will. Thus every sacrifice pointed to the end of sacrifices. When it is offered, when the fire has done its work, there is peace with God. So the Lord Jesus, anticipating the conclusion of his sufferings and his return to heaven, exclaimed, “The hour is come, glorify thy Son.” “I have glorified thee on the earth. I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.” Resting on that finished sacrifice, we can rejoice in our obedience as a sweet savour to the Lord, notwithstanding that in itself it is necessarily consumed by the perfect righteousness of the Divine Law. The blood and fire of the cross of Calvary are already upon the altar. We are able in the resurrection and ascension to behold the manifest tokens of acceptance. The fragrance of the Saviour’s risen glory and eternal righteousness are not only before God, well pleasing to him, but are also ours by faith, mingling with the imperfection of a fallen humanity, and lifting it up to angelic life and spotless purity and joy in the presence of God.R.
Lev 1:10-13
The offering from the flocks.
Sheep or goat. This is a repetition of the same law as applied to the offering of lower value. The great spiritual fact is thus set forth that God is no respecter of persons. His Law applies to all sorts and conditions of men, and his grace is coextensive with his Law. The rich man’s offering and the poor man’s substantially the same. The only unchangeable condition is the relation of the offering to the offerer. It must represent sincere, heartfelt surrender to God. It must not be a wild animal caught for the purpose, but that which, having been associated with the personality and life, represents both the man himself and his house and family. Hence in the early Church, baptism was a consecration both of the individual and of his household, an offering of all to the Lord. Many applications of this idea. All can give something. Religion sanctifies the world through the sanctification of souls. The Spirit creates afresh the inner man, then all follows.R.
Lev 1:14-17
The offering of fowls-turtle-doves or young pigeons.
The great abundance of these birds in the East would make the provision one which was easy even for the poorest to fulfil. How gracious this appointment! God is no “hard master.” He delights not in mere burdensome sacrificeno costliness, suffering, or privation has merit with him. He demands the willing obedience of the heart. He asks for that which really represents a surrender of self. All these minute regulations were simply intended to develop the principle of voluntary obedience. There was the same subdivision in the case of the bird as in the case of the quadruped, to remind the very poorest and humblest offerer that he must not shelter himself in the insignificance of his offering from the obligations which it represented. The application of fire to the second bird denoted the application of the righteousness of God to the life of the offerer, and while it was as a prescribed offering a promise of acceptance, and therefore of renewing grace and spiritual restoration, it was on the part of the offerer the pledge and promise of an entire obedience in which body, soul, and spirit, all the life and all the possessions, should be consecrated to God.R.
Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary
Lev 1:1. And the Lord called unto Moses The particle vau, here rendered and, might with as much propriety be rendered then. See Exo 40:34. It serves, however, to shew how closely this book is connected with the former; as well as to signify to us, that God, having now taken possession of the house made for him, delivered from thence his instructions to his servant Moses. The Jews divide their laws into sections, of which this, according to them, is the 24th: and this method for a code of law, is, I think, greatly preferable to that of a division into books, chapters, and verses. The reader is desired to take notice, that, as many things occur in this and the following books of the Pentateuch, which have been fully explained in our notes on the preceding, we shall not take up room by referring to them; but shall in general leave them for the future to the reader’s own recollection.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
LEVITICUS
THE THIRD BOOK OF MOSES
______________
BOOK I
OF APPROACH TO GOD
Leviticus 1-16
FIRST DIVISION.The sanctifying acts (or consecrations for God) to bring about typical holiness by means of various sacrifices, universally ordained for universal sin. The removal of the sinful condition incurred by inadvertence (pardonable sins chaps. 116 [a. positive enactments, 110; b. negative, 1116]).Lange.
___________________
PART I. THE LAWS OF SACRIFICE
Chaps. 17
______________
FIRST SECTION
Lev 1:1 to Lev 6:7
[Lange makes the division Personal Sacrifices Chapters 15.]
A.BURNT-OFFERINGS
Lev 1:1-17
1And the Lord called1 unto Moses, and spake unto him out of the tabernacle2 of the [omit the3] congregation, saying, 2Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, If any man of you bring an offering unto the Lord,4 ye shall bring your offering5 of the cattle, even of the herd, and of the flock [of the cattle unto the Lord, ye shall bring your offering of the herd or of the flock].
3If his offering be a burnt sacrifice of the herd, let him offer a male without blemish: he shall offer it of his own voluntary will at the door of the tabernacle of the [omit the6] congregation before the Lord7 [offer it at the door of the tabernacle of congregation for his acceptance before the Lord]. 4And he shall put his hand upon the head of the burnt offering; and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him. 5And he shall kill the bullock before the Lord: and the priests, Aarons sons, shall bring the blood, and sprinkle the blood round about upon8 the altar that is by [before] the door of the tabernacle of the [omit the3]6congregation. And Hebrews 9 shall flay the burnt offering, and cut it into his pieces. 7And the sons of Aaron the priest shall put fire upon the altar, and lay the wood in order upon the fire: 8and the priests, Aarons sons, shall lay the parts, the head, and the fat, in order upon the wood that is on the fire which is upon the altar: 9but his inwards and his legs shall Hebrews 10 wash in water: and the priest shall burn all on the altar, to be a burnt sacrifice,11 an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the Lord.
10And if his offering be of the flocks,12 namely, of the sheep, or of the goats, for a burnt sacrifice; he shall bring it a male without blemish.13 1411And he shall kill it on the side of the altar northward before the Lord: and the priests, Aarons sons, 12shall sprinkle his blood round about upon7 the altar. And he15 shall cut it into his pieces, with his head and his fat: and the priest shall lay them in order on the wood that is on the fire which is upon the altar: 13but he shall wash the inwards and the legs with water: and the priest shall bring it all, and burn it upon the altar: it is a burnt sacrifice, an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the Lord.
14And if the burnt sacrifice for his offering to the Lord be of fowls, then he shall bring his offering of turtledoves, or of young pigeons. 15And the priest shall bring it unto the altar, and wring [pinch] off his head, and burn it on the altar; and the blood thereof shall be wrung out at [pressed out against] the side of the altar: 16and he shall pluck away his crop with his feathers [the filth thereof16], and cast it beside the altar on the east part, by the place of the ashes: 17and he shall cleave it with the wings thereof, but17 shall not divide it asunder: and the priest shall burn it upon the altar, upon the wood that is upon the fire: It is a burnt sacrifice, and offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the Lord.
TEXTUAL AND GRAMMATICAL
Lev 1:1. in our text has the final of smaller size than the other letters. The reason (leaving out of view Cabalistic interpretations) seems to be that suggested by Rosenmllerthat there was an ancient variation of the MSS., some having our present reading; while others, omitting the , read , Fut. Apoc. Niphal of = and the Lord met (or appeared to) Moses. Comp. Num 23:4; Num 23:16.
Lev 1:1. means strictly the covering of haircloth over the of boards with linen curtains. Both occur together, Exo 40:29. Both are translated in the A. V. alike by tent and by tabernacle, and both in the LXX. most frequently by . In the original both are used to designate the structure in which the ark was placed. There is therefore no sufficient reason for changing the familiar name of Tabernacle.
Lev 1:1. is without the article, as always. The word is used very frequently (Lev 23:2; Lev 23:4; Lev 23:37; Lev 23:44, etc.) of the religious festivals of the Law, of which the tabernacle was the centre, and perhaps both in the Heb. and the Chald. the times of the festivals is the most prominent idea of the word. Hence, as the place of assembly, the centre around which the congregation was at such times to gather, the Tabernacle came to be called , as Jerusalem is called (Isa 33:20) . The proposal to translate Tent of meeting (Speakers Com., Kalisch, Murphy, and many others) as referring to Gods meeting with Moses, seems unsupported by the usage of the word, and is sustained by none of the ancient versions. (The LXX. and Vulgate take the word in the sense of covenant or law). The article, however, should be omitted. Nevertheless, Lange says The Tabernacle is designated as the Tabernacle of the meeting. That the Israelites should assemble themselves in that place, is only the secondary result of the primary meeting with Jehovah.
Lev 1:2. The Masoretic punctuation places the Athnach on , and this is sustained by the Sam., Chald., LXX., Vulg., and followed by the A. V. Houbigant suggests that it should rather be placed on the next word, as in the Syr. The latter sense is followed in the commentary.
Lev 1:1. is without the article, as always. The word is used very frequently (Lev 23:2; Lev 23:4; Lev 23:37; Lev 23:44, etc.) of the religious festivals of the Law, of which the tabernacle was the centre, and perhaps both in the Heb. and the Chald. the times of the festivals is the most prominent idea of the word. Hence, as the place of assembly, the centre around which the congregation was at such times to gather, the Tabernacle came to be called , as Jerusalem is called (Isa 33:20) . The proposal to translate Tent of meeting (Speakers Com., Kalisch, Murphy, and many others) as referring to Gods meeting with Moses, seems unsupported by the usage of the word, and is sustained by none of the ancient versions. (The LXX. and Vulgate take the word in the sense of covenant or law). The article, however, should be omitted. Nevertheless, Lange says The Tabernacle is designated as the Tabernacle of the meeting. That the Israelites should assemble themselves in that place, is only the secondary result of the primary meeting with Jehovah.
Lev 1:2. Offerings in the plural is read in the Sam., LXX., Vulg., and Syr.
Lev 1:3. . The translation of the A. V. is defended by Grotius, but most interpreters follow the unanimous voice of the ancient versions in giving the sense as corrected above. Comp. Exo 28:38; Lev 22:20-21, etc. The A. V. varies in the translation even in the same passage, as Lev 22:19-21; Lev 22:29.
Lev 1:5. The sense is, upon all the sides of the altar, not on its upper surface.
Lev 1:6. The Sam. and LXX. by reading the verbs of this verse in the plural, apparently make the flaying and cutting up of the victim the act of the priests.
Lev 1:9. The Sam. and the LXX. here also, by the use of the plural, make the washing the act of the priests.
Lev 1:9. The Sam. followed by the LXX. and Syr., read =this is the burnt-offering, i.e., the law of the burnt-offerings.
Lev 1:10. The Sam. followed by the LXX. reads , the Sam. omitting the subsequent , which makes the sense clearer.
Lev 1:10. The Sam. addsat the door of the tabernacle of the congregation shall he offer it.
Lev 1:11. The LXX. prefixes from Lev 1:4, which is of course to be understood.
Lev 1:12. The Sam. (now followed both by the LXX. and the Vulg.) here again as in Lev 1:6; Lev 1:9 reads the plural.
Lev 1:16. (Sam. ) is variously translated. In the LXX. and Vulg., as in the A. V., it is rendered feathers; in the Sam. Vers., however, the Chald. of Onkelos, of Jonathan, and of Jerusalem, and in the Syr., the idea is the food in the crop, or the filth connected therewith, as is expressed in the margin of the A. V. By Gesenius and Fuerst it is translated as filth or excrement in the crop; they consider it a contracted form of Part. Niph. of . This is probably the true sense. Lange explains it the excrement from the crop yet to be found in the body.
Lev 1:17. The Sam., 15 MSS., and all the versions supply the conjunction, which must of course be understood.
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
The Divine presence having now been manifested in the newly erected tabernacle (Exo 40:34), God according to His promise (Exo 25:22), there reveals Himself to Moses, and makes known through him His will to the people. As this was the place where they were to draw nigh to Him, the first commands uttered from the tabernacle relate to the means of this approach, and occupy the first sixteen chapters of Leviticus. Of these, seven are concerned with the general laws of sacrifice, of which it would appear some knowledge must have been previously communicated to Moses to make the directions of Exodus 29 intelligible to him, and also to guide him in the sacrifices offered by himself, Exo 40:28-29; but now for the first time he is directed to proclaim these laws to the people. The law is first declared in regard to the peoples part in the offerings (16:7), although this involves incidentally something also of the duties of the priests; this is followed by special instructions chiefly for the priests (Lev 6:8 to Lev 7:38), although the line cannot be so sharply drawn that this part shall not also contain something for the people. Each kind of offering is treated by itself, the first chapter being occupied with the whole burnt-offering, which must always be an animal, but might be either a quadruped (213), or a fowl (1417). The former again, might be either of the herd, i.e., a bullock (39), or of the flock. i.e., a sheep or a goat (1013). The directions for burnt-sacrifices are arranged under these three heads.
Lev 1:1 The Lord.Jehovah is the distinctive Divine title throughout Leviticus; the names (occurring so frequently elsewhere), , and the very common do not occur, nor even the ordinary , except the last joined with a possessive pronoun or some other construction, to mark Him as in a peculiar sense the God of Israel.
Out of the tabernacle of congregation.There can be no reasonable doubt that this is the newly-erected tabernacle; the attempt to prove that these laws were given from some other tent upon the slopes of Mt. Sinai by reference to Lev 7:38, has no foundation, as the parallelism of that ver. shows that mount is there only another expression for the place called the wilderness of Sinai.
Lev 1:2 ss. The common regulations concerning all the sacrifices. The whole motive of animal sacrifice is appropriately exhibited in the verb to draw near; in the Hiphil to cause to draw near. The sense of the word is fully shown in Jer 30:21. Sinful man, as such, dares not draw near to Jehovah. But Jehovah forms one chosen out of His people (the Messiah) for the purpose of approach, until he draws nearest of all to Him, touches Him, yields up himself to Him, and becomes one with Him. With reverent dread man, conscious of sin, pushes forward the guiltless animal as an offering of drawing near (Korban), as a symbol of his desire to draw near himself to Jehovah. As yet the sacrifice was not commanded in its particulars; but the general idea of sacrifice as now necessary was commanded, and in every case it must be of the cattle, either large or small, and thus of the clean domestic animals. The subsequent addition of pigeons and turtle-doves are as substitutes. Lange.
If any man of you bring.The sacrifices of the first three chapters were those of individuals, and were purely voluntary in so far as respects their being offered at all; when, however, the individual had determined to offer any of them, the instructions as to the selection of the victim, and the manner of offering, were minute and peremptory. The duty of the priests in regard to these offerings was simply ministerial.
Offering., always translated by the LXX. , and most frequently by the Vulg. oblatio. Except in two instances in Ezek. (Eze 20:28; Eze 40:43), and in two of the same consonants differently pointed in Neh. (Neh 10:34 (35); Lev 13:31), its use is confined to Lev. and Num. It is the technical word for an offering to the Lord, including sacrifices both bloody, as here, and unbloody as in Leviticus 2, and also dedicatory offerings for the sanctuary, as in Numbers 7.
Ye shall bring.The Rabbins infer from this use of the plural that two or more persona might unite in the same offering. This was undoubtedly the fact; but does not seem to be the reason for the use of the plural here, which is rather required simply by the generality of the law. Comp. Lev 2:11-12, etc.
Of the cattle unto the Lord.The Masoretic punctuation must here be modified in order to represent the systematic arrangement intended. See Textual Note 4. The = quadruped, is in contradistinction to the fowls of Lev 1:14; and the direction is that if an offering of this kind be brought, it shall be taken from the herd or the flock, not from wild animals. The word sometimes includes all quadrupeds, wild and tame (Gen 6:7; Exo 9:25, etc.), but is more commonly used, according to the restriction here, of the domestic animals. It includes both the herd and the flock. The range of animals allowed for sacrifice was much narrower than that of those clean for food, and far narrower than among the heathen. See Knobel, p. 352. The Egyptians, among other victims, offered swine, and the Hindoos and Germans, horses.
Lev 1:3-9. The law of the burnt-offering of a bullock, = whole burnt-offering. Lange: The names: the going up (in a specific sense, for all sacrifices were brought up on the altar), the whole, the entirely finished, consumed, burned, holocaustum. Thus the burnt-offering, or the fire-offering in the most especial sense, which was entirely consumed in the fire, forms the central point of the whole sacrificial system. The New Testament antitype of the burnt-offering is expressed by Paul in Rom 12:1. See the preliminary note on sacrifices, p. 12.
Lev 1:3. A male.The burnt-offering, unlike the sin and peace-offering, must always be a male. The case of the cows offered in 1Sa 6:14, was altogether exceptional, and the red heifer (Num 19:1-10) was not burned upon the altar at all.Without blemish, LXX., . The bullock, like all other victims, (Lev 22:19-24) except in the case of free will offerings, must be free from bodily faults either of defect or redundancy; and it was provided that no victim obtained by the price of a dog, or of whoredom, might be offered to God (Deu 23:18). It was the Jewish custom to appoint a priest as a special inspector of victims, to whose scrutiny every animal must be subjected before being offered.At the door.At the wide entrance of the court in which the great altar stood. Lange, however, considers that the door not of the court, but of the Holy Place, is the boundary between the holy things and the region of that to be hallowed, and therefore the appropriate point for the meeting which in the name of Jehovah was obtained by the priests for the people through the sacrifice. This presentation of the victim before the Lord was the technical offering, so essential a part of the sacrifice that it is often put for the sacrifice itself. The details of the sacrifice were so ordered that when occasion required, great multitudes of victims might be offered quickly and without confusion. After the erection of the temple, rings were fixed in the pavement, to which the victims were secured; with a sharp knife the throat was then cut at one stroke quite through the arteries and the jugular veins, so that the blood might flow rapidly into a vessel held underneath; this vessel was then (when there were many sacrifices) passed from hand to hand by a row of priests and Levites extending to the altar; meantime the flaying and cutting up of the victim was going on; on the north side of the altar there were eight stone pillars connected by three rows of beams, each bearing a row of hooks; upon these the victims were hung, the largest upon the highest hooks, the smaller upon the others. Outram I., xvi., and the authorities there cited. By such means an almost incredible number of victims are said to have been sacrificed with perfect order in a short time.For his acceptance before the Lord.It was the object of the burnt-offering, as of all sacrifices, to secure to the offerer the good pleasure of God. How far the burnt-offering partook of a strictly expiatory character has already been discussed in the preliminary essay; but that this, with all other voluntary offerings, sprang from a sense of need on the part of the worshipper, and a desire by some means to draw nearer to God, there can be no doubt. This expression, however, as Knobel notes, is never used in connection with the sin-offering, whose peculiar office was to obtain the pardon, rather than the gracious favor of God. Lange: The sacrifices follow one another in a natural sequence. The burnt-offering denotes the giving up of life to God; the meat-offering, the giving up of lifes enjoyment. Both were offered for a covering for the universal sinfulness of man. Only the expiatory sacrifices relate to particular sins.
Lev 1:4. And he shall put his hand upon the head.This solemn and essential part of the ceremonial is always specified when the law is given in detail, not only in connection with the burnt-offerings, but also with the peace-offerings (Lev 3:2; Lev 3:8; Lev 3:13), and the sin-offerings (Lev 4:4; Lev 4:15; Lev 4:24; Lev 4:29; Lev 4:33); where in the brevity of the description it is omitted (Lev 1:11, Lev 5:6; Lev 5:15; Lev 5:18,) it is yet to be understood. As to the significance of the act, a great variety of opinions has been held; by many, both of the ancients and moderns, it has been understood to symbolize the transfer of his sins from the offerer to the victim, or the substitution of the victim to die in his stead (Theodoret, Qust. 61 in Ex., and many others). This view has countenance from the laying on of both the hands of the high-priest on the head of the scape-goat on the day of atonement (Lev 16:21) for the express purpose of putting all their sins upon the head of the goat, that he might bear upon him all their iniquities unto a land not inhabited; but the ritual is here very different, and this goat was not burned upon the altar. On the other hand in the case of the blasphemer who was to be stoned (Lev 24:14), all the witnesses were to lay their hands upon his head, clearly not for the purpose of transferring their sins to him. By others the act has been regarded as a surrender and dedication of the offerers property to God; by still others as a dedication of himself through the victim representing him; Lange: The laying (pressing) on of the hand has the effect of substituting in a typical sense the animal to be offered for the offerer (for him ). It denotes the transferring of the individual life to the offering in a symbolical sense, not merely the giving up of this possession (as a gift) to Jehovah. Various other views also have been advocated. None of them, however, can claim exclusively the sanction of Scripture, which prescribes the act, but does not define its significance. Neither do any of them rest upon evidence independent of preconceived views, and of the doctrinal interpretation of other Scriptures. This much will be generally admitted: That the act connected the offerer personally with the victim, and denoted that his sacrifice was offered solemnly and for the purpose of securing to himself that covering or atonement of which mention is immediately afterwards made. The connection of the two clauses shows that the laying on of the hand was directly connected with this atonement. It was certainly an expression of faith in the use of the means God had appointed for drawing near to Him, and the act may be beyond the reach of a closer analysis.
Acceptedthe word is of the same root and sense as in Lev 1:3.
To make atonement for him. . This verb is not used in the Kal. In the Piel the primary sense is to cover and hence to atone for. It is used sometimes simply with the accus. of the thing (Psa 65:4; Psa 78:38; Dan 9:24), but usually with of the thing (Psa 79:9; Jer 18:23, etc.), or of the person (Lev 19:22), or with both (Lev 5:18); less frequently with , and more rarely with of the person and of the thing (Lev 4:26, etc.); seldom with of the thing (Lev 17:11). The phrase is used chiefly in reference to the sin and trespass-offerings (Leviticus 4-6) and but rarely in connection with the burnt-offerings. It is here used in connection with the laying on of the hand of the offerer, not as in the case of the sin-offering (Lev 4:20; Lev 4:26; Lev 4:35) and the trespass-offering (Lev 5:6; Lev 5:10; Lev 5:13; Lev 5:18; Lev 6:7, etc.), with the act of the priest, although in all cases the mediatorial function of the priest was, as here, necessarily involved.
Lev 1:5. He shall kill.The killing, skinning, washing and preparation of the victim, were the duty of the offerer, or, according to Outram, of some clean person appointed by him. Lange: This is also an expression of the freewill of the sacrificer. He must indeed slay his own offering himself, just as the devout can offer his will to God only in free self-determination. Only false priests took the sacrifice by craft or force into the court, and slew it themselves, or had it slain at their command. The functions of the priest were concerned with the presentation and sprinkling of the blood, and the burning of the victim upon the altar. In the case, however, of national offerings, the offerers part also was undertaken by the priests assisted by the Levites (2Ch 29:24; 2Ch 29:34), apparently not in consequence of their office, but as representatives of the whole people. So also in the case of the Passovers of Hezekiah (2Ch 30:17) and of Josiah (ib. 2Ch 35:10-11) the Levites performed these duties on behalf of the people, because many of them were disqualified by uncleanness. Hence, as appears in the ancient versions, there has arisen a difference of opinion as to the part performed by the offerer.
Kill. is a general word exactly rendered, and is frequently used for killing in sacrifice. It does not therefore need to be changed. The technical word used only for sacrifice is , while = to put to death is never used in this connection.
The bullock. = lit., son of an ox, applied to a calf (Lev 9:2) and to a mature young bull (4:3, 14).
Before the Lordi.e., in immediate view of the place where His presence was especially manifested. Knobel (in loco) notes how the slaughtering of the victim where it might be considered was provided for among the heathen.
And the priests.With the blood began the exclusively priestly functions. In the case of very numerous sacrifices the Levites might catch the blood and pass it to the priests (2Ch 30:16). but the sprinkling was always done by the priests alone.
Sprinkle.The word is a different one from the (more common in the Hiphil form ) generally used of sprinkling with the finger or with hyssop, and refers to the throwing of the blood by a jerk against the sides of the altar from the or bowl in which the blood of the victim was caught. Rosenmller shows that the word cannot be translated, as some would have it. by pour. The LXX. usually, but not always, renders the former by , the latter by . There seems, however, no sufficient reason for changing the translation of the A. V. The priest was to sprinkle the blood against all the sides of the altar: and this was done, according to Jewish tradition, by throwing it from the bowl successively against the opposite corners of the altar, so that it sprinkled against each of the adjoining sides. The same law held for the peace-offerings (Lev 3:2; Lev 3:8; Lev 3:13; Lev 9:18), and trespass-offerings (Lev 7:2); but not for the sin-offering (Lev 4:5-7). Lange: The blood is the symbol of the spiritual life which is given up to Jehovah (at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation) but which may not be consumed with the body of mortality by the fire of Gods appointment. As it is said that it is to be brought up, it follows that the slaying belongs between the altar and the door of the court, where the station of the sacrificer is. That it must be poured out on the altar before the burnt-offering can be kindled, tells us plainly that no offering up of life or body is profitable unless the soul has first been given to Jehovah. But this has been given up to the God of the altar, not surrendered to the altar-fire to destroy or change.
Before the door of the tabernacle.The altar was in full view of the gate-way or door, as it is expressed Exo 40:6 .
Lev 1:6. He shall flay.The offerer skinned the animal, and the skin was the perquisite of the officiating priest (Lev 7:8). Kalisch, however, says that the flaying was probably performed by a Levite under the direction of the officiating priest. Lange says. With the slaying the life departs, with the skin goes the old appearance of life, under the conventionally commanded division disappears also the old figure of life, in the burning disappears the substance of the body itself. Only the blood, the soul, does not disappear, but passes through the purifying process of sacrifice, and goes hence into the invisible, to God. The pouring out of the blood at the foot of the altar round about, can in no case mean the convenient disposal of the blood. The blood goes through the sanctified earth to God.
Cut it into his piecesi.e., properly divide it according to custom.
Lev 1:7-9. The priests.We here again come upon those essential parts of the sacrifice which could be performed by the priests alone. The direction to put fire upon the altar is understood by Knobel and others to refer only to the first sacrifice upon the newly-erected altar, as it was required afterwards (Lev 6:13) that the fire should be kept always burning upon the altar; or it may be understood of so arranging the firewhen not in use, raked togetheras to consume the sacrifice. The head is especially mentioned in order that the whole animal may be expressly included, since it would not be considered one of the pieces into which the animal was divided. The fat used only in connection with burnt-offerings (Lev 1:8; Lev 1:12; Lev 8:20) probably means the fat separated from the entrails and taken out to wash. Bochart, adeps a carne sejunctus. All was to be laid in order upon the wood; everything about the sacrifice must have that method and regard to propriety becoming in an act of worship. According to Jewish writers, the parts were so laid upon one another as to have the same relative positions as in the living animal. Outram I. 16, 13.
His inwards and his legs, which were to be washed, are generally understood of the lower viscera and the legs, especially the hind legs, below the knee; it is doubtful whether the washing was required for the heart, the lungs and the liverLXX. ; Vulg., intestina et pedes. Lange: Head and Fat. The knowledge of earth and its prosperity must first pass into the fiery death; then also the purified organs of growth, nourishment, and motion.
Shall burn. = to cause to ascend in smoke, as incense. The word is used only of the burning of incense, of the sacred lamps, and of sacrifices, and is a very different one from the word for common burning, which is applied to the victims, or parts of victims burned without the camp (Lev 4:12; Lev 4:21, etc.). It connects the bloody sacrifice with the incense, and shows that the object of the burning was not to destroy the victim, but rather, as declared just below, to cause its essence to ascend as a sweet savor unto God.
An offering made by fire. a word applied exclusively to sacrifices (although sometimes to the parts of them eaten by the priests. Deu 18:1; Jos 13:14), in Lev 24:7 applied to the incense laid upon the shew-bread. The appearance of tautology, hardly to be avoided in the translation, does not exist in the original. The word is usually associated, as here, with the phrase a sweet savour unto the Lord (LXX. ). This phrase is applied to all sacrifices, but belongs peculiarly to the burnt-offering; as the phrase to make atonement belongs peculiarly, but not exclusively, to the sin-offering. Its intent is plainly to describe the divine pleasure in the sacrifice offered. Theodoret (Qust. 62 in Ex.): By human things he teaches Divine. As we delight in sweet odors, so he calls the sacrifice made according to the law a sweet savor. But that this is not to be taken in the naked letter is shown both by the Divine nature which is incorporeal, and by the ill smell of the burnt bones. For what can smell worse than these? Lange: The conception is not exhausted in the conception of a sweet, pleasant smell. As in a pictorial sense, anger is represented by the snorting of the nostrils, so the resignation of self to God and His rule is called a savor well-pleasing to the nose.
Lev 1:10-13. The burnt-offering from the flock. The law here being essentially the same as for the bullock is more briefly given, except in regard to the place of slaying. The offering might be either from the sheep or goats, but the former were probably more esteemed.
Lev 1:11. On the side of the altar northward.So also the table of shew-bread with the continual meat-offering stood on the north side of the holy place (Exo 26:35). The east side of the altar was the place for the heap of ashes on the side towards the door by which they must be carried out; the west side would have been inconvenient, being towards the holy place with the laver between; the south side had probably (as Josephus says was the case in the second temple, Bell. Jud. V. 5, 6, ) the ascent to the altar which must be kept clear; so that the north side alone remained. Lange: Death is something belonging to the mysterious night, and belongs as a night-side of life, to the night-side of the earth; just as also the priestly eating of the shew-bread must be considered as a night meal. In the same place were also to be slain the sin-offerings (Lev 4:24; Lev 4:29; Lev 4:33) and the trespass-offerings (Lev 7:2). There being ample room in the court for the sacrifice of the smaller victims, which also required less time in their preparation, they were killed near the altar instead of at the door. Nothing is said of the peace-offerings which, according to Mishna, might be killed in any part of the court. When not too numerous, however, they would have been more conveniently slain in the same place.
Lev 1:12. His head,etc.is to be connected per zeugma with he shall cut, i.e., he shall cut it into his pieces and (sever) his head and his fat.
Lev 1:14-17. The burnt-offering of fowls. From Lev 5:7-11; Lev 12:8, it is probable that this offering was for those who were unable to bring the more costly offerings. It might be either of turtledoves, or of young pigeons; but only one bird was required. The turtledoves (turtur auritus) appear in vast numbers in Palestine early in April, and are easily captured; later in the season they entirely disappear. The common pigeon has been bred in the country from time immemorial, and also is found wild, at all seasons, in great abundance; but when full-grown is difficult of capture. It has, however, in the course of the year, several broods of two each, which may be easily taken on the nest. Hence, in the case of the pigeon, the mention of the age. Knobel observes that the allowing of doves or pigeons in sacrifice was quite exceptional among the ancient Orientals, and distinguished the Hebrew law from others. We have then in this a fresh instance of the especial care for the poor in the Divine law.
Lev 1:15. And the priest shall.In this case the offerers part must be performed by the priest to prevent the loss of the small quantity of blood contained in the bird. No mention is made of the laying on of hands which was perhaps omitted on account of the diminutive size of the victim.
Pinch off his head. occurs only here and in v. 8, and its precise meaning has been much questioned. In v. 8 it is expressly limited by the provision that the head was not to be entirely separated from the body in the case of the bird to be eaten by the priest; in regard to the other bird (v. 7, 10), it was to be treated as the bird for a burnt-offering. As there is no such limitation here, as it is implied that the treatment was different from that of the bird in v. 8, and as the head was to be immediately burned on the altar, while something further was to be done to the body, the precept must be understood to require an entire separation of the head. So Outram, following the Mishna and other Jewish authorities. Lange, however, considers from the analogy of v. 8, that the head was not to be disjoined from the body. He translates , cleave in two, so that death is produced and the blood can flow out as from a vessel. The closely related means apparently to tear off; the closely related means to cleave, cut into. The LXX. has in both places. The exact sense seems best expressed by the margin of the A. V.pinch off the head with the nail.
Pressed out against.The small quantity of blood made it practically impossible to deal with it as in the case of the larger sacrifices. The sense of is that the blood of the bird should be thoroughly squeezed out against the side of the altar.
Lev 1:16. His crop with its filth. The obscure word has occasioned much difference of opinion; see Textual Notes. The rendering here given is ably supported at length by Rosenmller. This was to be flung on the heap of ashes and refuse east of the altar.
Lev 1:17. He shall cleave.The priest was to split the bird open, (by its wings, or by means of its outspread wings, Lange), but so as not to separate the parts; in the same way a fowl is now prepared for broiling. Lange: The direction was given to take the place, as far as possible, of the cutting in pieces of the burnt-offering, i.e., the destruction of the figure of the body.
A sweet savour.The repetition of the same words as in Lev 1:9 and Lev 1:13, shows that this humbler sacrifice of the poor was acceptable equally with the more costly sacrifice of the rich.
DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL
I. The offerings mentioned in this chapter were purely voluntary; yet when offered, the law in regard to them was strict and sharply defined. In this the Israelites- were taught a general principle of the Divine will. Whoever seeks to draw near to God must do so in the way of Gods own appointment. That worship only is acceptable to Him which is in accordance with His will. Not that which may seem most effective, not that which may be thought best adapted to mans needs; but simply that which God approves may be offered to Him.
II. These offerings must be perfect, i.e., without, blemish, and the most scrupulous cleanliness was required in offering them. These requirements were of course necessary in view of the typical relation of the sacrifices to Christ; but they also taught the general principle that in his offerings to God man may not try to put off upon Him what is of inferior valuethe light coin, or the scraps of unoccupied time. God is to be served with the best that man can command. And in this service regard must be had to the infinite purity and holiness of Him with whom we have to do.
III. The sacrifice might not be completed by the offerer. Man, being sinful, was unworthy to offer propitiation to God for himself. The priest must intervene for the sprinkling of the blood and the burning of the victim. In view of the peculiar virtue everywhere attributed to blood as the life (Gen 9:4, etc.), and the especial office of that life in connection with the disturbed relations between God and man (Lev 17:10-12, etc.), and of the appointment of the priest to this duty, it is plain that he here acts in a mediatorial capacity. As Calvin (in loco) notes, ministers of reconciliation must be sought, made competent to their high function by Divine anointing. This points to Christ not only as the Victim offered for sin, but also (as is shown at length in the Ep. to the Heb.) as Himself the Priest. In general it establishes the principle that they only may exercise authority on Gods behalf whom He has commissioned for the purpose.
IV. In the provision for a less costly burnt-offering, we see that while in His providence God distributes unequally the means of offering to Himself, He yet provides that an equally acceptable offering shall be within the reach of all. The poor widows two mites were greater in His eyes than the costly gifts of the rich. The same thing is true when the propitiatory character of the offering is considered. Before God all souls are alike precious, and all equally have the opportunity of drawing near to Him.
V. In the New Testament certain words and phrases are applied to Christ which are the Septuagint translations of the technical words here and elsewhere used of the sacrifices. Thus He is called (Eph 5:2) and in Heb 2:17 He is said to be , , and in 1Jn 2:2; 1Jn 4:10, He is described as our . It seems impossible to suppose that the Apostles could have used these expressions and others like them without intending to point to Christ as the Antitype of the sacrifices, and as actually accomplishing that which they had prefigured. From the work of Christ, therefore, in effecting reconciliation between God and man, light is thrown back upon the function of the sacrifices; and that function once established, we may learn again from the sacrifices something of the nature of the propitiatory work of Christ.
VI. Wordsworth notes that a new Parashah, or section of the law, as read in Synagogues, begins at Lev 1:1, and extends to Lev 6:7. The parallel Haphtarah, or Section of the Prophets, is Isa 43:21 to Isa 44:23, where God reproves Israel for their neglect of His worship, and promises them forgiveness of sins, and comforts the church with the pledges of divine mercy. Thus the ancient Jewish church, when listening to the law concerning offerings for sin, declared its faith in a better Covenant, and in larger outpourings of divine favor and spiritual grace in Christ.
HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL
The course of Gods dealings with man always, since mans fall, is to bring about a closer communion with Himself, as man is able to bear it. The legislation from Mt. Sinai was a great advance; but here there is a fresh advance. The Divine voice calls no longer from the Mount, but from the tabernacle in the midst of the congregation. Thus another step is taken towards Gods speaking unto us by His Son.
Provision is made in these three chapters for voluntary sacrifices. The definitely prescribed duties of man are always a minimum; God requires of man the absolute devotion of himself and all that he is and has; this is recognized in the law by the provision for voluntary sacrifices and free-will-offerings of every kind.
All sacrifices were types of Christ inasmuch as after His sacrifice all others ceased. Origen. No one sacrifice could express the manifoldness of that which He wrought; therefore the several aspects of His work are adumbrated by various types. In this chapter we have the whole burnt-offering, the most general and comprehensive, as the most ancient, of the sacrifices; it is therefore the one which in the most general way sets forth the sacrifice of Christ. In so far as it became specialized by the introduction of other kinds of sacrifice, it is thought to be a symbol of entire consecration. It therefore typifies the entire consecration of Christ to God, and through Him, that of His followers, according to the allusion in Rom 12:1, which probably has this sacrifice more particularly in view.
Whatever is offered to God must be perfect in its kind. The offering may be varied in value according to the ability of the offerer, for all souls are alike precious to God, and He provides that all may be able to draw near to Him. Still, from the largest to the smallest offering, none may be allowed with blemish or defect.
On each sacrifice the offerer must lay his hands: so must man identify himself with what he offers to God. Such offering is a serious and a personal matter, and one may not delegate such duty to another; but must give to it personal thought and care. Sinful man cannot directly approach the Majesty on high, before whom he stands as a sinner; he must come through a Mediator, typified of old by the priest, and He makes atonement for him.
As the law had but a shadow of good things to come, (Heb 10:1), so do they who now consecrate themselves to God offer that real sacrifice which the Israelites, offering various animals under the law, did but prefigure. Theodoret.
Footnotes:
[1]Lev 1:1. in our text has the final of smaller size than the other letters. The reason (leaving out of view Cabalistic interpretations) seems to be that suggested by Rosenmllerthat there was an ancient variation of the MSS., some having our present reading; while others, omitting the , read , Fut. Apoc. Niphal of = and the Lord met (or appeared to) Moses. Comp. Num 23:4; Num 23:16.
[2]Lev 1:1. means strictly the covering of haircloth over the of boards with linen curtains. Both occur together, Exo 40:29. Both are translated in the A. V. alike by tent and by tabernacle, and both in the LXX. most frequently by . In the original both are used to designate the structure in which the ark was placed. There is therefore no sufficient reason for changing the familiar name of Tabernacle.
[3]Lev 1:1. is without the article, as always. The word is used very frequently (Lev 23:2; Lev 23:4; Lev 23:37; Lev 23:44, etc.) of the religious festivals of the Law, of which the tabernacle was the centre, and perhaps both in the Heb. and the Chald. the times of the festivals is the most prominent idea of the word. Hence, as the place of assembly, the centre around which the congregation was at such times to gather, the Tabernacle came to be called , as Jerusalem is called (Isa 33:20) . The proposal to translate Tent of meeting (Speakers Com., Kalisch, Murphy, and many others) as referring to Gods meeting with Moses, seems unsupported by the usage of the word, and is sustained by none of the ancient versions. (The LXX. and Vulgate take the word in the sense of covenant or law). The article, however, should be omitted. Nevertheless, Lange says The Tabernacle is designated as the Tabernacle of the meeting. That the Israelites should assemble themselves in that place, is only the secondary result of the primary meeting with Jehovah.
[4]Lev 1:2. The Masoretic punctuation places the Athnach on , and this is sustained by the Sam., Chald., LXX., Vulg., and followed by the A. V. Houbigant suggests that it should rather be placed on the next word, as in the Syr. The latter sense is followed in the commentary.
[5]Lev 1:2. Offerings in the plural is read in the Sam., LXX., Vulg., and Syr.
[6]Lev 1:1. is without the article, as always. The word is used very frequently (Lev 23:2; Lev 23:4; Lev 23:37; Lev 23:44, etc.) of the religious festivals of the Law, of which the tabernacle was the centre, and perhaps both in the Heb. and the Chald. the times of the festivals is the most prominent idea of the word. Hence, as the place of assembly, the centre around which the congregation was at such times to gather, the Tabernacle came to be called , as Jerusalem is called (Isa 33:20) . The proposal to translate Tent of meeting (Speakers Com., Kalisch, Murphy, and many others) as referring to Gods meeting with Moses, seems unsupported by the usage of the word, and is sustained by none of the ancient versions. (The LXX. and Vulgate take the word in the sense of covenant or law). The article, however, should be omitted. Nevertheless, Lange says The Tabernacle is designated as the Tabernacle of the meeting. That the Israelites should assemble themselves in that place, is only the secondary result of the primary meeting with Jehovah.
[7]Lev 1:3. . The translation of the A. V. is defended by Grotius, but most interpreters follow the unanimous voice of the ancient versions in giving the sense as corrected above. Comp. Exo 28:38; Lev 22:20-21, etc. The A. V. varies in the translation even in the same passage, as Lev 22:19-21; Lev 22:29.
[8]Lev 1:5. The sense is, upon all the sides of the altar, not on its upper surface.
[9]Lev 1:6. The Sam. and LXX. by reading the verbs of this verse in the plural, apparently make the flaying and cutting up of the victim the act of the priests.
[10]Lev 1:9. The Sam. and the LXX. here also, by the use of the plural, make the washing the act of the priests.
[11]Lev 1:9. The Sam. followed by the LXX. and Syr., read =this is the burnt-offering, i.e., the law of the burnt-offerings.
[12]Lev 1:10. The Sam. followed by the LXX. reads , the Sam. omitting the subsequent , which makes the sense clearer.
[13]Lev 1:10. The Sam. addsat the door of the tabernacle of the congregation shall he offer it.
[14]Lev 1:11. The LXX. prefixes from Lev 1:4, which is of course to be understood.
[15]Lev 1:12. The Sam. (now followed both by the LXX. and the Vulg.) here again as in Lev 1:6; Lev 1:9 reads the plural.
[16]Lev 1:16. (Sam. ) is variously translated. In the LXX. and Vulg., as in the A. V., it is rendered feathers; in the Sam. Vers., however, the Chald. of Onkelos, of Jonathan, and of Jerusalem, and in the Syr., the idea is the food in the crop, or the filth connected therewith, as is expressed in the margin of the A. V. By Gesenius and Fuerst it is translated as filth or excrement in the crop; they consider it a contracted form of Part. Niph. of . This is probably the true sense. Lange explains it the excrement from the crop yet to be found in the body.
[17]Lev 1:17. The Sam., 15 MSS., and all the versions supply the conjunction, which must of course be understood.
Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange
CONTENTS
The book of Leviticus, opens with the subject of sacrifices, and particularly of that which is among the first of them, burnt-offerings; from what herd the sacrifice is to be taken from among beasts; or from what bird among the fowls.
Lev 1:1
In the opening of this book, some precious improvements arise of a spiritual nature. At first we are told that God called to Moses. Herein Moses was a type of Christ. See Joh 1:18 ; Heb 1:12 . Secondly, God called to Moses, out of the tabernacle. Herein again, Jesus is represented: for all the words of God the Father, are from the mercy seat, in and through his Son, Jesus Christ. Joh 14:6 .
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
“Handfuls of Purpose”
For All Gleaners
“And the Lord called unto Moses.” Lev 1:1
The calls of Providence. Their number and variety. Every man is conscious of a call to higher life and duty. Account for it as we may, there is an inward voice alluring us in one of two directions. The voice of the Lord is not the only voice that addresses human attention. The devil speaks as well as God. The two voices can be easily distinguished by any earnest hearer who is determined upon doing the right deed. There are appeals addressed to self-interest and self-indulgence; these are the appeals which are never made by God. There are also appeals addressed to selfish cleverness and ingenuity, showing how prosperity can be secured or how personal interests can be advanced; such appeals need not be long considered as to their moral value: they bear upon them the stamp of an evil genius. God’s calls are always in the direction of self-sacrifice, beneficence, higher and higher holiness. God calls through circumstances; through convictions; through the spontaneous action of friends of solid character; we are called upon to beware of every allurement that does not point in a distinctly lofty direction. God calls to deeper study of the Word. God calls to beneficent activity on behalf of others.
It is a deception of the enemy to suppose that we cannot always distinguish the voice of the divine. Whilst that may be true enough as to certain practical details which are so intermixed as not to admit of special moral valuation, it is absolutely false in all matters involving conscience, sacrifice, and loyalty to truth. The man who wishes to hear the divine voice must cleanse his ears of all worldly noises. These noises often constitute so many prejudices, through which, if the divine word is heard at all, it comes without emphasis and without authority. “He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.” We should hear more divine calls if we listened more attentively. If God has ceased to speak, therefore, it may be only because we have ceased to listen. Nature says nothing to the unsympathetic man. Art delivers no message to eyes that are filled with mean objects. The speech often depends upon the hearer. The supreme prayer of life should be: Speak, Lord, for thy servant heareth.
Fuente: The People’s Bible by Joseph Parker
The Ancient Ritual
Lev 1:1
When the Ten Commandments were given the Lord called unto Moses from the top of mount Sinai. Now he calls from “the tent of meeting.” He is about to speak more minutely, and to enter upon statements which were better made in the quietness of a holy place, than delivered in a theatre of lightning and thunder and earthquake. The one was a great declaration of morals, a solemn code of behaviour or action; the other related to sacrifice, worship, divine communion and the whole life of the heart. The lightning and the thunder have passed, and the earth throbs and heaves no longer, but is quieted to hear the peaceful law. Moses enters the sanctuary. It is a church made with hands, and it stands at the foot of “the mount which burned with fire.” Sometimes our worship seems to require ALL SPACE, so much are our souls exalted, and so loud is our cry of distress or our psalm of adoration. The mountain is not high enough, the sea is wanting in width, and the horizon is too near to constitute a church, because our souls are lifted up with great emotions and our love glows with an infinite fire. In those high moods we tell the mountains to rejoice; we bid Lebanon clap its hands; and call upon the sea to help our offering of praise. Afterwards we fall into another and calmer mood; a mood subdued almost into timidity; then we would curtain ourselves in and draw our former publicity within the bounds of comparative secrecy. The sky is too vast; we are afraid of its very immensity; so under roof and lamp of our own making we render our worship, giving God praise, and whispering the prayer which is almost spoiled by speech. This verse gives us the picture of God and man meeting in a holy place; say in close quarters; say as if space were annihilated and the infinite had taken up the finite into itself. Man needs instruction in the art or act of worship. The worship itself may be what is sometimes called instinctive. Hence man has been called a religious being; hence we are told that worship or the spirit of worship is in man; and hence too we have been mistakenly told that every man may worship God as he pleases. That is a sophism which needs exposure. The will of man has no place whatever in worship, except to receive the direction or command of God as to its expression. There are emotions of the heart, inarticulate sometimes, fierce sometimes, tender emotions of every force and tone that run through the whole gamut of human feeling; but we are not to say which part shall be uttered and which shall be silent; we are like little children to be taught how to worship our Father God.
“Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, If any man of you bring an offering unto the Lord, ye shall bring your offering of the cattle, even of the herd, and of the flock.
If his offering be a burnt sacrifice of the herd, let him offer a male without blemish: he shall offer it of his own voluntary will at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation before the Lord.
And he shall put his hand upon the head of the burnt offering; and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him.
And he shall kill the bullock before the Lord: and the priests, Aaron’s sons, shall bring the blood, and sprinkle the blood round about upon the altar that is by the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.
And he shall flay the burnt offering, and cut it into his pieces.
And the sons of Aaron the priest shall put fire upon the altar, and lay the wood in order upon the fire:
And the priests, Aaron’s sons, shall lay the parts, the head, and the fat, in order upon the wood that is on the fire which is upon the altar:
But his inwards and his legs shall he wash in water: and the priest shall burn all on the altar, to be a burnt sacrifice, an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the Lord” (
Here is a singular conjunction of the legal and the voluntary. Jehovah fixes the particulars; but the man himself decides on the act of sacrificial worship. Observe how the Lord works from the opposite point from which the first of the Ten Commandments was given. There God called for the worship: here he leaves the man to offer the worship and proceeds to tell him how. The first was general, the second was particular. The offering was to be of the cattle; it was to be a male without blemish; it was to be offered at the door of the tabernacle; the priests were to do part and the man himself was to do part. So we see again that man needs instruction in the act of worship. The question must ever arise, How shall we come before God? The disciples of Jesus Christ came to him, and said, “Lord, teach us how to pray.” We all pray; we cannot help praying. Some times in our secularistic pride we only use such common words as “I wish,” “I long for,” “I hope,” “I desire,” these are feeble ways of putting what is in every human heart, namely, the desire which means prayer. Jesus Christ taught his disciples how to pray, that is, he gave them instruction as to the meaning and mode of worship. So then, we have a manner or science of worship even in the Christian sanctuary, dictated and authorised by Jesus Christ himself. The preparation of the heart and the answer of the tongue are from God. No man was at liberty in the ancient Church to determine his own terms of approach to God. The throne must be approached in the appointed way. We are not living in an era of religious licentiousness. There is a genius of worship, there is a method of coming before God. God does not ask us to conceive or suggest methods of worship. He himself meets us with his time-bill and his terms of spiritual commerce. God is in heaven and we are upon the earth; therefore should our words be few. The law of approach to the divine throne is unchanged. The very first condition of worship is obedience. Obedience is better than sacrifice, and is so because it is the end of sacrifice. But see, how under the Levitical ritual, the worshipper was trained to obedience. Mark the exasperating minuteness of the law. Nothing was left to haphazard. The bullock was to be offered at the door of the tabernacle; the sheep was to be killed on the northward side of the altar; the blood of the fowl was to be wrung out at the side of the altar; the crop was to be plucked away with the feathers and was to be cast on the east side of the altar by the place of the ashes; fine flour and oil were to be the ingredients of the meat offering, whether it was burnt upon the altar or baken in the oven, or in the frying-pan, and loaves and honey were not to enter into the sacrifice by fire. So the law runs on until it chafes the obstinate mind. But man was to yield. He had no choice. His iron will was to be broken in two and his soul was to wait patiently upon God. When, however, we are in the spirit of filial obedience the very minuteness of the law becomes a delight. God does not speak to us in the gross; every motion is watched, every action is determined, every breathing is regulated; man is always to yield; he is not a co-partner in this high thinking. So our inventive genius of a religious kind often stands rebuked before God. We like to make ceremonies; methods of worship seem to tempt one side of our fertile genius, and we stultify ourselves by regarding our inventiveness as an element of our devotion. We like to draw up programmes and orders and schemes of service and sacrifice. What we should do is to keep as nearly as we can to the Biblical line, and bring all our arrangements into harmony with the law of heaven. The law can never give way. Fire never surrenders; it is the fuel that must go down. The worship was to be offered through mediation. In every sacrifice the priests, Aaron or the sons of Aaron, were present. The priestly element pervades the universe; it is the mystery of life and service. The sinner did not come immediately before God and transact his business with the Infinite face to face. Is there then any priestly element in Christianity? It is the very consummation of priestliness. Our sacrifices are acceptable to God by Jesus Christ Our great High Priest is passed into the heavens. There is one Mediator between God and man, the Man Christ Jesus. Jesus is the Mediator of the new covenant. The difficulty with us is that we think we can all be official priests. We forget that now there is only one Man who continueth for ever, because he hath an unchangeable priesthood. Jesus is the Intercessor, he pleads his blood; his cross is in heaven; it rests against the throne. “I saw in the midst of the throne a Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.” All things are coloured with his blood. It is a great mystery and not to be understood by reason in its cold moods; only when we are burning with unutterable love to God, do we catch any hint of the meaning of these sovereign mysteries. We have no need of priestly help from any human point of view. Brethren pray for us. Ministers will pray for their people, but not as their substitutes; their prayers are eloquent with the cry of human necessity and the psalm of human adoration. Not in any priestly but in a profoundly sympathetic sense, we are all priests in Christ a holy priesthood.
The service was voluntary. Notice the expression, “He shall offer it of his own voluntary will.” The voluntariness gives the value to the worship. We can only pray with the heart. Prayers we can say with the mouth, but to say prayers may not be to pray. To pay a tax is to keep a law, but to give bread to the hungry is to draw out the heart and to put a gift in the very hand of God. So in Christian worship, the voluntary and the legal are combined. There is in this great ritual a wonderful mixing of free will and divine ordination; the voluntary and the unchangeable; the human action and the divine decree. We cannot understand it; if we are able to understand it then it is no larger than our understanding: so God becomes a measurable god, merely the shadow of human wit, a god that cannot be worshipped. It is where our understanding fails or rises into a new wealth of faith, that we find the only altar at which we can bow, with all our powers, where we can utter with enthusiasm all our hopes and desires. So we come with our sacrifice and offering, whatever it may be, and having laid it on the altar, we can follow it no further free as the air up to a given point, but after that bounded and fixed and watched and regulated a mystery that can never be solved, and that can never be chased out of a universe in which the Infinite and finite confer.
The worship of the ancient Church was no mere expression of sentiment. It was a most practical worship; not a sentimental exercise; it was a confession and an expiation, in a word an atonement. This fact explains all. Take the word “atonement” out of Christian theology, and Christian theology has no centre, no circumference, no life, no meaning, no virtue. See the man bringing his bullock what is he going to do? To make God a present? He is going to confess sin; he is about to say, “My sin deserves death, but it hath pleased thee, mighty King, to accept a type of my death, therefore do I shed the blood of this beast before thee.” He is about to say, “Sin means suffering; suffering must accompany sin;” to express it therefore did he put the knife into that dedicated bullock. We have lost many of the spiritual ideas, I fear, suggested by this symbolism, from the range of our Christian worship. Who remembers that sin is a debt? Who brings before his mind in all its pathos and humiliating effect the great fact that sin must be confessed, admitted, specifically owned, that each man must say ” My sin”? Who is there that really feels that he is not master of his own sin, having power to put an end to it as if he had never committed it? The devil says, “You have sinned; that may be perfectly true, but what you have got to do is to repent of your sin, and all will be well.” He knows that our repentances, unless springing from the right source and regulated by the right influence, do but harden the heart and give the tempter a wider sweep and advantage over us. The enemy says to the withered branch perishing by the roadside, “It is quite true that you are withered, but repent, and all will be well.” Never. There must come a hand that can lift the branch up and put it back in the tree, so that it may draw the life-juice from the root and connect itself with the all-blessing sun. A vital work must be done. You cannot wash yourself clean. The sea will not wash you. The cleansing is an act Divine.
The ancient worship was marked by every variety of offering. What a wonderful list do we find in the first three chapters of Leviticus! A bullock, a sheep, a turtle-dove, a young pigeon, fine flour, first-fruits, a goat. The great law seems to say to us, “What have you to offer?” The law is not hard and fast. The rich man and the poor man each has his opportunity. They could not all bring alike; it was not every man who had a bullock to offer, or a turtle-dove, or a young pigeon, or a handful of flour, the meaning was the same; the meaning was not to be measured by the gift; the gift itself was the meaning when measured by the heart. Has this time of oblation passed? It cannot pass; only our offering is no longer an atonement, it is now a grateful expression for an atonement already offered. So the Lord says to each of us, “What have you?” One man has time, and gives it willingly unto the Lord; another has social influence, and is true to his Saviour in the exercise of all the power that comes out of his station in society; another has sympathy, power of advising, entering into other people’s feelings and encouraging them, in all good and holy ways. The Lord takes what we have. He blesses the giver and the gift.
If we could read this book of Leviticus through at one sitting, the result might be expressed in some such words as these, “Thank God we have got rid of this infinite labour; thank God this is not in the Christian service; thank God we are Christians and not Jews.” Let not our rejoicing be the expression of selfishness or folly. It is true we have escaped the bondage of the letter, but only to enter into the larger and sweeter bondage of the spirit. It makes the heart sore to think that so many persons are under the impression that Christianity is a do-nothing religion, and that by becoming Christians we enter into the liberty of idleness. When we think of the bullock, and the sheep, and the goat, and the turtle-dove, and the young pigeon, and the fine flour, the heave-offering, and the wave-offering, and the trespass-offering offerings all the year round, never ending, or ending only to begin again; the smoke always ascending, the fire always alight, we say, “Thank God we are Christians.” What do we mean? Had the Jew more to do than we have to do? No; or only so in a very limited and mechanical sense. The Jew gave his bullock or his goat, his turtle-dove or his young pigeon; but now each man has to give himself. We now buy ourselves off with gold. Well may the apostle exhort us, saying, “I beseech you, therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.” Wonderful is the law which lays its claim upon the ransomed soul, none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself; whether we live, we live unto the Lord; whether we die, we die unto the Lord; living or dying we are the Lord’s. We have escaped measurable taxation, but we have come under the bond of immeasurable love. We have escaped the letter, we have been brought under the dominion of the spirit. Let us be careful, therefore, how we congratulate ourselves on having escaped the goat-offering and heifer-offering, and turtledove and young pigeon sacrifices; how we have been brought away from the technicality and poverty of the letter into the still further deeper poverty of selfishness. As Christians, we have nothing that is our own; not a moment of time is ours; not a pulse that throbs in us, not a hair of our head, not a coin in the coffer belongs to us. This is the severe demand of love. Who can rise to the pitch of that self-sacrifice? None. The Jew gives his tenth, and another tenth, and another tenth, and another tenth, even unto five-tenths, or one-half, and we say, “All that is done for ever; it has passed away with the obsolete ritual, and now we are under the law of love,” as if God had brought us into something less rather than into something more. The Jew had a night in which he might rest from his labour, but in Christianity, as to the spiritual exactions of its service it may be truly said there is no night; if we cease from the more active labour during the night it is that we may be prepared to resume it with increased energy with the first light of dawn.
Note
Five animals are named in the Law as suitable for sacrifice; the ox, the sheep, the goat, the dove, and the pigeon. It is worthy of notice that these were all offered by Abraham in the great sacrifice of the Covenant (see Gen 15:9 ). These animals are all clean, according to the division into clean and unclean animals, which was adopted in the Law. They were the most important of those which are used for food, and are of the greatest utility to man. The three kinds of quadrupeds were domesticated in flocks and herds, and were recognised as property, making up in fact a great part of the wealth of the Hebrews before they settled in Palestine. It would thus appear that three conditions met in the sacrificial quadrupeds: (1) they were clean according to the Law; (2) they were commonly used as food; and being domesticated (3) they formed part of the home-wealth of the sacrificers.
Abridged from the Speaker’s Commentary.
Fuente: The People’s Bible by Joseph Parker
The Changeable and the Unchangeable
Lev 1
IN addition to what we have already said, there are some things in this first chapter which will justify varied repetition. What an important part the word “if” plays in the opening chapters of Leviticus! At first we did not seem to see it, but by frequent repetition it urges itself upon our notice as a term of vital importance in the argument of the subject, whatever that subject may be. We cannot enter into the subject except through the gate if. It is God’s word. The meaning must be profound; the meaning must be in excess of the visible insignificance of the word. It is but a film of a word after all. Is there a less word in all the language? Yet it is no film in its moral significance and in its moral effect; it is a granite wall thicker than the earth and high as the sky. Even God condescends to make terms with us. One of the greatest of English writers has been perplexed by the suggestion that God is almighty. He says No; either His almightiness must be surrendered, or His all-goodness. If He were almighty, He never could permit the evil which is now afflicting mankind. The argument is inconclusive, hiding, from my point of view, a most obvious sophism. Yet this is a ground upon which the almightiness of God must be surrendered. He is no mightier than we in one direction. Viewed in the light of that direction we would seem to be almighty. We can withhold our consent or we can give it. A great if must be crossed before even God can continue his purposes of wisdom and love in our education and redemption. We are almighty in obstinacy. The word is not unfamiliar; we hear it in the expression, “To-day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts.” God has fixed the time, made the proposition, offered the whole hospitality of his heart and heaven, and then waits for our treatment of his necessary if . We hear it in the statement latest in all the sacred books, “If any man will open the door.” What I Cannot God break through any door that ever was framed and fashioned? No! To break through is not his object. Destruction is but the very poorest aspect of the working of almightiness. God’s aim is persuasion, the winning of consent, the bringing over of the whole force of the will: and then almightiness must stand still and wait a beggar’s answer. Nowhere is the greatness of man so broadly and vividly confessed as in the Bible. They do injustice to Holy Scripture who suppose that it is continually contemning, abusing, and degrading human nature. The whole scheme of education and redemption revealed in the Bible awaits the consent of the creature. God is ready, and we keep him waiting at the door; the King is in the chariot, and the horses are prancing, eager to be gone on some celestial journey, and we keep them all waiting. It is a daring assumption. No book that is not conscious of infinite resources and vindications could base itself upon such a theory of human nature.
Through the gate if we enter into the temple of obedience. Having crossed the threshold, then law begins to operate. After the if comes the discipline the sweet, but often painful necessity. Observe the balance of operation: Man must reply; having replied, either in one form or the other, necessary consequences follow. It is so in all life. There is no exception in what is known as the religious consciousness and activity. The great sea says in its wild waves, “If ye will walk on me and become citizens of this wilderness of water, then you must submit to the law of the country; you must fall into the rhythm of the universe; you must build your wooden houses or your iron habitations according to laws old as God; you need not come upon my waters; I do not ask you to come; when you come I will obliterate your footprints so that no man may ever know that you have crossed me; but if you come you must obey.” The earth says, “If ye will build upon me, please yourselves: I do not ask you to build upon me; I shall swing around the sun if no stone be laid upon the top of another, and be as glad in my path of light as though I carried temples and towers and cities; but if ye will build, you must obey the law; I cast down everything that is out of plomb; I will not carry any structure with any guarantee of permanence that is not built by the geometry of the sun; I do not ask you to build, but if you build you then come under the dominion of laws which cannot be set aside permanently. For a time they may be evaded or trifled with, or apparently suspended; but they will assert their permanence and vindicate their justice.” We have therefore no liberty after a certain time. That is quite right; it is the law of all life. But we never give up our liberty in response to the laws of the universe without our surrender being compensated after God’s measure. We are accustomed to speak of the law: we quote sharp and imperative terms from the Pentateuch, saying, “These words are very emphatic, and are all-inclusive, and often touch the point of severity; they do not tamper with us, or compromise with us, or leave us any liberty.” That is an unjust criticism, it it be all we have to say. There was a time when God was suppliant; there was an hour in which he prayed; there was a time when God was on his knees asking a beggar to allow him heart-room. Let us therefore take in the whole case, and state it in all its lines and elements, and we shall find a marvellous harmony of forces a union and reconciliation constituting a coherent and sublime ministry.
We call this the law, but it is the law with a golden fringe of mercy. The law gave great choice of offering. It said, “If you bring a burnt offering, bring it of the herd if you have one. If you have not a herd of cattle, bring it of the flocks; bring it of the flock of the sheep; but if you are too poor to have a flock of sheep, bring a goat from the flock of the goats; only in all cases this condition must be permanent: whatever you offer must be without blemish. But if you have no cattle, no sheep, no goats, then bring it of the fowls: bring turtle-doves or young pigeons; the air is full of them, and the poorest man can take them.” Is that not mercy twice blessed? We are not all masters of cattle that browse upon the green hills; nor are we all flockmasters, and amongst flockmasters there are rich and poor. God says, “Let your offering be according to your circumstances, only without blemish, and it shall be accepted.”
What was the object of the offerings? Atonement What is the meaning of the word “atone”? To cover. How then does the word atone refer to sin? By covering it, hiding it, concealing it and so destroying it. The object of the offerings was to atone, to cover, to hide. “Blessed is the man whose sin is covered” and sin can only be covered or hidden in one way. No cloth of human weaving can ever conceal it; it will rise and show its figure before the vision of the world through all the silk and purple ever thrown upon it. There is an appointed covering; have we accepted it? Observe, this is the law of all life. To atone in the sense of covering is not a religious idea only; it is the thing which is being done every day by every man. Where, then, is the awful dogmatism of the Scriptures, and the appalling arbitrariness of the divine decrees and requirements? God looks down from heaven and sees us engaged in the continual endeavour to cover our sin, and he says, “It cannot be done; you have undertaken the impossible; that miracle does not lie within the compass of human invention or mortal strength; you are right in endeavouring to cover it; you are working according to a law, the full operation of which you do not understand; I will provide the covering.” One reason for attending to the proposition is that all our coverings have failed. We have heaped rocks upon the sin, and the tremendous vitality of the wrong has heaved off the rock; we have bribed the sin to be quiet, and it has devoured our investments and balances and prosperities, and has then looked at us with a look of insatiable hunger. Knowing this, we are prepared to listen to the new proposal. God undertakes what we ourselves have been undertaking and failing in. It may be the Lord will succeed where we have been baffled by mocking perplexities.
What was the method of the offerings? The hands were to be laid upon the head of the victim. Whether the priest laid his hands upon it or the man himself, the act was symbolic and representative a most beautiful and pathetic symbol. The hands were laid upon the head, and the meaning of the imposition was that the sin was communicated by being recognised, acknowledged, confessed with a contrite heart. These are symbols we must not take out of human history until we are prepared to remove from the history of our race one of the most pathetic signs which has blessed it with religious accentuation. “My faith would lay her hands on that dear head of thine.”
We say that all this is changed. Is it? What is changed? I am not aware that the change has taken place in any sense that would justify contempt for the ancient history. Changes have taken place, but they have only transpired in the sense of completion and fulfilment. What is confirmed? God has chosen the offering now. We are no longer called upon to say, Shall it be a burnt sacrifice of the herd? or shall the offering be of the flocks, whether of the sheep or of the goats? or shall the burnt sacrifice be of fowls, whether turtle-doves or young pigeons? But we are called upon to accept God’s choice: “Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world” the Son of man for the sons of men, Emmanuel: God with us always explaining itself to the consciousness and the necessity and the love, but never condescending to exchange the mystery for words which men can change into pointless controversy. What is changed? The mere mechanism, the personal expense, the humiliation undoubtedly, but not the Atonement. Really next to nothing has been changed. The accidentals or accessories have all been changed, but the central truth the Atonement remains for ever. There is no short and easy method with sin. It never has been one of the easy problems of human history. It has pained all men. It has distressed the supreme intellect of the world, and brought that intellect into the darkness and silence of despair. It has driven men away to find in beauty some solace for a conscious hideousness within; and men have found it to be cold and monotonous work, to be worshipping unresponsive sculpture, painting, and art of every name and kind. Men have sought by excess of the very thing itself to destroy sin, and if they could have gone forward from indulgence to indulgence, from insanity to insanity, they might have escaped the remorse of this world; but God has so constituted the universe that men have moments of sobriety, times of mental and moral reaction, periods in which they see themselves and their destiny with an appalling vividness, and in those hours it is found that the sin which began the mischief is still there. There is no way out of it but God’s way. We have tried most of the ways ourselves, and it is but just to acknowledge that all our trials have ended only in the embitterment of our lot. “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” Seeing therefore that I must grapple with this problem of sin: that in proportion as I grow in wisdom I am conscious of the presence of the sin something that marks the fairest sheet upon which I would write my history, something that plagues the heart in its innermost delights, something that twists and perverts everything I do that is of the quality of goodness I will look into God’s proposal. It is a proposal amounting to a miracle. He says, “Your sin is red like crimson, I will make it white as snow; it is a scarlet thing, I will make it like speckless wool: come now, let us reason together.” It is for me to accept the invitation. This will I do: I will arise and go to my Father, and say unto him, “I have sinned, and the spot marks the guilt I can never erase.” What is changed? Not the priestly idea, though the priestly person is changed. There is one Mediator, or Priest, between God and man, the Man Christ Jesus. We have a High Priest that abideth for ever. All we do in relation to the heavens we do through the medium of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and the Priest of the universe. He is able to save unto the uttermost all that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for us.
So then, now I examine the change, I find it is practically no change at all. In things accidental, accessory, contributory, in mere externals, the change is very great, but a very great change within a very small compass. What is left is this: God, sin, atonement, priestliness. Now I understand what Jesus said: “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.” What remains? The different offerings, they remain. We can never offer the same thing to God. Every man offers according to his quality and resources. What is prayer to one man is no prayer to another. God is judge. If I bring a turtle-dove or a young pigeon, when I might have brought the head of the herd, the poor bird will not be accepted; it will fly downwards. If I bring out of the flocks the best of the sheep, it will not be accepted if I could have brought my sacrifice of the herd, a male without blemish. We bring what we have. We do not all contribute in the same kind. The greatest contributors may be those who seem to contribute nothing. Even in the matter of giving of our wealth, Jesus Christ has a law of measurement. He said, concerning one who gave two mites, which make one farthing, “She hath given more than they all.” Some contribute thought, inspiration, personal magnetism; some communicate the contagion of enthusiasm; some give new ideas concerning the old truths, or set old truths in new lights and aspects; some give of the herd, some of the flock, and some of the aviary; some but two mites. What is it gives the value to the offering? The spirit. The primest bullock that ever browsed is a worthless offering, if it be given with begrudgement or reluctance; and the poorest effort in speech, in service, in prayer, in oblation, is a miracle, if done with the passion of the heart.
Note
If a man were rich and could afford it, he would bring his burnt sacrifice, with which he designed to honour God, out of his herd of larger cattle. He who considers what God is will resolve to give him the best he has; else he gives him not the glory due unto his name… Those of the middle rank, who could not well afford to offer a bullock, would bring a sheep or a goat, and those who were not able to do that would be accepted of God if they brought a turtle-dove or a pigeon. It is observable that those creatures were chosen for sacrifice which were most mild and gentle, harmless and inoffensive; to typify the innocence and meekness that were in Christ, and to teach the innocence and meekness that should be in Christians.
The Jews say this sacrifice of birds was one of the most difficult services the priests had to do. The priest would need to take as much care in offering this sacrifice as in any of the others; to teach those that minister in holy things to be as solicitous for the salvation of the souls of the poor as of the rich; their services are as acceptable to God, if they come from an upright heart, as the services of the rich; for he expects according to what a man hath, and not according to what he hath not ( 2Co 8:12 ). The poor man’s turtle-doves or young pigeons are here said to be an offering of a sweet savour, as much as those of an ox or a bullock, that hath horns and hoofs. Yet, to love God with all our heart, and to love our neighbours as ourselves, is better than all burnt-offerings and sacrifices ( Mar 12:33 ).
Commentary, Henry and Scott.
The Order of the Ancient Offerings
Lev 1
There is something very remarkable in the order in which the offerings, patriarchal and Jewish, were presented unto the Lord. I do not advise young readers to make themselves learnedly familiar with patriarchal and Jewish usage or ritual, but I do recommend them to look sufficiently into the old histories to make themselves acquainted with the elements that are permanent, and which throw light upon a development which was consummated in the cross and in the whole priesthood of Jesus Christ. The order of offering itself is a revelation. I do not go beyond that order to find proof that the book which sets it forth in historical sequence is a book inspired. The order in which the offerings were presented enables me to address every man as religious. It is a large sanctuary that throws out its sacred screen until it includes the man who is supposed not to be in church at all. God builds no little houses. He is not given to making small, dwarfed sanctuaries that can hold but a few. He means his Church to be typified by the blue sky when there is no cloud or fog in it, when it is at its very best in all the infinitude of its summer glory. It is then the blue dome best emblematises the Church and Kingdom of him who is all heart when he loves and all light when he guides.
I would that I could sufficiently prepare your minds, if they have not already undergone adequate preparation, for the statement of the order in which the offerings occurred. I could announce them at once. I do not want to throw the announcement away. I want to dally with you until I get you into the true tone and temper of mind for a revelation so brilliant and startling. I want to lead you away from commerce and anxiety, to excite you to a pitch of expectation, so that you may realise the infinite grandeur of the development The first offering that was presented in patriarchal ages was the burnt-offering. It was an appeal to fire. It did not mean destruction. The meaning of the burnt-offering was that which ascends. Think of it; that man first directed his attention to fire as a medium of worship. The flesh was not regarded as destroyed by burning, but as being sent up to God as a sweet-smelling savour. It was a typical offering of the hope of the whole life of the man who offered the sacrifice. Being put into modern language it meant, “I am God’s creature; my life is his; I give it to him; on the wings of fire my life ascends to his holy place, and daily I rise to the source of my being.” All religious acts mean more than they seem to mean. No religious act is measurable by words. It is not to be brought within a parenthesis, and yarded off into so many inches or ells; therefore it is more than probable that those who offered the burnt-offering had some deep conceptions of a moral kind. But these do not appear in the act; they are latent; they are hidden and stowed away in the consciousness of the worshipper who is dumb because of the vastness of the work he has undertaken. But the elementary meaning is ascending, returning as fire to the sun, for your fire in your little grate is a child of the sun, and when it flickers and spurts and crackles and blazes, what is it doing but seeking its source? Find Abel and find Noah, and others of patriarchal times, lighting their fire and offering their burnt-offering, and you find the very first principle of natural religion. That burnt-offering might represent the operation of an instinct Man is spoken of as a religious being. He goes out after the unknown God, and you cannot keep him back. He will make a God rather than not have one. He aspires, he ascends; earth is too little for him, time chokes him. He is almost God, even as fire in its blaze and glow and heaven-seeking flame is almost a human spirit at times. It burns for God, it seeks him fervently.
The patriarchal burnt-offering represented the indestructible God-seeking element in human nature. In that sense the fire upon the altar never goes out There are men amongst us to-day who are not in the Church, and who have no hymn-book and no pastor, and no locus standi in ecclesiastical courts, who are presenting the burnt-offering. They stand with Abel, they worship with Noah; they are in the twilight far back, but they are still within God’s great day of worship and grace and hope. The burnt-offering is the expression of an instinct. Now these men have dropped the word God. Perhaps they do not like it; perhaps the associations which have gathered round it have somewhat discouraged, or even distressed, them; perhaps they have been troubled by sectarian definitions of that infinite term, and by endeavours to house the Eternal within bricks of a merely denominational boundary, but they offer the burnt sacrifice to the Secret, the Force, the Totality of Being, the Something beyond, the plus, whatever it is. When they lift their necks and sigh because they have no speech, they are offering the burnt sacrifice; they are going up in pure flame to the Unmeasured and the Unnamed. Do I drive such men away as heathen, pagan, and alien? God forbid. I would they could offer at another altar which I shall presently name; meanwhile, if they sigh, they will be saved; if they want to know, they shall know; if they are offering the fire of an earnest and fervent wish, that fire will be accepted in its fullest meaning. Yet I would speak these words cautiously, and with distinct reservation, because, as a Christian teacher, I have to enforce Christian truth. I am speaking of men now who are sincere, real-hearted, simple-minded, without disingenuousness or complexity of thought, but who have come up to a point unknown, a secret unnameable, an uncontrollable force, and who worship by lifting silent eyes, or sighing out their wondering hearts, after that which they have not yet understood. The Lord accept their fire, and make their hearts warm with ever-growing desire after himself.
What was the next offering presented in patriarchal times and under the Jewish ritual? It was the peace-offering. The peace-offering had a double aspect. It was heaved, the action being the uplifted hand, ejaculated, thrown up, to the enthroned God, and there was a secondary action, lateral, waving, having great human meanings, pathetic outgoings towards human moods, human obligations, social trespasses and sins. Certain portions of the victim were offered upon the altar in burning, and the remainder of the flesh was eaten by the man who offered the sacrifice, and those who were associated with him. In heathen sacrifices the portion that was not burnt was saved to furnish materials for a feast There are some persons who do not understand eating and drinking. They are merely animal exercises to them. They do not like toasts; they disapprove them; and they are perfectly light under their narrow definitions. But to eat should be a religious exercise; the lifting of a hand over a table of feast should mean, “God be with us, every one; God forgive our sins and bind us in tenderer love.” Let us learn from the old heathen nations, when they had burnt part of the offering to the gods, they kept the other for a social feast, that eating and drinking, are sacramental acts when performed by religious souls they may be acts that can be done in stable or stye, they may be made sacraments unto God.
The peace-offering had therefore a divine uplifting and a human outlook and application. At times the innate brotherhood of the race declares itself in bursts of benevolence. We have to be at peace with one another. What is the meaning of apologising, pardon-seeking, mutual explanation, agreeing with the adversary quickly whilst he is in the way with us? What is the meaning of going to one another, and saying, “Brother, I have sinned against you; I have done you wrong”? That is the permanent element in the old patriarchal, Jewish, and pagan peace-offering. So, then, up to this point we are under the operation of what I may term religious instinct. Heathen nations have found out the things I have now been speaking about fire seeking, tremblingly, a source, with a modesty that makes it quiver, with an energy that cannot be turned aside; and a peace-offering, meaning, “I have injured you, we have injured one another, we have done to one another the things we ought not to have done; we apologise, we repent, we express contrition; we have a wave-offering; let us all accept it, and be at peace among ourselves.”
The burnt-offering, the peace-offering what next? The SIN-offering! It is a beautiful development. The sin-offering comes under law and is full of mystery. Unlike the burnt-offering and the peace-offering, it is not wholly measurable by an instinct. It roots itself in an instinct, but goes beyond it. The sin-offering is a revelation: not in patriarchal annals but in Mosaic records we read how the blood shed in sacrifice was to be treated. Now we come to blood. Where do you first read of the blood, in this relation? You should make yourselves, younger readers, familiar with the beginnings of great rivers; you should explore these Niles of thought. We read of blood in this relation for the first time in the twelfth chapter of Exodus, which treats of the sprinkling of the blood of the lamb on the door-posts of the houses of the Israelites. It was to save them from destruction. The next mention of blood is in the twenty-fourth chapter of Exodus. This should be specially noticed. Blood was now to be used in common with burnt-offerings and peace-offerings of the covenant of Sinai. Thus all that was instinctive was taken up into the region of revelation, and was baptized with blood. The burnt-offering and the peace-offering were no longer instinctive ceremonies, they were baptized with the red blood and made holy unto the Lord as offerings that expressed his revealed will.
When the sin-offering was presented, a portion of blood was offered to the Lord by being put on the horns of the altar, and the rest, except on certain occasions, was poured away at the base of the altar. The blood was the life: to offer the blood was typically to die: in emblem the sinner slew himself. Now look at the development the burnt-offering, consecration; the peace-offering, the humanity of religion; the sin-offering, atonement, sacrifice, propitiation words not to be caught within a theory, and to be seen only once in a lifetime. Distrust those who have theories of the atonement. You can only see the atonement for a moment. Christ could only suffer his agony once. Such agonies are not to be repeated. You do not see the atonement with a cold reason: you cannot analyse it and then synthesise and play theologico-metaphysical tricks and games with the heart of God. Once your eyes will be opened you will see it see the Cross, see the bursting heart, and you will be saved. God’s Christianity is a religion of fire. Only under the excitement of the soul, which amounts to a divine inspiration, an opening of the eyes by God himself, can we see the Cross. I once saw it: it abides within me as the sun abides: after you have seen it for a moment with the open eye, close the eye and the sun is still there. It is in you. As to reasoning about it, and logically persuading a man that God died for him logic and God are never brought together in this connection; it is an unholy union; see the Sin and you will see the Mercy!
Through some such process must we all come. You are offering the burnt sacrifice; I thank God, I hail you as a brother. You are offering peace sacrifices, you want good will amongst men, peace on earth, happy family relationships you want to diffuse the spirit of brotherhood. Thank God; you are not far from the kingdom. Only get a man out of himself to think about anybody else in the world, and he is on the road to God. Now that is not enough: the sin-offering takes up the preliminary sacrifices, gives them their true meaning, their highest application, and extracts from them all that is permanent and valuable in their purpose. We have not come to the mount that might be touched, to Mount Sinai; we have not come to the Jewish shambles, red with blood, reeking with outpoured life we have come to Calvary, to the slain Man, to the Lamb of God a great mystery, but I wanted it to round off my thinking, I wanted it as a sky to my earth I had made a little mud floor which I called earth, I wanted that higher floor to set above it like a sky, rich with one sun, wealthy with innumerable stars.
Where are you? Still following your instinct? I call you to obey a revelation. Still occupying yourself with human relationships? I call upon you to see the divine meaning and purpose. Where are you at the Cross? Stay there. With Jesus? Never leave him. With the blood that speaketh better things than the blood of Abel? Long for no higher eloquence. Then is my life to be spent in sighing at the Cross? No. How? On the Cross. We are to be crucified with Christ, we are to know the fellowship of his sufferings, we are to be living sacrifices. The Lord drive back those baptized in grace who are making a luxury of Christianity, a pillow of down of Christian revelation the Lord send them back to the burnt-offering and the peace-offering, for they have mistaken the genius of the last revelation. If our Christian religion is not a passion, it is a lie. The old doctors of the Church said that if Christ was not God, he was not good. ” Non Deus, non bonus .” If we are not alive with fire we are twice dead we shall be plucked up by the roots.
And as for thee, earnest man, all flame, know the spirit of judgment is to be united with the spirit of burning, that zeal is to be balanced by knowledge, that the true logic is love, not reason, directed by all the highest powers of the mind. Thou shalt love with all thy mind. Intellect itself is to be a flame, cold understanding is to be warmed up into a burning affection. These are great mysteries, but the elect of God will understand them.
Prayer
Almighty God, all things do change, but thou changest not: thou art the same, and thy years do not fail. The heavens grow old, and the earth, and all things made by thine almightiness; but thou remainest upon the throne from age to age, ruling, governing, redeeming, and blessing the sons of men. Thou wilt reign evermore: the Lord reigneth, let the earth rejoice. Jesus Christ thy Son shall reign till all enemies are put under his feet The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death: death shall be swallowed up in victory; then shall there be a shouting of great gladness in thine house, because there shall be no more death. Thou art taking away one and another, still thy Church abides; speech after speech ends and is forgotten, but the word of the Lord abideth for ever. We bless thee for that which is permanent amidst that which is always passing away. Thou thyself art the Living One: the generations come and go, but the Creator sits upon the throne time without end. May we be found worshippers of God through our Lord Jesus Christ, adoring the Father, loving and serving the Son, and receiving constantly the sanctifying ministry of the Holy Ghost, until we become temples of the triune God, and body, soul, and spirit all, is without flaw, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, glorious with the splendour and beautiful with the comeliness of Christ. The Lord light a fire in the midst of us that shall not consume; the Lord address a gospel to every heart that shall call it to its noblest hopes and consecrate it to divinest service. Reordain all thy ministers every day; baptize thy people with a double portion of thy Spirit morning by morning; regard the lambs of the flock with shepherdly tenderness; may all workers work with both hands, and may all sufferers magnify the patience of Christ. Amen.
Fuente: The People’s Bible by Joseph Parker
III
OFFERINGS
Leviticus 1-7
I make some general statements that apply to those books of the Pentateuch before Leviticus. In sacrifices of every kind, we commence with the fundamental idea of vicarious expiation. Vicarious means “in the place of another,” a substitute dying for another. The next advance in thought is the atonement that is made in heaven based upon the blood that he shed here upon earth. The next thought is, how the blood of the expiatory sacrifice is applied to the sinner. The next is, that but once is the expiatory blood ever sprinkled on the mercy seat; after that, it is sprinkled just outside the most holy place. There are sins that a man commits after Christ’s blood is applied, and for these sins there are offerings and the application to the forgiveness of sins; those particular offenses and all of these things are presented in this book and afterward realized in the New Testament idea.
First of all the offerings is the vicarious offering, simply because every other one depends on that. You couldn’t offer what is called a thank offering unless there had first been an expiatory offering based upon which the thank offering can be offered. One cannot offer a peace offering unless it is based upon the idea of an expiation that has preceded that peace offering. The fundamental idea then is the expiatory sacrifice of the substitutionary victim.
The word “burnt offering” is a very comprehensive term. A burnt offering may be a sin offering, it may be a consecration offering, it may be a meal offering or it may be a peace offering. Then the burnt offering may be burnt in whole or in part. In the case of a sin offering it is always burnt, every make his offering. Now, poor people could not have offered pigeon. Why? Why that variety? So that every one could bit of it; so in the consecration offerings; in others only a part is burnt. So it is very easy to get your mind confused on the burnt offering.
The next thought in connection with the burnt offering is, where it is burned. There are only two places where the burnt offering can be burned. If it is a sin offering as well as a burnt offering, it is all burned outside the camp; but if it is a consecration burnt offering, or of that kind, the burning is always on the brazen altar of sacrifice.
Now, let us take up the idea of the burnt offering which is for the purpose of consecration. These offerings, or consecrations, are of great variety. I will tell you why directly. One might offer a bullock, a goat, a sheep, a turtledove, or a young a bullock when they wanted to consecrate themselves unto God; it was more than they were able to pay. It is an indication of the extreme poverty of our Lord’s family that when they went to consecrate him they could not bring any more than a pair of turtledoves. The object of the variety is to enable everybody to make an offering, whether rich or poor.
The next thought in this connection is, that this must always be a whole offering, not a part. If one was rich enough to offer a bullock, he must offer the whole bullock and the whole bullock was burned. If he was so poor that he could only offer turtledoves, he never presented half of the turtledove or pigeon, but presented the whole dove, the whole pigeon.
The next thought is the last on the consecration offering, viz.: that no life can be consecrated unless it has first been saved; therefore, I say expiation comes first. Now leaving the expiation idea, let us see what is the thought. When a man is saved, saved by the blood of Jesus Christ, what is the first question for him? It is that his entire life and everything that he has is to be consecrated to God. This is the first thought. That was the thought when Jesus was presented in the Temple and when the appearance of the turtledoves indicated the consecration. Everything that he had was laid upon the altar of God.
Now let us look at an era of Texas history. All of you who live in Texas have doubtless heard George Truett’s sermon on consecration. I am sure he has preached it a hundred times. The idea is the giving up wholly to God after you are first saved; that you cannot give your sinful nature to God, but if the blood of Christ has cleansed you, then you can come before God. That is what this Levitical law requires. He was to bring the turtledoves and the whole of them was to be put upon the altar.
Now let us look at the ritual for the consecration offering. When one made that offering, first of all he laid his hands upon it. That indicates the idea of the transfer of his sins to the victim; it also indicates that his faith laid hold on that victim for what was done for him in that offering. In the New Testament times, you will see that the laying on of hands came to signify the imparting of the Holy Spirit.
What was done with the expiatory blood? That was carried into the most holy place and sprinkled on the mercy seat. What was done with the blood of the victim in the consecration offering? It was never carried and sprinkled on the mercy seat, because it was based on the expiation, but it was sprinkled on the sides of the brazen altar. Now, get these significant thoughts in your mind. This is to show that one must offer to God, without any mental reservation whatever, an entire consecration of affection, of talents, of money, of everything that he has. That is why Brother Truett preached that sermon so much. He saw the little things that Christians were doing, and the ease with which they go along, and he wanted to preach that fundamental sermon which would show them that if they were God’s children then they were called upon to lay upon the altar themselves and everything that they had. As Paul says about the churches of Macedonia, that they first gave themselves and then gave their contribution. A contribution without giving yourself doesn’t count.
Now, let us get the idea of fire, the burning, that is, God’s acceptance of the consecration. When the fire consumes utterly the whole of the burnt offering that is laid upon the altar, that fire represents the idea of God’s acceptance and appropriation of the consecration of the entire life. Take, for example, the marvelous scene that occurred in the days of Elijah. The people assembled to determine who was the true God, Jehovah or Baal. The priests of Baal built their altar and laid their sacrifices on it, and then from morning till evening prayed: “O Baal, hear us; now if Baal be God, let him send down the fire and show that he accepts it.” Elijah wanted to show them the difference in the case of Jehovah. So when he had prepared the altar and laid the victim on it, he had barrels of water poured on the victim until the water filled the trenches around the altar of Jehovah. If Jehovah had fire hot enough to consume it, he was surely God. When he prayed, “O, Jehovah, hear us,” fire came down and devoured the sacrifice and licked up the water out of the trenches. The significance of the fire is that it is God’s acceptance of the offering.
The next thought is that which takes place when the smoke of the offering goes up. When you come to the New Testaments Paul says that when they made their offerings it was a sweet savour unto God (Phi 4:18 ).
Now let us take up the next burnt offerings, i.e., the meal offerings. This is not the consecration offering. This consists, as to its materials, of an agricultural product of one kind or another. And when they were brought up and put upon the altar, what is meant by it? It means that, as the whole life was consecrated to God in the consecration offerings, in this one the idea is service. First, we have expiation, then consecration, then service, and these thoughts presented in the book of Leviticus are of real value. If you were to go to preach a sermon on this, you would divide it thus: First, expiation, then atonement, then the consecration of the entire life which has been saved, then service.
There is another distinction between the meal offering and the consecration offering, viz.: that it is intended by the meal offering to make a contribution to the ministers of religion, priests in those times, preachers in these times; that it is a reasonable service of saved men, consecrated men, devoted to service, to minister carnal things to those who minister unto them spiritual things. So, a large part of the offering went to the priest, and to show the application of it in the New Testament Paul says that they went up to the altar and partook of the things of the altar. So God has ordained that those who preach the gospel should live of the gospel. In the last chapter of Leviticus there is this addition made, viz.: the tithe of all that God had given them, and that tenth, or tithe, was for keeping up the worship, or service of God. The peace offering must never precede the expiation. There is no peace with God until the sins are expiated. The peace offering is not all burned, only a part of it. The object of the peace offering was not to obtain peace. In other words, the peace offering relates to peace because of expiation, and Paul translates that idea into the New Testament language, “Being justified by faith, let us have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.” The justification is based on the expiation. There is no such thing as peace, spiritual peace with God, until first there has been justification and atonement and God has declared one justified. In this peace offering we come also to the idea of fellowship. Here the people share with the priest in eating of what is not burned. Only certain parts are burned; the other parts are kept for a feast and the people come up and eat with the officers and the priests in this.
We now come to a distinction in what are called sin offerings. In burning the offerings known as the sin offerings, if one was a king or a priest, he had to make a greater offering than if he had been one of the common people. Why is that? Now, just think about it. It means that if a king’s son sins or if the preacher sins, it is a greater offense than if any one else sins, because he occupies a higher position. It is required that those who bear the vessels of God should be holy. I heard a preacher say that he had as much right to do wrong as any one in his congregation. Perhaps he did, but the responsibility on that preacher to abstain from doing wrong is stronger than on a member of his congregation and he is held to a stricter and larger account.
I now call your attention to this feature of the sin offering, viz.: the Old Testament makes it perfectly clear that a sin offering must be made for a sin of which the person is unconscious; for sins that are unwittingly done. I heard a Methodist preacher give a definition of sin. He said, “Sin is a voluntary transgression of a known law.” I told him to strike out “voluntary” and strike out “known” and even then he would not have a true definition of sin. Suppose that a little child steps on a red-hot iron, does the child’s unwitting act or ignorant act keep that hot iron from burning its foot? You hold out a candle before a baby; it looks pretty and he will reach out and grab it and is burned. The law of nature is fixed. Now you apply that to the spiritual world. Law is not a sliding scale; law is a fixed thing; a thing is right or a thing is wrong, utterly regardless of whether we know it to be right or know it to be wrong. David offers this prayer: “Cleanse thou me from secret faults.” Not faults that he is keeping secret, but of which he is utterly unconscious.
And it is in this connection that I must speak of a very important matter of which Leviticus does not treat at all, viz.: the sin for which no offering can be made. We learn about it when we come to Numbers. The soul that doeth right in ignorance, an atonement shall be made for that sin; the soul that doeth ought presumptuously, no atonement can be made for that sin. If we sin wilfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sin but the certain fearful looking for judgment. Now, Jesus taught that a certain kind of sin is an eternal sin. It never has forgiveness, neither in this world nor in the world to come. That does not mean that some sins are forgiven here and some over yonder, but that God may forgive sins as for eternity and yet chastise the sinner here upon earth. When we come to the New Testament, particularly, to discuss the unpardonable sin, the sin for which there is no provision for forgiveness, I will show you how easily one may become possessed with the idea of committing the unpardonable sin.
I received a letter from a soldier in the regular army last year. He said, “I have never met you but I have heard that you have studied the Bible a great deal. I am in deep trouble. I have knowingly and wilfully committed sin.” Then he quoted that passage, “If we sin wilfully.” And he says, “Have I not committed the unpardonable sin?” I wrote him that his trouble arose from misunderstanding the kind of knowledge that meant; that it did not mean a sin against intellectual knowledge. The unpardonable sin is a sin against spiritual knowledge. Paul says that he sinned ignorantly, and that did not mean that he was intellectually ignorant of the Old Testaments, but he meant that he did not have the spiritual light that points to Jesus Christ.
The only way in which a man can commit the sin for which there is no atonement to be made is in a case like this: We will suppose that a great meeting is in progress, in which the power of God is marvelously displayed; in which the people of God are praying; in which the presence of God is felt in their gathering by any Christian. If, while preaching is going on in such a meeting and Jesus Christ is held up, a sinner is impressed by the Spirit of God that the preacher is telling the truth, that he (the sinner) is a lost soul, and that Jesus is his appointed Saviour, and he, under that spiritual knowledge, feels impressed to make & movement forward and accept Christ and turns away from that spiritual knowledge and says “No,” deliberately, maliciously, and wilfully walking away from it, that is the unpardonable sin. I heard a preacher once, when he saw a boy and girl laughing, accuse them of committing the unpardonable sin. I thought he was committing a great sin to make such accusation. Now, I have discussed the sin for which there is no offering. I have brought it in here because I don’t want to discuss it twice.
Suppose I should ask this question: What is the difference between the sin offering and the trespass offering? I will mention one; it is not all. Suppose a man in ancient times killed another one, the sin offering was made; suppose he stole $100 from a man, then he brought the trespass offering; one is called a sin offering and the other, trespass offering. In the trespass offering, one has to make restitution before he gets forgiveness. He can’t restore if he has killed a man; but if he has stolen money, if it is in his power, he must give the money back. Shakespeare asks this question: “Can a man be pardoned and retain the offence?” If he slips into your room and appropriates a piece of your property and goes off and says, “God forgive me,” God says, “Go and put the property back.” In the sin offering, there is no restitution on his part; there, the great sacrifice of Jesus is the one; but here is something he can do.
Now, who can answer this question: What denomination insists most on restitution where one has committed the trespass? I am sorry that I cannot say that it is the Baptists. It is the Roman Catholics. Just; let any one come and confess to a priest and want absolution don’t believe in confessing to a priest, but let that man come there and make that confession and that priest will insist on restitution before he will absolve him; no way to get out of it.
How is it with most people on that matter? They are ashamed to make restitution, because restitution exposes them. They often do it secretly. For instance, a man by unrighteousness, by burdening a thousand hearts, by bringing desolation into a thousand homes, will acquire an immense fortune. He does not feel right about it and wants to ease his conscience. He won’t come out and say, “I did wrong,” but he says, “I will give to one of the religious denominations, or I will build a church, or I will establish some good charity.” Do you know that a unique part of American history illustrates that part of the case? That is the conscience fund. The United States had to establish a conscience fund. They get so many letters of this kind unsigned: “I robbed the government by withholding a tax that was due. I should have paid it. My conscience so lashes me under religious conviction that I am compelled now to put that money back.” Now, this same conscience fund has assumed enormous proportions. Men feel that they do not want to come out and make a confession. They do not come out and say, “Mr. A and Mr. B confess to have stolen from the government.” It is a fine thing in America that conscience takes hold of us.
Now, study the difference in the trespass offering and the sin offering and you will see that in the case of the trespass offering there must be restitution not only in the law which was broken but fourfold. Zaccheus in the New Testament times says, “Lord, if I have wronged anybody, I restore it fourfold,” which is a reference to this law. As I have borne testimony to the fidelity of the Roman Catholics, I will tell you an amusing thing in literature. One of the greatest historic romancers was Sir Walter Scott, who wrote the book, The Betrothed. A certain castle was left in charge of a knight, to be held faithfully until the owner returned from the Holy Land. A certain number of Flemish people had come over from Flanders and had established a colony under the walls of the castle. When the old knight went out to fight his battle in which he thought he would die, he put this old Flemish man in charge of his castle. The priest distrusted the Flemish man. He believed the Fleming was about to receive overtures from the enemy. The danger was that they were about to destroy the castle. So they managed to get him to hold parley that if they would deliver a certain number of cattle, that he would consider opening the gates to them. The old priest disguised himself and heard the Fleming make that treaty and he determined to denounce him. The Fleming took the priest aside and said: “Father, I have a daughter, Rose. I got into financial trouble and I promised a man that I would give him my daughter if he would give me four hundred marks, and now I have received the four hundred marks and I don’t want to give my daughter.” “Sir, you must restore the four hundred marks.” “Well, but, Father,” he says, “those cattle you see coming yonder are the marks I received, the daughter Rose is this castle. Now, must I restore those cattle?” “No, you fool, the church makes a distinction in certain matters.” And the priest was right in his interpretation, because to restore those cattle meant not being true to the trust of the old knight and was to restore that over which the Fleming had no jurisdiction. He was very much amazed that he did not intend to betray him.
Suppose a man is called in to witness in a court and gives false testimony and an innocent man is made to suffer. He dies on the gallows. Now, this man whose false testimony convicted him has come under conviction himself, spiritual conviction. That prisoner is dead and gone. He brings the case to a preacher. “Now, what must I do? I cannot restore that man’s life.” The preacher says, “No, but you can restore his reputation; you can take the shame off his wife and children, and you must come out. I cannot encourage you that God will save you if you do not come out openly before the world and admit your guilt.” That illustrates the restitution idea; that if you cannot restore all and can restore part, you must restore all that you can.
QUESTIONS
1. Give a general statement applying to all the books of the Pentateuch touching sacrifices.
2. What of the signification of the blood sprinkled outside the most holy place?
3. What offering precedes all others and why?
4. What can you say of the sweep of burnt offerings?
5. What are the different kinds of burnt offerings?
6. What is the order of these offerings?
7. What of distinction in the burning?
8. Where were they burned?
9. What three characteristics of the consecration offerings?
10. Upon what must the consecration offering be based?
11. What modern preacher has a great sermon on consecration and what the main point?
12. What does the ritual prescribe for the consecration offering?
13. What of the signification of the laying on of hands?
14. What was done with the blood?
15. If an expiatory offering, where placed and why?
16. What of the signification of the fire in the consecration offering?
17. What Old Testament illustration of this idea of fire?
18. What does Paul gay of this from God’s viewpoint?
19. What is the idea of the meal offering?
20. Give the scriptural order of the sacrifices.
21. What is the object in the meal offering?
22. What New Testament corresponds to this teaching?
23. What was added later to supplement the offerings?
24. In the peace offering, how much burned?
25. What was the object, negatively and positively?
26. In the case of the sin offering, how burned?
27. Where was the blood placed?
28. What distinction in the case of kings and priests, and why?
29. For what kind of sins were sin offerings made?
30. What is sometimes given as a definition of sin?
31. What words should be stricken from this definition?
32. Is this, then, a good definition, and why?
33. What great sin is not discussed in Leviticus?
34. What is that sin?
35. What distinction between sin offering and trespass offering?
36. What said Shakespeare on this point?
37. What denomination insists most upon this?
38. How is this with most people?
39. How do some attempt to make restitution?
40. How has Uncle Sam provided for this?
41. Give a New Testament reference to the law of the trespass offering.
42. What of the point in the illustration from Scott?
43. What of the relation of this law to the trespass offering to salvation. Illustrate.
Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible
Lev 1:1 And the LORD called unto Moses, and spake unto him out of the tabernacle of the congregation, saying,
Ver. 1. And the Lord called. ] A continuation of the former history, from the rearing of the tabernacle to the numbering of the people; being the history of one month only.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Leviticus Chapter 1
THE BURNT OFFERING.
Let it be noticed that Lev. 1-3 are one utterance of Jehovah. They are the three offerings of a sweet odour to Him, though differing in other respects. They are the positive side of Christ as a Fire offering, a savour of rest to Jehovah. They are not for inadvertent sin against any of His commandments, or for guilt where His name and ritual may enter, or for reparation in His holy things, or in neighbourly wrongs. The first were God’s appointed ground and means of approach to Him Who had come down to dwell in their midst, but in His sanctuary, the tent of meeting for His people. From Lev 4 to Lev 6:7 are sin and guilt offerings, to remove hindrances or restore interrupted communion with Him Who on the day of atonement established the title of His people to draw near Him.
The most important of the sweet savour gifts or presentations was the Burnt offering. With this the Olah or Holocaust Jehovah began.
“And Jehovah called unto Moses and spoke to him out of the tent of meeting, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel and say unto them, When a man of you presenteth an offering to Jehovah, ye shall present your offering of the cattle, of the herd and of the flock. If his offering [be] a burnt offering of the herd, he shall present it a male, perfect; at the entrance of the tent of meeting he shall present it for his acceptance before Jehovah. And he shall lay his hand on the head of the burnt offering; and it shall be accepted for him to atone for him. And he shall slay the bullock before Jehovah; and Aaron’s sons, the priests, shall present the blood and sprinkle the blood round about on the altar that [is] at the entrance of the tent of meeting. And he shall flay the burnt offering and cut it up into its pieces. And the sons of Aaron the priest shall put fire on the altar, and lay wood in order on the fire; and Aaron’s sons, the priests shall lay the parts, the head, and the fat, in order on the wood that [is] on the fire which [is] on the altar. But its inwards and its legs shall he wash in water; and the priest shall burn all on the altar, a burnt offering, a fire offering of sweet odour to Jehovah.”
Had there been no sin in man, or death through it, we could scarce conceive of a Burnt offering. Yet it is an offering neither for sin nor for guilt, but God glorified where sin was by a victim, the blood of which covered it from God’s eyes, as the fire consumed it and brought out nothing but sweet savour. The steer, which the offerer brought near as an offering, presented in type the perfectness of Christ in giving Himself up to death in love and for the glory of God, unreservedly surrendering His life yet in obedience, the plainest contrast with Adam forfeiting his by disobedience. It was for the offerer’s acceptance, and it made atonement for him; which could not be without death and the shedding of blood, and the fire-testing of divine judgment which consumed all with no other consequence than a savour of rest to Him.
A sinful man can approach God on this ground only. It foreshadowed Christ, Who through the Spirit eternal offered Himself spotless to God; or as He said beforehand, Therefore doth the Father love Me, because I lay down My life that I may take it up again. No one taketh it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it again: this commandment I received of My Father. So in Heb 10 quoting Psa 40 , He says, Lo! I am come to do Thy will, O God. By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. He came thus to replace what the first man wrought in wronging God, by His perfect giving Himself up to death and judgment that God might he glorified in Him, now man, and thus clothe with His own acceptance those who believed in Him. Now the Son of man is glorified, and God is glorified in Him. Great as was Adam’s sin, infinitely greater is the Second man’s obedience unto death; and who can sum up the immense and countless results in blessing for faith now, as for ever and for the universe when power will act publicly to God’s glory?
It was not the priest’s part but the offerer’s to present the victim at the entrance of the tent of meeting, or at the brazen altar (ver. 3). It was he too who laid his hand on the head of the burnt offering (ver. 4). This signified identification by grace with the offering. The acceptance of the Holocaust was transferred to the offerer. As the Son emptied Himself to become not man only but a bondman, and, when so found, humbled Himself in obedience as far as death on a cross, God answered, not by reconciling and forgiving only but, by setting man in His person and through His work in His own glory. Only none share the blessedness but those who believe, certainly not such as despise Himself and God’s call by unbelief. After the animal was slain, the proper priestly work began in sprinkling the blood round about on the altar (ver. 5); as it was theirs to put fire on and lay wood to feed it (vers. 7, 8). The washing in water accomplished for the offering inwardly and outwardly the purity which was intrinsically true only of Christ. And this under His absolutely searching judgment went up to God an odour of rest (ver. 9). It has been justly remarked that the word for “burn” here, not in the offerings for sin or trespass, is the same as for burning the incense: a striking if minute proof of their essential difference, though both coalesce in setting forth fully the wondrous death of Christ.
It is observable that not only in the Holocaust but in all the offerings of, sweet savour, variety within prescribed limits was left to the offerer. In the Sin offerings it was not so: the offering was fixed by the ordinance of Jehovah, save that a slight degree of licence was permitted to one of the people of the land (Lev 4 ). Where sin was not the urgent question, grace exercised the heart which gave according to its means. And special consideration was had of the poor that they should not be debarred from an offering which rose up to God acceptably, the shadow of the infinite excellency which He was in due time to provide, as well as find, in the Son giving Himself to death for His glory. For it was to meet Him from the place and race where sin reigned by death; and this could only be in such a sacrifice as presented Christ in His death of entire and acceptable self-surrender.
Two things were thus, made evident, and each of them most precious. If the several forms of the offering represent the differing degrees of faith in the offerers, as we may suppose, Jehovah as truly accepted the least measure of the Burnt offering, as the greatest; His eye beheld the same perfect sacrifice in all. The acceptance of the offerer did not vary, because the offering did that typified Christ. The offering of Christ’s body was one and the same perfect value for all that are His.
“And if his offering be of the flock, of the sheep, or of the goats, for a burnt offering, he shall present it a male perfect. And he shall slay it on the side of the altar northward before Jehovah; and Aaron’s sons the priests shall sprinkle its blood on the altar round about. And he shall cut it into its pieces, and its head, and its fat; and the priest shall lay them in order on the wood that is on the fire on the altar. But the inwards and the legs shall be washed with water. And the priest shall present all and burn on the altar; it is a burnt offering, a fire offering of sweet savour to Jehovah.”
But faith, be it ever so real, is not equally simple or strong in those that believe. And our estimate of Christ is as our faith. It varies in the saints, as their faith does. Happy they who rest on God’s estimate of Him and His work.
Where this is the childlike yet unwavering conviction by the word and Spirit of God, rest and liberty, and the deepest enjoyment follow. We know, as the apostle Peter wrote, that we were redeemed, not with corruptible things as silver and gold, but with the precious blood of Christ as a lamb without blemish and without spot, fore-known as He was before the world’s foundation, but manifested at the end of the times for our sakes, that through Him believe in God Who raised Him from the dead and gave Him glory that our faith and hope should be in God. Scripture is clear and conclusive, as the apostle Paul preached without reserve, that in (or, in virtue of) Christ every believer is justified from all things from which they could not be justified by the law of Moses.
But feebleness of faith has its effect nevertheless in proportionately impairing the soul’s present happiness and power. How many saints, instead of looking for peace outside themselves in Christ and His work for them, occupy themselves with searching within for signs of the Spirit’s work in them as born anew! Peace is thus an impossibility; for it was only made by the blood of Christ’s cross. Thus only have we peace with God as justified by faith. Where one sees new birth on the contrary the Spirit gives one to see and abhor, not only past sins, but this evil and wilful nature, the old man, which gave them being.
No doubt the Christian is called to prove himself, and thus to partake of the Lord’s supper; and if we scrutinised ourselves, instead of walking carelessly, we should not fall under His faithful discipline, that we may not be condemned with the world. But peace with God by the faith of Christ, is intended to strengthen salutary self-judgment, which in itself, if thorough, could only produce misery or despair. For it would then rest on the mistaken basis of our state, and therefore must fluctuate as we see fruits of the Spirit or the lack of them. The more upright in this case, the less could we be satisfied with what we find, and should be therefore exposed to any illusive nostrum which ministered self-complacency under the name of holiness.
It is obvious in the second and third alternatives that there is no such declaration of acceptance before Jehovah, and of atonement made for the offerer as in vers. 3 and 4. The rest is pretty much the same. Faith in every case is blessed; but the fully known result is according to the fuller estimate of Christ and His work.
The least form of this offering is mentioned naturally in the last place. How gracious of God not only to accept it as distinctly as the greatest, but to give the offerers the express assurance that so it was!
“And if his offering to Jehovah be a burnt offering of fowls, then he shall present his offering of turtle- doves or of young pigeons. And the priest shall bring it near to the altar, and wring [or, pinch] off its head, and burn it on the altar; and its blood shall be drained [or, pressed] out at the side of the altar. And he shall take away its crop with its feathers [or, refuse] and cast it beside the altar on the east into the place of the ashes; and he shall split it at its wings, [but] not divide [it] asunder; and the priest shall burn it on the altar on the wood that is on the fire: it is a Burnt offering, a fire offering of sweet savour to Jehovah “
Jehovah would give the poorest of His people the means of presenting to Himself the shadow of what was most precious in Christ’s offering of Himself to God. For among the ordinary sacrifices the Burnt offering had an unequalled place. All the others were partaken of more or less by man; the Meal offering was largely for the use of the priests; of course also the Peace offering, which pre-eminently expressed the privilege of fellowship; and even of the Sin offering or of the trespass offering, unless in the special form when the blood was put within the veil, every male among the priests was enjoined to eat in a holy place, as they ate of the Meal offering. But in no case did a soul of man, not even the high priest, eat of the burnt offering. It was offered to God, assuredly on behalf of His people for their acceptance, but only to God.
But if the offering of turtle-doves or of young pigeons, as truly brought before the eyes of Jehovah the efficacious death of His Son as that of the bullock or of the sheep, it is the more remarkable that part, not of the larger, but of the smallest Burnt offering, was thrown away. It was to be split, not divided; but the offerer was to take away the crop with the feathers, or refuse, and cast it beside the altar on the east into the place of the ashes.
Thus there is a marked falling short of the complete idea of the Burnt offering where all rose up to God as a savour of rest. Poverty of faith has its effect now at any rate. Christ is the same perfect Saviour of all that are His. The acceptance of each is according to all that God appreciated in Him and His work. All have been and are not only sanctified as a settled fact through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all, but He has thereby perfected the sanctified without even a break, not for ever merely but continuously. Their standing is secured uninterruptedly.
How is it then that feebleness of faith works? It fails to give adequate glory to God. It detracts from the soul’s fulness of enjoyment of Christ and His work. Part of the fowls was “cast away,” and “into the place of the ashes.” Weak faith does not undo the perfecting of the saints before God. The acceptance which Christ’s work confers on the believer abides untouched. God sees all that are His according to Christ, His standard; but the weaker the faith, the more the believer mingles the sense of drawback because of his failures with the blessedness to which the Holy Spirit bears His testimony. Hence the distinctness of what the Burnt offering means is impaired. In the soul’s apprehension it is made to approach an offering for sin. Of God glorified in Christ’s death, and ourselves identified with Christ thereby, such a one enters into little if at all. One is content then to look at no more than His bearing our sins in His own body on the tree: in itself a most necessary blessing, but assuredly short of appropriating the distinctive truth of the Burnt offering.
Deterioration as well as difference of degree appears in others of these types as may be shown in due time. This tends to confirm the thought here. But, however this may be judged, the fact is certain among believers; and the result of not entering into the various aspects and relations of Christ’s sacrifice is that souls lose not a little in clear and bright perception of the truth, and of their own blessing consequently. Hence the importance of heeding every divine intimation of the revealed mind of Christ, that we may thus grow in and by the knowledge of God.
Fuente: William Kelly Major Works (New Testament)
Leviticus
THE BURNT OFFERING A PICTURE AND A PROPHECY
Lev 1:1 – Lev 1:9
In considering the Jewish sacrificial system, it is important to distinguish the symbolical from the typical value of the sacrifices. The former could scarcely be quite unnoticed by the offerers; but the latter was only gradually made plain, was probably never very generally seen, and is a great deal clearer to us, in the light of Christ, the Antitype, than it could ever have been before His coming. As symbols, the sacrifices expressed great eternal truths as to spiritual worship and communion, its hindrances, requisites, manner, and blessings. They were God’s picture-book for these children in religious development. As types, they shadowed the work of Jesus Christ and its results.
The value of the sacrifices in either aspect is independent of modern questions as to their Mosaic origin; for at whatever period the Priest’s Code was promulgated, it equally bears witness to the ruling ideas of the offerings, and, in any case, it was long before Christ came, and therefore its prophecy of Him is as supernatural, whether Moses or Ezra were its author. I make this remark, not as implying that the new theory is not revolutionary, but simply as absolving a student of the religious significance of the sacrificial system from entering here on questions of date.
The ‘burnt offering’ stands first in Leviticus for several reasons. It was derived from patriarchal times; it was offered twice daily, besides frequently on other occasions; and in its significance it expressed the complete consecration which should be the habitual state of the true worshipper. Its name literally means ‘that which ascends,’ and refers, no doubt, to the ascent of the transformed substance of the sacrifice in fire and smoke, as to God. The central idea of this sacrifice, then, as gathered from its name and confirmed by its manner, is that of the yielding of the whole being in self-surrender, and borne up by the flame of intense consecration to God. Very beautiful is the variety of material which was permitted. The poor man’s pair of pigeons went up with as sweet an odour as the rich man’s young bull. God delights in the consecration to Him of ourselves and our powers, no matter whether they be great or small, if only the consecration be thorough, and the whole being be wrapped in the transforming blaze.
It is worth while to try to realise the strange and to our eyes repulsive spectacle of the burnt offering, which is veiled from us by its sacred associations. The worshipper leads up his animal by some rude halter, and possibly resisting, to the front of the Tabernacle, the courts of which he dared not tread, but which was to him the dwelling-place of God. There by the altar he stands, and, first pressing his hand with force on the victim’s head, he then, with one swift cut, kills it, and as the warm blood spouts from the mangled throat, the attendant priest catches it in a basin, and, standing at the two diagonally opposite corners of the altar in turn, dashes, with one dexterous twist, half of the contents against each, so as to wet two sides of the altar with one throw, and the other two with the other. The offerer then flays the reeking carcase, tossing the gory hide to the priest as his perquisite, and cuts up the sacrifice according to a fixed method. His part of the work is done, and he stands by with bloody hands while the priests arrange the pieces on the pile on the altar; and soon the odour of burning flesh and the thick smoke hanging over the altar tell that the rite is complete. What a scene it must have been when, as on some great occasions, hundreds of burnt offerings were offered in succession! The place and the attendants would look to us liker shambles and butchers than God’s house and worshippers.
Now, if we inquire into the significance of the offering, it turns on two points-expiation and burning. The former it has in common with other bloody sacrifices, though it presents features of its own, even in regard to expiation. But the latter is peculiar to it, and must therefore be taken to be its special teaching. The stages in the whole process are five: the presentation, laying on of hands, slaughter, sprinkling of blood, and burning of the whole carcase. The first three are alike in this and other sacrifices, the fourth is modified here, and the last is found here only. Each has its lesson. The offerer has himself to bring the animal to the door of the Tabernacle, that he may show his willing surrender of a valuable thing. As he stands there with his offering, his thoughts would pass into the inner shrine, where God dwelt; and he would, if he were a true worshipper, feel that while God, on His part, already dwelt in the midst of the people, he, on the other hand, can only enter into the enjoyment of His presence by sacrifice. The offering was to be ‘a male without blemish’; for bodily defect symbolising moral flaw could not be tolerated in the offerings to a holy God, who requires purity, and will not be put off with less than a man’s best, be it ox or pigeon. ‘The torn and the lame and the sick,’ which Malachi charged his generation with bringing, are neither worthy of God to receive nor of us to offer. When he pressed his hand on the head of the sacrifice, what was the worshipper meant to think? In all other instances where hands are laid on, some transference or communication of gifts or qualities is implied; and it is natural to suppose that the same meaning attaches to the act here, with such modifications as the case requires. We find that it was done in other bloody sacrifices, accompanied with confession. Nothing is said of confession here; but we cannot dismiss the idea that the offerer laid his sins on the victim by that striking act, especially as the very next clause says ‘it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him.’ The atonement was made, as we shall see, by the application of the blood to the altar; but the possibility of the victim’s blood atoning for the offerer depended on his having laid his hands on its head. We may perhaps go farther than ‘transference of sins.’ Might we not widen the expression, and say ‘identification,’ or, to use a word which has become so worn by religious controversy that it slips through our fingers unnoticed, ‘substitution’? Did not the offerer say in effect, by that act, ‘This is I? This animal life shall die, as I ought to die. It shall go up as a sweet savour to Jehovah, as my being should.’
The animal invested with this representative character is next to be slain by the offerer, not by the priest, who only performed that part of the ritual in the case of national or public sacrifices. That was distinctly a vicarious death; and, as inflicted by the hand of the person represented by the animal, he thereby acknowledged that its death was the wages of his sin, and allowed the justice of his condemnation, while he presented this innocent life-innocent because not that of a moral being-as his substitute. So far the worshipper’s part goes. But now, when the act of expiation is to be symbolically represented, and, so far as outward sacrifice could, is to be accomplished, another actor appears. The priest comes forward as mediator between God and man, and applies the blood to the altar. The difference between the sprinkling of the blood, in the burnt offerings and in the other sacrifices, which had expiation for their principal object, in some of which it was smeared on the horns of the altar, and, in the most solemn of all, was carried into the holiest place, and sprinkled on the mercy-seat, suggests that the essential character of the burnt offering was not expiatory, though expiation was the foundation on which alone the essential character could be reared. The application of the blood was the formal act by which atonement was made. The word rendered ‘to make atonement’ means ‘to cover’; and the idea conveyed is that the blood, which is the life of the sacrifice, covers the sins of the offerer, so as to make them powerless to dam back the love or to precipitate the wrath of God.
With this act the expiatory portion of the ritual ends, and we may here pause to look back for a moment on it as a whole. We have pointed out the double bearings of the Mosaic ritual as symbolical and as typical or prophetic. In the former aspect, the emphatic teaching of this rite is that ‘the wages of sin is death,’ that ‘without shedding of blood there is no remission,’ that God has appointed sacrifice as the means of entering into fellowship with Him, and that substitution and vicarious penalty are facts in His government. We may like or dislike these thoughts; we may call them gross, barbarous, immoral, and the like, but, at all events, we ought not to deny that they are ingrained in the Mosaic sacrificial system, which becomes unmeaning elaboration of empty and often repulsive ceremonies, if they are not recognised as its very centre. Of course, the meaning of the sacrifices was hidden from many a worshipper. They became opaque instead of transparent, and hid the great truth which they were meant to reveal. All forms labour under that disadvantage; but that they were significant in design, and largely so to devout hearts in effect, admits of no reasonable doubt. That which they signified was chiefly the putting away of sin by the sacrifice of innocent life, which stood in the place of the guilty. Of course, too, their benefit was symbolical, and the blood of bulls and goats could never put away sin; but, under the shelter of the outward forms, a more spiritual insight gradually grew up, such as breathes in many a psalm, and such as, we cannot doubt, filled the heart of many a worshipper, as he stood by the bleeding sacrifice on which his own hands had laid the burden that had weighed so heavy on himself. How far the prophetic aspect of the sacrifices was discerned, is a more difficult question. But this at least we know-that the highest level of evangelical prophecy, in Isaiah’s wonderful fifty-third chapter, is reached from this vantage-ground. It is the flower of which these ordinances are the root. We need not enlarge upon the prophetic aspect of the sacrifice. The mere negative sinlessness of the victim points to the ‘Lamb without blemish and without spot,’ on whom, as Isaiah says, in language dyed through and through with sacrificial references, ‘the Lord hath made to meet the iniquity of us all,’ and who Himself makes ‘His soul an offering for sin.’ The modern tendency to bring down the sacrificial system to a late date surely sins against the sacred and all-explaining law of evolution, in the name of which it is attempted, inasmuch as it is an unheard-of thing for the earlier stages of a religion to be less clogged with ceremonial than the later. Psalmist and prophet first, and priest afterwards, is not the order of development.
The remaining part of the ritual was, as we have pointed out, peculiar to the burnt offering. In it alone the whole of the sacrifice was consumed on the altar, with the exceptions of the skin, which was given to the priest, and of the contents of the intestines. Hence it was sometimes called ‘a whole burnt offering.’ The meaning of this provision may be apprehended if we note that the word rendered ‘burn,’ in Lev 1:9 , is not that which simply implies destruction by fire, but is a peculiar word, reserved for sacrificial burnings, and meaning ‘to cause to ascend in smoke or vapour.’ The gross flesh was, as it were, refined into vapour and odour, and went up to God as ‘a sweet savour.’ It expressed, therefore, the transformation of the sinful human nature of the worshipper, by the refining power of the fire of God, into something more ethereal and kindred with the heaven to which it rose. Or, to put the thought in plainer words, on the basis of expiation, the glad surrender of the whole being is possible and will ensue; and when a man yields himself in joyful self-surrender to the God who has forgiven his sins, then the fire of the divine Spirit is shed abroad in his heart, and kindles a flame which lays hold on all the gross, earthly elements of his being, and changes them into fire, kindred with itself, which aspires, in ruddy tongues of upward-leaping light, to the God to whom the heart has been surrendered, and to whom the whole being tends.
This is the purpose of expiation; this is the summit of all religion. One man has realised to the full, in his life, what the burnt offering taught as the goal for all worshippers. Jesus has lived in the constant exercise of perfect self-surrender, and in the constant unmeasured possession of ‘the Spirit of burning,’ with which He has come to baptize us all. If we look to Him as our expiation, we should also find in Him the power to yield ourselves ‘living sacrifices,’ and draw from Him the sacred and refining fire, which shall transform our grossness into His likeness, and make even us ‘acceptable to God, through Jesus Christ.’
Fuente: Expositions Of Holy Scripture by Alexander MacLaren
AND. This connects Leviticus very closely with Exodus, as Exodus is linked with Genesis.
the LORD. Hebrew. Jehovah. Whose glory filled the tabernacle, Exo 40:35. No other book contains so many words of Jehovah: “Jehovah spake”, thirty-six times (see note on Lev 5:14); “I am Jehovah”, twenty-one times; “I am Jehovah your God”, twenty-one times; “I (Jehovah) am”, three times; “I, Jehovah, do”, twice.
called. The last letter of this word (in Hebrew) is minuscular, i.e. smaller than the others. This callingis in contrast with the thunders from Sinai.
spake. See note on Lev 5:14.
out of the tabernacle of the congregation. Hebrew out of the tent of assembly: Hebrew. ‘ohel. See App-40, not mishkan, therefore before 1491. There are four such calls: (1) from the burning bush (Exo 3:4); (2) and (3) from Sinai (Exo 19:3, Exo 19:20); and here.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
As we get into Leviticus we get into the various offerings and the method by which they were to be offered unto the Lord. It is getting into a system that is very foreign to us, because it is a covenant that has now been set aside, that God might establish a better covenant with us. This covenant of the sacrifice of the animals could never make anything perfect, but all it could do is to point ahead to that sacrifice that was to be offered, whereby we could be brought into full perfection before the Lord.
Paul tells the Ephesians that they are to be followers of God as dear children. “Walk in love as Christ also hath loved us and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling savor.” ( Eph 5:2 ) So Christ was more than just our sin offering; He was also the sweet savor offering.
Now, the offerings that were given to the Lord were divided into the sweet savor offerings and the sin offerings. There were three basic sweet savor offerings and we will be talking about these in more detail, but there was the burnt offering, which was the consecration. There was the meal offering, which is translated in your Bibles “meat,” but it should be meal offering because it was made of fine flour and oil, and that was a sacrifice of service unto God. And then there was the peace offering, which was the fellowship and communion with God. Those were the sweet savor offerings. Then we had the two sin offerings: one, the sin offering and the other the trespass offering. And we will be noting the difference in those two as we move through the text.
It is important to notice that in verse three of Leviticus chapter one that any sacrifice or offering that you offered unto the Lord had to be of one’s own voluntary will. Man exercised his own free will when he left fellowship with God. It is necessary that man exercise his own free will to return to fellowship with God. So the own voluntary will is something that God required. God does not force you to love Him. God does not force you to serve Him. God does not force you to give to Him. It must be something of your own voluntary will.
And in the sacrifices, when it was an animal sacrifice, there was always the laying of your hand upon the sacrifice before the slaying of it. And that laying of your hand upon the sacrifice, the head of the sacrifice, was in essence a transference of yourself, so that the animal was dying in your stead. In the case of the sin or trespass offering it was the laying of your hand upon the head of the animal in order that your guilt and your sin might be transferred onto the animal, and thus, it was slain for your sins. In the case of the burnt offering, your consecration again the laying on of hand was the symbolizing of the animal is taking my place as a complete offering unto God, a total consecration unto Him.
The word atonement in verse four, the later portion there,
to make atonement for him ( Lev 1:4 ).
It is important that we distinguish between the word “atonement” in the Old Testament and the word “atonement” in the New Testament. For in the Old Testament the word “atonement” comes from the Hebrew word kaphar, which means, “to cover.” Now it was impossible that the blood of bulls or goats could put away our sin. They never put away sins for anybody. But they did make a covering for sin, so that the guilt of the person was covered, but it wasn’t put away. So the word atonement in the Old Testament usage out of Hebrew, from the word kaphar is actually a covering. And kaphar, you can think of the cover. Actually our word “cover” comes pretty much from it. A kaphar for the sins, a covering.
In the New Testament through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, our sins were put away by His sacrifice once and for all. So the new covenant that God has established through Jesus Christ is far superior, as you get into the old covenant here and all of the various sacrifices. How grateful we should be for that sacrifice of Jesus Christ for us whereby this old relationship with God is no longer valid, but has been invalidated by the new covenant in Jesus Christ.
The purpose of all of the sacrifices, the purpose of the covenant was that God might establish a basis, whereby you can have fellowship with Him. When God created man, it was in the heart and mind of God to create man, in order that God might fellowship with man. But in order to fellowship, and the word means “oneness,” in order for me to have a oneness with God, I must be obedient to the will of God.
The Bible says, “can two walk together except they be agreed?”( Amo 3:3 ) Can I really walk with God unless I am in agreement? I cannot have real fellowship with God unless I am in agreement with God. And so God creating man for the purpose of fellowship, that fellowship with God was broken early there in the Garden of Eden when Adam and Eve disobeyed the commandment of God. And with the entrance of sin there came a broken fellowship with God. Now man alienated from God, God sought to restore him to fellowship. But the law of God had been violated. And God said, “the soul that sinneth, it shall surely die. In the day that thou eatest thereof,” God said, “thou shalt surely die.” ( Gen 2:17 ) So here is the law that is broken and the penalty that is there hanging.
And for God to restore man into fellowship with Him something had to be done about the law. And thus, God established in the Old Testament this system of sacrifices where the animal became your substitute and where the animal was slain for you. As we said the laying on of hands, the transference of yourself to the animal, and then the animal dying in your place. It became your substitute and through the death of the animal your sin was covered, and you could have fellowship with God until you sinned again, then you had to bring another animal. And so unless you were very wealthy and had a big herd, you were really in trouble, you know, as far as a continued fellowship with God.
Now, that covenant failed to bring man into a full complete fellowship with God. What it did do was point forward to that day when God would send His only begotten Son to be as a Lamb sacrificed for our sins. So Peter said, “We are redeemed not with corruptible things such as silver and gold from our vain manner of living, but with the precious blood of Jesus Christ who was slain as a lamb without spot or blemish” ( 1Pe 1:18 , 1Pe 1:19 ). So as we study these sacrifices, we must realize that they were, all of them just fingers pointing ahead to Jesus Christ. They were saying, “We’re not it. We can’t do it. But there is One who is coming who will.” And they are all pointing man to the Perfect Sacrifice that God was to offer when Jesus Christ was crucified and went before the Father to make atonement.
Now the word “atonement” in the New Testament is to make one with, or the Koinonia, the idea of fellowship. Now I have become one with God through Jesus Christ, His blood having now atoned or making possible atonement for my sins in order that I might now have this beautiful fellowship with God.
So as we get into the offerings, chapter one deals with the burnt offering. Now the burnt offering was an offering of consecration. If I wish to really consecrate my life completely to God, I would signify this desire of total consecration by bringing an ox to the priest, laying my hand upon the head of the ox, slaying it. The priest taking the blood in and putting it on the horns of the altar and then the ox was to be burnt entirely. The whole thing was to be consumed on the altar as a sweet smelling savor unto God. That neat smell of barbecued beef. As smoke arises and ascends upward, it becomes a sweet smelling savor unto God. But the whole thing was to be burnt in the fire and totally consumed by the fire. He is speaking of the fact that my consecration to God needs to be a total consecration, not holding back any area for myself.
One of the problems today is the incomplete consecration of so many lives. We hold back so many areas from God, what God wants really, if we are to consecrate ourselves to Him. “I beseech ye therefore brethren by the mercies of God that you will present your bodies holy and accessible unto God which is your reasonable service.” ( Rom 12:1 ) And God wants you to present yourself totally, completely to Him not reserving, not holding back anything for yourself, but a total consecration. Now, you could use an ox, you could use a sheep, or if you were poor, you could use turtledoves for this offering.
“
Fuente: Through the Bible Commentary
The Book of Leviticus is the Book of Laws. It first deals with laws of dedication concerning the offerings, all of which have to do with the divine provision for the people’s approach to Jehovah in worship. Five offerings are named. The first, dealt with in this chapter, was the burnt offering, suggesting the need of personal dedication to God. Those who are admitted to the place of worship are such as have utterly failed to render their life to God thus perfectly. Therefore the offering they bring must be slain and burned. In this arrangement was set forth the truth of substitution as being the only way in which a sinning man can draw near to worship. The spiritual sense of the reader will see throughout the whole of these studies how the ideas embodied in the ancient economy found their fulfillment in Christ. It is not the purpose of these notes to dwell on this fact, but rather to attempt to discover the simple significance of the laws to the men to whom they were given, as was the case in our consideration of Exodus
Fuente: An Exposition on the Whole Bible
Burned-Offerings of the Herd, Flocks and Fowls
Lev 1:1-17
Jehovah speaks with Moses, not from Sinais summit, but from the Tabernacle, because He has come to dwell with men on the earth. Compare Exo 20:22; Exo 25:8. The early chapters of this book contain the law of the offerings. He who was to be worshiped prescribed the manner in which He was to be approached. These sacrifices also were intended to typify the great offering which our Lord would one day, in the fullness of time, consummate on Calvary. Here we have the burned-offering, presenting the more general aspect of our Lords self-giving. It represents His entire surrender to the Fathers will. See Heb 10:8-9. The principal feature of this offering was that the whole body of the victim was consumed and ascended in fire and smoke. The Hebrew word comes from a root which means to ascend. Three grades of this offering were permitted-herd, flock, fowl-to bring it within the means of all, and to typify the varying degrees in which men apprehend and value Christ.
Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary
Lecture I The Burnt Offering
Read carefully Leviticus, chapters 1; 6: 8-13; 7 and 8; Deu 33:8-10; Psalm 40; Eph 5:1, 2.
To many believers the theme of the burnt-offering is very familiar, but there are large numbers of Gods beloved people who have never carefully studied the marvelous types of the Person and work of Christ given us in the early chapters of Leviticus, where we have five distinct offerings, all setting forth various aspects of the work of the Cross and unfolding the glories of the Person who did that work-a Person transcending all the sons of men, for He was both Son of God and Son of Man, divinely human and humanly divine. We shall get great help for our souls if we meditate upon the marvelous pictures here given us of the great and wondrous truths which are unfolded in the New Testament. In coming to the study of the types, we should never found doctrines upon them, but discovering the doctrines in the New Testament, we will find them illustrated in the types of the Old.
The five offerings may be divided in various ways. First we notice that four of them are offerings involving the shedding of blood-the Burnt offering, the Peace offering, the Sin offering, and the Trespass offering. The Meat offering, or, as it should read, the Meal offering or Food offering, was an unbloody offering, and stands in a place by itself. Then again there are sweet savor offerings as distinguished from offerings for sin. The burnt offering, the meal offering and the peace offering are all said to be for a sweet savor unto the Lord. This was never true of the sin offering or the trespass offering. The divine reason for this distinction will come out clearly, I trust, as we go on.
The five offerings which are here grouped together present to us a marvelous many-sided picture of the Person and work of our blessed Lord Jesus Christ. They show what He is to God, as well as what He has become in grace to sinners for whom He died, and to those who have trusted Him and now stand before God accepted in the Beloved. If there be details, as many there are, which are difficult for us to understand, these should but give occasion for exercise of heart before God and for meditation and prayer. We may be sure of this, that the better acquainted we become with our Saviour and the more we enter into what the Word of God elsewhere reveals as to the details of His work upon the cross, the more readily we shall understand the types.
As we get them here in the first seven chapters of Leviticus we see things from the divine standpoint, that is, God gives us that which means most to Him first; so that we begin with the burnt offering, which is the highest type of the work of the Cross that we have in the Mosaic economy, and we go on down through the meal offering, the peace offering, and the sin offering, to the trespass offering, which is the first aspect of the work of Christ generally apprehended by our souls.
As a rule when a guilty sinner comes to God for salvation he thinks of his own wrong-doing, and the question that arises in his soul is, How can God forgive my sins and receive me to Himself in peace when I am so conscious of my own trespasses?
Most of us remember when the grace of God first reached our hearts. We were troubled about our sins which had put us at such a distance from God, and the great questions that exercised us were these: How can our sins be put away? How can we be freed from this sense of guilt? How can we ever feel at home with God when we know we have so grievously trespassed against Him and so wantonly violated His holy law? We shall never forget, many of us, how we were brought to see that what we could never do ourselves, God had done for us through the work of our Lord Jesus on the cross. We remember when we sang with exultation:
All my iniquities on Him were laid,
All my indebtedness by Him was paid,
All who believe on Him, the Lord hath said,
Have everlasting life.
This is the truth of the trespass offering, in which sin assumes the aspect of a debt needing to be discharged.
But as we went on we began to get a little higher view of the work of the cross. We saw that sin was not only a debt requiring settlement, but that it was something which in itself was defiling and unclean, something that rendered us utterly unfit for companionship with God, the infinitely Holy One. And little by little the Spirit of God opened up another aspect of the atonement and we saw that our blessed Lord not only made expiation for all our guiltiness but for all our defilement too. For God hath made Him to be sin for us, who knew no sin, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him. It was a wondrous moment in the history of our souls when we saw that we were saved eternally, and made fit for Gods presence because the Holy One had become the great sin offering, was made sin for us on Calvarys cross.
But there were other lessons we had to learn. We soon saw that because of their sins men are at enmity with God, that there could be no com munion with God until a righteous basis for fellowship was procured. Something had to take place before God and man could meet together in perfect enjoyment and happy complacency. And thus we began to enter into the peace offering aspect of the work of Christ. We saw that it was Gods desire to bring us into fellowship with Himself, and this could only be as redeemed sinners who had been reconciled to God through the death of our Lord Jesus.
As we learned to value more the work the Saviour did, we found ourselves increasingly occupied with the Person who did that work. In the beginning it was the value of the blood that gave us peace in regard to our sin, but after we went on we learned to enjoy Him for what He is in Himself. And this is the meal offering; for it is here that we see Christ in all His perfection, God and Man in one glorious Person, and our hearts become ravished with His beauty and we feed with delight upon Himself.
We can understand now what the poetess meant when she sang:
They speak to me of music rare,
Of anthems soft and low,
Of harps, and viols, and angel-choirs,
All these I can forego;
But the music of the Shepherds voice
That won my wayward heart
Is the only strain I ever heard
With which I cannot part.
For, ah, the Master is so fair,
His smiles so sweet to banished men,
That they who meet Him unaware
Can never rest on earth again.
And they who see Him risen afar
At-Gods right hand, to welcome them,
Forgetful are of home and land,
Desiring fair Jerusalem.
To the cold formalist all this seems mystical and extravagant, but to the true lover of Christ it is the soberest reality.
And now there remains one other aspect of the Person and work of our Lord to be considered, and it is this which is set forth in the burnt offering. As the years went on some of us began to apprehend, feebly at first, and then perhaps in more glorious fulness, something that in the beginning had never even dawned upon our souls, and that is, that even if we had never been saved through the work of Christ upon the cross there was something in that work of tremendous importance which meant even more to God than the salvation of sinners.
He created man for His own glory. The catechism is right when it tells us that the chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever. But, alas, nowhere had any man been found who had not dishonored God in some way. The charge that Daniel brought against Belshazzar, the Babylonian king, was true of us all: The God in whose hand thy breath is, and whose are all thy ways, hast thou not glorified. God must find a man in this world who would fully glorify Him in all things. He had been so terribly dishonored down here; He had been so continually misrepresented by the first man to whom He had committed lordship over the earth, and by all his descendants, that it was necessary that some man should be found who would live in this scene wholly to His glory. Gods character must be vindicated; and the Lord Jesus Christ, the Second Man, the Lord from heaven, was the only one who could do that. And in His perfect obedience unto death we see that which fully meets all the requirements of the divine nature and glorifies God completely in the scene where He had been so sadly misrepresented. This is the burnt offering aspect of the Cross. By means of that cross more glory accrued to God than He had ever lost by the fall. So that we may say that even if not one sinner had ever been saved through the sacrifice of our Lord upon the tree, yet God had been fully glorified in respect of sin, and no stain could be imputed to His character, nor could any question ever be raised through all eternity as to His abhorrence of sin and His delight in holiness.
So in the book of Leviticus the burnt offering comes first, for it is that which is most precious to God and should therefore be most precious to us.
Others have pointed out how the four Gospels connect in a very wonderful way with the four bloody offerings. Matthew sets forth the trespass offering aspect of the work of Christ, meeting the sinner at the moment of His need when he first realizes his indebtedness to God. It is noticeable throughout what a large place the thought of sin as debt and as an offence to the orderliness of the divine government occupies in that book.
In Marks Gospel the aspect of sin as uncleanness and defilement is more emphasized, and so we have the sin offering view of the Cross. Then in Luke we have the peace offering as the basis of communion between God and man. In chapters 14, 15, and 16 we are shown the way that God in infinite grace has come out to guilty man to bring him into fellowship with Himself, and yet how many there are who refuse that mercy and so can never know peace with God. In Johns Gospel our Lord Jesus Christ is seen as the burnt offering, offering Himself without spot unto God, a sacrifice of a sweet-smelling savor, and that is why in John there is no mention made of the awful cry of anguish, My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me! This really belongs to the trespass and sin offering aspects of His work; but it does not come in where His death is seen as that which fully glorifies God in the world where He has been so dishonored. The meal offering is seen in all the four Gospels where we have the Person of Christ presented in various ways; as the Messiah of Israel in Mat -thew; the suffering Servant of Jehovah in Mark; the perfect Man in Luke; and the Son of God become flesh in John.
It is as we meditate upon all these precious things that we really enjoy communion with the Father. At one time in my early Christian life, I had an idea that communion consisted in very-pious feelings and frames of mind, and in order to have these emotions I would read every devotional book I could find, and would often jot down in a diary my thoughts when I had, what seemed to me, a distinct sense of piety that was very delightful and solemn. In after years I came across this book and could hardly believe that I had ever had such strange, conceited thoughts and supposed them to be the result of communion with God. I realize now that I thought communion consisted in having God find delight in my pious feelings. But that is not it at all. Communion with God is when my soul enters into His thoughts concerning His Son.
Did you ever go into a home where a dear mother had been entrusted with a new baby? How did you get into heart communion with that mother? You talked perhaps about various things, but you could not strike a responsive chord in her heart until you said something about the little one. All at once she brightened up and began to tell you what a wonderful baby it really was, and soon you and she were completely en rapport, for you were both occupied with the same little personality. The illustration is a very feeble one. That child of hers is entrusted to her for but a brief period, but the God of the universe has been finding His delight in His blessed Son throughout all the ages of eternity, and now He says, as it were, I want to take you into fellowship with Me in My thoughts about My Son. I want to tell you about Him. I want you to understand better the delight that I find in Him and to see more fully what His work and devotion mean to Me.
And so this book of Leviticus opens with the voice of the Lord calling to Moses out of the sanctuary. It was from the excellent glory that the voice came saying, This is My beloved Son in whom I have found all My delight. And so from the inner tabernacle where the glory of God abode above the mercy-seat, the voice of Jehovah called unto Moses saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, If any man of you bring an offering unto the Lord, ye shall bring your offering of the cattle, even of the herd, and of the flock. Notice there is not a word about mans sinfulness. This is addressed to those who are already in covenant relation with God, and whose hearts are overflowing with gratitude for what He has done for them, and who now voluntarily desire to bring to God something which He can approve of; and everything that they bring speaks of Christ. For there is nothing that any of us can bring to God that will give Him joy un- less it speaks in some way of His blessed Son. It is the very voluntariness of the burnt offering that gives it such value. There is here no question of legality, no must, nor any demand, but it is the heart filled with gratitude desiring to express itself in some way before God that leads to the presentation of the offering. And notice the universality of it. It says, any man. It was something of which any one could avail himself. All may come to God bringing the work of His Son.
Three distinct kinds of offerings are mentioned. The burnt offering might be a sacrifice of the herd, that is, a bullock or young ox, as in verses 3-9; or it might be out of the flocks, a sheep or a goat, as in verses 10-13; or again it might be fowls, as turtle-doves or young pigeons, as in verses 14-17. These grades of offerings had to do with the ability of the offerer. He who could afford a bullock brought it; if unable to bring a bullock, a sheep or a goat; and the poorer people brought the fowls. But all alike spoke of Christ. It is a question, I take it, of spiritual apprehension. Some of us have a very feeble apprehension of Christ, but we do value Him, we love Him, we trust Him, and so we come to God bringing our offering of fowls. We know Him as the Heavenly One, and the bird speaks of that which belongs to the heavens. It flies above the earth. Others have a little fuller understanding, and so we bring our offering of the flocks. We see in Him the devoted One who was led as a lamb to the slaughter and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb. Or He is represented by the goat, the picture of the sinner whose place He in grace has taken. Others again have a still higher and fuller apprehension of His Person and His work. We see in Him the strong, patient ox whose delight was to do the will of God in all things.
There is very little difference in the treatment of the sacrifice of the herd and that of the flock. But of necessity there is considerable difference when we come to that of the fowls. Let us consider a little verses 3 to 9: If his offering be a burnt sacrifice of the herd, let him offer a male without blemish; he shall offer it of his own voluntary will at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation before the Lord, or, as it reads in the 1911 Version, that it may be graciously received from him before the Lord. The bullock, or, more literally, the young ox, speaks, as we have said, of the patient servant. It is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. The apostle Paul applies this to the ministering servants of God, they who prepare the food for the people of God, and are not to be deprived of that which they need for their own sustenance. Our blessed Lord was like the patient ox treading out the corn. The One who came not to be ministered unto but to minister, He was the perfect Servant come to give His life a ransom for many. And observe, the ox must be a male without blemish. Among the types the female speaks of subjection, whereas the male suggests rather the thought of rightful independence. Our Lord Jesus was the only Man that ever walked this earth who was entitled to a place of independence, and yet He chose to be the subject One, even unto death. And He was the unblemished One. No fault was to be found in Him, no short-coming of any kind, no sin or failure. The offerer when he presented his unblemished burnt sacrifice was practically saying, I have no worthiness in myself. I am full of sin and failure, but I bring to God that which is without blemish, that which speaks of the worthiness of His own blessed Son. And the unworthy offerer was accepted in the worthy sacrifice, as we are told in Eph 1:6, He hath made us accepted in the Beloved or, as it has been translated, He has taken us into favor in the Beloved. Observe, not according to our faithfulness, nor according to the measure of our zeal, nor yet according to the measure of our devotedness, but according to His own thoughts of His beloved Son. We who have been brought through grace divine to see that we have no worthiness in ourselves, have all our worthiness in Christ.
This is emphasized in the fourth verse. Man as the offerer stood before the priest with his hand upon the head of the burnt offering. He was really identifying himself with the victim that was about to be slain. It is the hand of faith which rests upon the head of Christ and sees in Him the One who takes my place. All that He is, He is for me! Henceforth God sees me in Him.
But it is not in His life that He does this, but by His death. And so we read, And he shall kill the bullock before the Lord: and the priests, Aarons sons, shall bring the blood, and sprinkle the blood round about upon the altar that is by the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. We have all had our part in the killing of the bullock. That is, we have all had to do with the death of Christ. Men generally recognize this, but fail to lay hold of it individually. It is when I see that Jesus died for me, that even if there were no other sinner in all the world, still He would have given Himself as the victim in my place, that the value of His precious blood is applied to me, and I am accepted before God in all that He has done, and in all that He is.
In verses 6-9 we read of the flaying, that is, the skinning of the burnt offering, and the cutting of the victim into its parts. Of the skin we shall speak in a moment, and there are precious truths connected with it. The pieces were all to be washed with water and then placed upon the wood of the altar and burnt with fire, to go up to God an offering made by fire of a sweet savor unto the Lord. The washing by water typifies the application of the Word of God to every part of Christs being; all that He did was in perfect holiness, as under the controlling power of the Word of God in the energy of the Holy Spirit. He could say in the fullest sense, Thy Word have I hid in My heart that I might not sin against Thee. He did not need the Word for cleansing, for He was ever the Holy One, and yet He was in everything submissive to the Word, for He was here to glorify God as the dependent Man.
We read, The priest shall burn all on the altar. The burnt offering was the only one of the sacrifices of which this was true. In all the rest there was something reserved for the offering priest or for the offerer, but in this one particular case everything went up to God; for there is something in this aspect of the work of the Cross which only God can fully understand and appreciate.
But in chap. 7: 8 we have one apparent exception. While every part of the victim was burnt on the altar the skin was given to the priest. This is indeed precious. It is as though God said to the priest, I have found My portion in Christ. He is everything to Me, the beloved of My heart, in whom I have found all My delight. Now I want you to take the fleece and wrap yourself in it! Clothe yourself in the skin of the burnt offering. It is a wonderful picture of acceptance before God in Christ. We are covered with the skin of the burnt offering!
It is scarcely necessary to go into any detail in regard to the offering of the flocks, for, as we have already seen, it was handled in practically the same way as that of the bullock. But there is an added thought or two in connection with the fowls. We read in verses 15, 16 : And the priest shall bring it unto the altar, and wring off his head, and burn it on the altar; and the blood thereof shall be wrung out at the side of the altar: and he shall pluck away his crop with his feathers, and cast it beside the altar on the east part, by the place of the ashes. The birds, as we have seen, speak of Christ as the One who belongs to the heavens but who has come down in grace into this scene. There is by no means the same fulness in picturing His work here that there was in connection with the other creatures. But His death is again fully emphasized, and before the offering was placed upon the altar the crop and the feathers are plucked away and cast in the place of the ashes. The taking away of the feathers from the bird suggests, I believe, the parting with all His glory and beauty when He stooped in lowly grace to the death of the Cross, while the plucking away of the crop speaks undoubtedly of His voluntarily giving up all that would minister to natural enjoyment. We sing sometimes, and perhaps but feebly enter into the meaning:
I surrender all,
I surrender all,
All to Thee, my precious Saviour,
I surrender all.
But if we turn this around, what an appeal it makes to our hearts, and how truly it tells of the place He took in grace:
He surrendered all,
He surrendered all,
All for me, my precious Saviour,
He surrendered all.
In chapter 6: 8-13 we have the law of the burnt offering, that is, instruction to the priest as to how he was to conduct himself when carrying out this part of the ritual. In the first chapter we get what is more objective-Gods picture of the Person and work of His Son. But in the law of the offering we have what is more subjective -the effect all this should have upon us, and how our souls should enter into it. And so here in chapter 6 we see the priest clothed in white raiment) his garments speaking of that righteousness which is now ours in Christ and which should ever characterize us practically), reverently taking up the ashes of the burnt offering and laying them beside the altar; the ashes saying as plainly as anything inanimate could, It is finished. For ashes tell of fire burnt out, and so suggest that the work of Christ is finished. He has suffered, never to die again, and God was fully glorified in His work which has gone up as a sweet savor to Him. In Old Testament times the fire was ever to be burning on the altar. It was never to be put out, for one burnt sacrifice followed another continually, and the peace offering and the sin and trespass offerings were also placed upon the same fire. The work was never finished because no victim had yet appeared of sufficient worth to fully meet the claims of God. But now, thank God, the flame of the altar fire has gone out, the work is done, and the effect of that work abides for all eternity. May our souls revel in it. In Psalm 40, which is really the psalm of the burnt offering, we hear the voice of praise which results from the souls appreciation of this aspect of the work of Christ. May it be ours to enter into it in all its fulness. In Deuteronomy 33 we see that the chief business of Gods anointed priests was to offer burnt offerings upon His altar. So may we as holy priests of the new dispensation ever find our first delight in occupation with Christ and this aspect of His work!
Lecture II The Meal Offering
Read Leviticus, chaps. 2; 6:14-23; Psalm 16; Joh 6:33c
We have already noticed that the meal offering stands apart from the other four in that it was a bloodless offering. There was no life given up and yet part of it was burned upon the altar for a sweet savor. The name given to this particular oblation in the Authorized Version is meat offering, but we must remember that our forefathers used fee word meat for food, and not necessarily as synonymous with flesh. There was no flesh of any kind in this offering. It was an oblation of food composed of meal and oil, or of green ears of corn dried and oil. It does not speak to us of our Saviour as sacrificed for sinners on the cross, but is Gods wondrous picture of the perfection of His glorious Person. Remember, He had to be who He was in order to do what He did. None but Gods eternal Son become flesh could ever have accomplished the great work that He came to do. It is of inestimable value to the soul to dwell upon Gods estimate of His Son. As intimated in the previous lecture, it is in this way that we enter into communion with the Father.
The psalmist says, My meditation of Him shall be sweet. May we indeed prove this as we dwell together upon these marvelous types of His glorious Person.
We should always bear in mind that it was the perfection of the Lord that gave all the efficacy to the work upon the cross. Of all other men it is written: None of them can redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him, for it costs too much to redeem them, therefore it must be let alone forever. This is a very literal rendering of that remarkable passage in Psa 49:7, 8. The 8th verse is very inadequately rendered in our Authorized Version, The redemption of their soul is precious, and it ceaseth forever. What ceaseth forever? But the translation I have just given makes it all clear: Let it alone forever. That is, there is no use of any one attempting to do anything toward the work of redemption; it is too great to be effected by human power. It costs too much to redeem the soul, so let it alone forever. But Christ the Son of God became a little lower than the angels with a view to the suffering of death that He might taste death for every man. He the infinitely Holy One became Man, but Man in perfection, sinless and unde-filed. He alone is competent to redeem His brother and give to God a ransom for him. This is the one for whom Job yearned when he cried, There is no daysman who can lay his hand upon us both, and it was of Him Elihu spake when he said, Deliver him from going down to the pit, for I have found a ransom. And so we are now to be occupied with Christ Himself, and I trust as we study this wondrous picture of Him who was in very truth the Bread of God, the food upon which God the Father delighted to feed, that we shall have a fuller, clearer conception than ever before of Him who has saved us.
The meal offering is always linked up with the burnt offering. God would not allow the Person and the work of His blessed Son to be divorced; the two must go together. But remember this, the holy walk, the devoted life of our Lord Jesus Christ, could not avail to put away sin. His holy behavior was not the means of our salvation; that perfect walk had no atoning efficacy. It was life poured out in death that saved. He said as He held the communion cup in His hand, This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you for the remission of sins. His life apart from His death could only bring out in bold relief our exceeding sinfulness, making the contrast between what He is and what we are all the more vivid. But His blood shed for us was life given up, poured out in death that we might live eternally. His holy life fitted Him to be the sacrifice, and so the two offerings are linked together.
Many of Gods beloved people, I am persuaded, are being led away (for a time at least) into various systems of error, who if they only knew the true character of these systems would turn from them in horror, recognizing that in every one of them there are evil teachings concerning the Person of our Lord Jesus Christ. I remember a number of years ago meeting with a young married couple out in California. They were introduced to me as earnest Bible students. They seemed very bright and hearty in their Christian experience, but they soon told me that they were getting a great deal of help and information out of a set of books that had been sold them by a colporteur. Upon inquiring I found it was the set known as Millennial Dawn. When I asked if they had read the books they said, Oh, yes, and we have found some wonderful teachings in them. I replied that they had in them some teaching that was blessed and true, but it was in reality but the sugar coating to a poisonous pill, for they were thoroughly unsound as to the Person and work of our Lord Jesus Christ. I pointed out that these books taught that our blessed Lord before He came into the world was not God, but was the highest created spirit-being in the universe; that in incarnation He became man and relinquished entirely His spirit nature; that when He died upon the cross His manhood was devoted to destruction. The author of the books goes so far as to say: It was not only necessary that the man Christ Jesus should die, it was just as necessary that He should never live again, but should remain dead through all eternity. But these books taught that a new Being came out of the tomb who was made a partaker of the divine nature, and is now a god but not the God, and that some day a select group of overcomers will be partakers of the same nature as Himself and will assist Him in completing the work of redemption. They could not believe that I had rightly represented the teaching of this system, but they were honest people and they went home to look up the references I gave them and to compare them with their Bibles. They came to me a few days later, and handing the set to me said, If you can use these to help deliver others we shall be thankful. We have been down on our knees asking God to forgive us for ever having had anything to do with a system that so blasphemes our Lord Jesus Christ. We had no idea of the real teaching of these books. Thus they were completely delivered, and they turned with horror from the whole evil system.
What think ye of Christ? is the first question that should be asked of every one who comes claiming to have something different to orthodox Christianity. If people are wrong here, depend upon it they are wrong throughout. It is not necessary that we should know all the evil that is in these systems in order to judge them; we need but to know they are false as to our Lord Jesus in order to refuse them entirely if we would be true to Him.
Let us then see how His blessed Person is pictured for us in the meal offering. We will read together verses 1-3: And when any will offer a meal offering unto the Lord, his offering shall be of fine flour; and he shall pour oil upon it, and put frankincense thereon: and he shall bring it to Aarons sons the priests: and he shall take thereout his handful of the flour thereof, and of the oil thereof, with all the frankincense thereof; and the priest shall burn the memorial of it upon the altar, to be an offering made by fire, of a sweet savor unto the Lord: and the remnant of the meal offering shall be Aarons and his sons: it is a thing most holy of the offerings of the Lord made by fire. Notice then that the meal offering which was really Gods food, and therefore speaks of Christ Himself, was made of fine flour. You housewives know what that is, fine flour without one coarse grain in it. This was Gods picture of the humanity of Jesus. Everything was in perfect proportion and there was none of the coarseness that sin has brought into our poor, fallen humanity. I have often thought if God wanted to make a picture of my human nature He would ask for a handful of old-fashioned steel-cut oatmeal! That would adequately typify our nature, for there is so much that is coarse and uncouth and cross-grained in everyone of us; but oh, the perfection that was manifested in Him. Then observe, oil was to be poured upon the fine flour and frankincense put over it. The oil is always the type of the Holy Spirit. He is the anointing. And we read that God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power, who went about doing good and healing all that were oppressed of the devil, for God was with Him (Act 10:38). That anointing took place immediately after the baptism in the Jordan, and the Father declared His satisfaction in Him saying, This is My beloved Son, in whom I have found all my delight. This was the odor of the frankincense. There was the fine flour in all its perfection, and the Holy Spirit descended like a dove abiding on Him; that was the oil poured upon the fine flour. Then there was the frankincense with its sweet aroma telling of the ineffable beauty and fragrance which ever characterized all His ways. No wonder the bride in the Song says, Thy name is as ointment poured forth. Mary really fulfilled this type when she took a pound of ointment very precious, and poured it upon His head and upon His feet, and the house was filled with the odor of the ointment.
In the second verse we read that this offering was brought to Aarons sons, the priests, and the officiating priest was to take out a handful of the flour, with its oil and frankincense, and burn it as a memorial upon the altar; it was an offering made by fire of a sweet savor unto the Lord. This was Gods food. Then the priests themselves were to feed upon the rest of it, and so God and His redeemed priests enjoy together the perfection of Christ. This is really communion.
Now we have some very interesting details in verses 4-13. I will not quote the passages in full, but will notice the outstanding features as we run down through the chapter. There were various ways in which the offering might be prepared. In verse 4 it is baken in the oven, in verse 5 it is baked in a pan; in verse 7 it is baked in a frying-pan, evidently on the top of the fireplace. In every instance it was exposed to the action of heat, and this may speak of the intense trials to which our blessed Lord was subject, all of which only served to bring out in fuller measure His perfection. Again in verse 4 the meal offering might be composed of unleavened cakes of fine flour mingled with oil, or unleavened wafers anointed with oil. In the first instance we have His incarnation as begotten of the virgin; we have humanity in perfection, humanity united with Deity. He was conceived of the Holy Ghost; the fine flour was mingled with oil. In the other cases we have, as in the verse above, His anointing. And so God emphasized both sides of the truth for us. He was born of the Spirit without a human father; He was anointed of the Spirit when about to enter on His great mission. Then, observe, there were some things that could not be allowed in the meal offering. In two of these verses we are told it must be unleavened, and in verse 11 we read distinctly, No meal offering, which ye shall bring unto the Lord, shall be made with leaven. This speaks of the sinlessness of the human nature of our Saviour. Leaven in Scripture is always a type of something evil. This comes out very clearly in the New Testament application of the Old Testament type. We read in 1Co 5:7, 8: Christ our passover is sacrificed for us, therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. Just as the pious Israelite of old was to search his house diligently and put away all leaven in preparation for the passover feast, so we as believers are called upon to judge every evil thing in our hearts and lives, and put it all away in the light of the work of the cross. Both in 1 Corinthians and in Galatians we read: A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump; that is, a little sin or a little evil doctrine undetected and unjudged will soon corrupt ones entire testimony. Then again you will remember how our Lord Himself used this term. He warned His disciples to beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the Sadducees and of Herod. The leaven of the Pharisees was hypocrisy and self-righteousness; the leaven of the Sadducees was evil doctrine or false teaching; the leaven of Herod was worldliness and political corruption. In no place in Scripture is leaven used as a symbol or type of anything good. The woman in the parable of Mat 13:33 is said to hide the leaven in three measures of meal until the whole is leavened. I know that this has been taken by many as representing the spread of the gospel, but who was ever told to hide the gospel anywhere? There is nothing clandestine about its proclamation; it is to be openly preached everywhere. Jesus said, In secret have I said nothing, and the same should be true of His followers. The woman in the parable is the false Church, not the true, and she is not hiding the leaven in the world but in three measures of meal, which seems to be nothing more nor less than the minchah, or the meal offering, which we are now considering, and in which there was to be no leaven. In other words, the parable teaches us that every truth concerning Christ would be corrupted by the false Church. As in the type there was no leaven, so in Christ there is no sin; He is the unleavened meal offering; His was humanity in perfection without any tendency toward evil whatever. He could say, The prince of this world cometh and hath nothing in Me. You and I cannot say that; we are only too conscious of the fact that when Satan comes to tempt us from the outside there is a traitor within who would open the gate to the citadel of our hearts if we were not constantly on our guard. But with Him it was otherwise; all His temptation came from without. He was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin. And this does not mean yet without sinning, merely, but it is sin apart, that is, He was never tempted by inbred sin; He was the unleavened meal offering.
We also learn from verse 11 that there was to be no honey in the meal offering. Honey is the sweetness of nature, but when exposed to heat it soon sours. There was something far more than natural sweetness in the character of Christ. His was a love that was divine and holy; all His affections and emotions were the affections of the Son of God become flesh. There was nothing that was merely of nature; hence His love is unchanging. All the treachery of Judas could not alter it nor the cowardly denial of Peter. Having loved His own that were in the world He loved them unto the end. How often are natural friendships sundered and love turned to hatred. It was otherwise with Him.
In verse 13 we are told, And every oblation of thy meal offering shalt thou season with salt; neither shalt thou suffer the salt of the covenant of thy God to be lacking from thy meal offering: with all thine offerings thou shalt offer salt. Is it not striking that three times over we should have this insistence upon the use of salt in the offering? You will remember our Saviour said, Let your speech be always with grace seasoned with salt, and He referred on another occasion to this very passage, emphasizing it in a very solemn way (Mar 9:49, 50). Salt is the preservative power of active righteousness; and this was ever manifested in Him, and should be seen in us who have been born from above.
There are many other details in this precious portion that we might profitably dwell upon, but all that I have omitted will I think become luminous in the light of what we have already noticed if carefully considered in the presence of the Lord. And the more we remember what the New Testament reveals concerning Christ, the more we shall enter into the enjoyment of what we have here. If we become familiar with the truth concerning the Person of the Lord it will preserve us from the danger of falling into error.
The outstanding feature of the meal offering is its composition of fine flour. There was no barley meal. There are lots of little sharp corners in the crushed barley. But it was the finest of wheat meal that composed the meal offering. That is how God pictured the humanity of the Lord Jesus Christ, for in His character as a Man there was nothing that ever grated on anybody. What a marvelous picture the four Gospels set before us! If they were not inspired, how inexplainable it would be that four men could ever have imagined such a marvelous character. If the Lord Jesus Christ had never lived, the Gospels themselves would be miraculous. In all the literature of the world there is no other character that can be compared with Him. Think of Him growing up in Nazareth, one of the meanest villages of Galilee, with little opportunity for culture or refinement; and then contemplate Him as He appeared among the men of His time, the most refined and cultured of them all! He was the first gentleman this world has ever seen. Tender, gracious, always considerate of others, and yet ever faithful and true to all. Politeness, the proverb says, is doing the kindest thing in the kindest way, and who ever saw that exemplified anywhere as it was in the Lord Jesus Christ? His was a life the aroma of which fills the world after nineteen hundred years.
And although now ascended to glory He is this same Jesus as He sits upon His Fathers throne, our great High Priest, ever living to make intercession for us. So in verses 14-16 we have an- other aspect of the meal offering; this time it is made of the firstfruits of the green ears of corn dried by the fire, as corn beaten out of full ears. And this is anointed with the oil in company with the frankincense. It speaks of Him as the One who passed through death, but has been raised again in the power of an endless life. And He is gone up to God in all the perfection of His humanity, to be for all eternity the Man in the glory. But of this, too, a memorial was burned upon the altar, for His resurrection must not be separated from His death. The Christ who died is the Christ who lives again.
May we learn to feed upon Him as priests in the sanctuary, rejoicing here on earth as God rejoices in heaven. This is what is specially emphasized in chapter 6:14-23, where we have the law of the meal offering. There we see the priests appropriating their portion and enjoying it in the presence of God. It was to be eaten in the sanctuary. We are all Gods priests today, if numbered among the redeemed, and it is our hallowed privilege to feed upon Christ in Gods courts-delighting in Him, our souls nourished, as we meditate adoringly upon His perfections. We are not called upon to dissect the Person of the Lord, but to reverently worship and enjoy Him, that thus we may become more like Him.
Fuente: Commentaries on the New Testament and Prophets
Lev 1:1-6
I. The very same voice which proclaimed the commandments on Sinai is here said to announce the nature of the sacrifices, and how, when, and by whom they are to be presented. The unseen King and Lawgiver is here, as everywhere, making known His will. Those sacrifices which it was supposed were to bend and determine His will themselves proceeded from it.
II. These words were spoken to the children of Israel out of the tabernacle. The tabernacle was the witness of God’s abiding presence with His people, the pledge that they were to trust Him, and that He sought intercourse with them.
III. The tabernacle is represented as the tabernacle of the congregation. There, where God dwells, is the proper home of the whole people; there they may know that they are one.
IV. “Say to the children of Israel, If any of you bring an offering to the Lord.” The desire for such sacrifice is presumed. Everything in the position of the Jew is awakening in him the sense of gratitude, of obligation, of dependence. He is to take of the herd and the flock for his offering. The lesson is a double one. The common things, the most ordinary part of his possessions, are those which he is to bring; that is one part of his teaching. The animals are subjects of man; he is to rule them and make use of them for his own higher objects; that is another.
V. The victim was taken to the door of the place at which all Israelites had an equal right to appear; but the man who brought it laid his own hand upon the head of it. He signified that the act was his, that it expressed thoughts in his mind which no one else could know of.
VI. The reconciliation which he seeks he shall find. God will meet him there. God accepts this sign of his submission. He restores him to his rights in the Divine society.
VII. Now it is that we first hear of the priests, Aaron’s sons. If there was to be a congregation, if the individual Israelites were not to have their separate sacrifices and their separate gods, then there must be a representative of this unity. The priest was consecrated as a witness to the people of the actual relation which existed between them and God.
F. D. Maurice, The Doctrine of Sacrifice Deduced from the Scriptures, p. 67.
References: Lev 1:1.-Parker, vol. iii., p. 126. Lev 1:1-9.-Ibid., pp. 13, 21, 29. Lev 1:4.-Spurgeon, Evening by Evening, p. 104. Lev 1:4, Lev 1:5.-Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xxx., No. 1771. Lev 1:5.-Ibid., No. 1772; Parker, Christian Chronicle, Jan. 22nd, 1885. Lev 1:9.-J. Fleming, The Gospel in Leviticus, p. 46. Lev 1-7.-J. Monro Gibson, The Mosaic Era, p. 171; Preacher’s Monthly, vol. ii., pp. 309, 311. Lev 2:1, Lev 2:2.-J. Fleming, The Gospel in Leviticus, p. 96. Lev 2:12-16.-Parker, vol. iii., p. 35. Lev 3-Ibid., pp. 42, 126. Lev 4-Ibid., p. 53. Lev 4:2, Lev 4:3.-J. Fleming, The Gospel in Leviticus, p. 107. Lev 4:3.-Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xiii., No. 739; Parker, vol. iii., p. 46. Lev 4:6, Lev 4:7.-Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xxx., No. 1780. Lev 4:27-31.-Ibid., vol. xviii., No. 1048. Lev 4:29.-Spurgeon, My Sermon Notes, p. 39. Lev 5-Parker, vol. iii., p. 59. Lev 5:15.-Ibid., p. 127. Lev 5:17, Lev 5:18.-Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xxiii., No. 1386. Lev 6:1-7.-Parker, vol. iii., p. 67. Lev 6:2, Lev 6:5.-J. Fleming, The Gospel in Leviticus, p. 114. Lev 6:9.-Parker, vol. iii., p. 128. Lev 6:12.-J. Fleming, The Gospel in Leviticus, p. 20. Lev 6:13.-W. Spensley, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xix., p. 344; Spurgeon, Morning by Morning, p. 197; Parker, vol. iii., p. 74; Homiletic Quarterly, vol. ii., p. 120. Lev 7:1.-Parker, vol. iii., p. 128. Lev 7:11-18.-Preacher’s Monthly, vol. ii., p. 313. Lev 7:27.-Parker, vol. iii., p. 130. Lev 7:29-31.-J. Fleming, Gospel in Leviticus, p. 74. Lev 7:37, Lev 7:38.-Homiletic Quarterly, vol. iv., p. 529. Lev 7-Parker, Christian Chronicle, May 22nd, 1879.
Fuente: The Sermon Bible
Analysis and Annotations
I. THE OFFERINGS THE FOUNDATION OF HOLINESS
1. The Burnt Offering
CHAPTER 1
1. The bullock (Lev 1:1-9)
2. The sheep or the goat (Lev 1:10-13)
3. The doves or pigeons (Lev 1:14-17)
Jehovah spoke out of the tabernacle which had been set up and upon which the cloud descended, filling the Holy of Holies with the glory of the Lord. Thus Leviticus is closely linked with the ending of the book of Exodus. Out of that glory, from between the cherubim, the same Person spoke to Moses, who had spoken to him out of the burning bush and on Mount Sinai. The first three chapters with which Leviticus opens form one utterance of Jehovah. The second utterance begins with chapter 4:1. This first utterance of Jehovah is concerning three offerings: the burnt offering, the meat offering, and the peace offering. They are distinguished from the other two offerings by being called a sweet savour (or odor) to Him. This tells of the value and acceptability of these offerings. No direct reference to sin is made in connection with the sweet savour offerings. For Israel these three offerings were the divinely appointed means to approach Him, who dwelt in the Sanctuary. The sin and trespass offerings had more specially to do with their sins and were the means of restoring communion with God. The burnt offering stands first among the offerings because it foreshadows in a most precious and simple way the perfect work of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself to God. This offering was wholly consumed, and was therefore also called whole burnt offering (Deu 33:10; Psa 51:19). It was a holocaust. It went up entirely to God; the priests could not eat of it. The altar upon which it was brought was called the altar of burnt offering, while the fire upon that altar was never permitted to go out. Every part of it typifies Christ offering Himself completely to God; the sweet odor is unto God and it is for the believers acceptance in Him. A few hints on this offering and the other offerings will be sufficient to show their typical meaning.
First the bullock is mentioned. The ox gives us the highest type of Christ offering Himself. Like the sheep and goats used in the burnt offering, the ox was easily gotten. He needed not to be hunted or be gotten by mans efforts; the ox and the other domestic animals used were, so to speak, ready and willing. Led from the green pastures to be killed before the Lord, the ox is the type of Christ, who left the Fathers glory and presence to do His will and give Himself as the willing sacrifice (Psa 40:6-8; Heb 10:1-6). But the ox is also the type of the servant, and reminds us of Christ, the obedient servant, who came not to be ministered to, but to minister and give His life as a ransom for many. There was to be no blemish whatever in the animal. Even so Christ was without blemish, holy and undefiled. The type was to be without blemish, Christ is without blemish, and the Church which He loved and for which He gave Himself will be through His gracious work without blemish, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing (Eph 5:27).
The offerer had to offer it of his own voluntary will. The correct rendering is (verse 3) for his acceptance. This reveals the great purpose of the burnt offering. Through Christ as the sin offering, as we shall see later, the believer knows that all sins are paid for and put away. The burnt offering leads us higher. The spotless One offered Himself unto God and we are accepted in Him. The believer is therefore completely identified with the perfect obedience and devotion of the Lord Jesus Christ and accepted as His willing sacrifice was accepted by God and a sweet odor unto Him.
The offerer had to put his hand on the head of the sacrifice. This simple act identified the offerer with the offering. It also stands for faith, for the hand is for taking hold. Thus faith must lay hold in faith on Christ and become identified with Him. God and the believing soul meet in the One, who offered Himself. In connection with the command to put the hand on the head of the sacrifice we find the statement: it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him. While we saw before the believers acceptance in Christ, here the fact is made known that the sacrifice is accepted in the offerers place and that the burnt offering makes atonement. And because without shedding of blood is no remission of sins the ox had to be killed. The Hebrew word killing has a sacrificial meaning. The offerer had to slay the victim himself to indicate that he deserved the death which the animal suffered in his place. The next thing done was the sprinkling of the blood by the priests round upon the altar by the door of the tabernacle. Thus He who knew no sin was made sin for us; and His blood has made atonement. And how blessed it is to see it was done before the LORD (verse 5). How exceedingly precious and of inestimable value the devotedness of Christ, His obedience unto the death of the cross, and the shedding of His blood must be in Gods holy sight! Thus everything in the burnt offering foreshadows the blessed truth–Christ hath given Himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet smelling savour (Eph 5:2).
The victim was flayed, cut into pieces. His inwards and his legs were washed with water. The head and the fat, as well as the other parts including the inwards and the legs, were put in order on the wood upon the altar. It was then completely consumed by fire and rose up a sweet savour unto the Lord. All has its typical meaning. All is exposed to the Divine gaze and all witnesses to the perfection and excellencies of Him who gave Himself. The fat is typical of His internal excellencies. The inwards and the legs washed in water apply to Christs holy character in His affections and in His walk in perfect accord with the Word (the water). The wood tells of His humanity which He took on for the suffering of death. The fire was the fire from heaven. It is not, as often taken here, the symbol of Divine wrath consuming the sacrifice, but it has another meaning. It is the figure of Gods perfect delight in the devotion of His ever blessed Son. God rested in Christ and found His fullest satisfaction in Him. The Hebrew has different words for burning. The one that is used here is the same as used for the burning of incense. This in itself shows that it has no connection with wrath. The continual fire upon the altar in connection with this greatest of all the offerings, tells us of Gods perpetual delight in the work of Christ, what He is and what He has done.
What became of the skin of the ox? Chapter 7:8 gives the answer. It belonged to the priest. And thus the burnt offering aspect of the death of Christ covers and hides all, who trust in Him.
Next we find that sheep and goats could also be brought as a burnt offering. The highest grade was the ox and the grades which followed, the sheep and the goat. This was in case the offerer was poor and could not bring the more costly ox. It also represents the faith of the offerer. A lower faith and estimate of Christ which does not reach up to the highest conception, however, does not affect the acceptance of the offerer. The inferior offerings typified Christ and were therefore a sweet savour unto God, who beheld in all the same perfect sacrifice. Our faith should rest completely upon Gods estimate of Christ and His work. The sheep is the type of Christ in His devoted self-surrender, unresisting and silent (Isa 53:7). The goat offering clearly typifies the substitutionary character of the work of the Lamb of God on the cross. The goat is more linked with the sin offering aspect of the death of Christ. Here also the fact is made known that the lamb and goat offering is to be brought on the side of the altar northward before the Lord (verse 11). It stands typically for distance and not the same nearness is recognized as in the first grade offering.
Turtle-doves and pigeons are the lowest grade of burnt offerings. These were for the poorest of the people and they express typically the weakest faith in Christ and the lowest estimate of His work. But here also we read that it was accepted as an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the Lord. These birds speak of Christ as do the ox and the lamb. The dove is the bird of peace, love and sorrow. The dove pictures Him as holy and undefiled, filled with tenderness and love. The bird was put to death by wringing off its head, the type of the violence done to Him, who was so tender and loving. The crop and the feathers (correct meaning, filth) were cast away. As those were unclean they had to be thrown away so as to make the type correspond to Him, who is undefiled and holy.
Fuente: Gaebelein’s Annotated Bible (Commentary)
called: Exo 19:3, Exo 24:1, Exo 24:2, Exo 24:12, Exo 29:42, Joh 1:17
out of: Exo 25:22, Exo 33:7, Exo 39:32, Exo 40:34, Exo 40:35
Reciprocal: Gen 8:20 – burnt Exo 3:12 – ye shall Exo 20:24 – burnt Exo 24:5 – burnt offerings Lev 4:35 – according Lev 6:9 – of the burnt Lev 7:37 – the law Lev 7:38 – commanded Lev 9:12 – General Num 1:1 – tabernacle Num 7:15 – General Num 7:89 – he heard Num 15:3 – a burnt Num 23:3 – burnt Deu 27:6 – burnt offerings 2Ki 16:13 – he burnt 2Ch 1:3 – the tabernacle 2Ch 29:31 – sacrifices Ezr 8:35 – offered burnt Jer 17:26 – bringing burnt Eze 43:6 – I heard Mal 4:4 – with Heb 10:6 – burnt
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
We now commence the book of Leviticus, and we must connect chapter Lev 1:1, with Exo 40:38. The Lord had been speaking to Moses from Sinai; but He spoke “out of the tabernacle” directly His glory had taken possession of it. Thus He manifested His presence. We see a parallel to this in Act 2:1-47. When God formed His spiritual house, by the disciples in Jerusalem being “builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit” (Eph 2:22), the first manifestation of His presence was by His Spirit speaking so powerfully through Peter, of what had been accomplished by the death and resurrection and ascension of Christ, that three thousand were converted. In our chapter God speaks only of the sacrifices, which presented in type that which in due season Christ was to accomplish.
The whole of the first chapter is occupied with instructions as to what was to take place if any man desired to offer to the Lord a burnt offering. Of all the offerings this stands first, inasmuch as it typifies the sacrifice of Christ from the most exalted standpoint; namely, its value and excellence in the sight of God. It was not compulsory as the sin offering. The word “offering” in verse Lev 1:2 is a translation of the “Corban,” to which the Lord referred in Mar 7:11 – a voluntary offering, which might be omitted, or used on the other hand as a hypocritical reason for avoiding one’s duty to aged parents
With the possible exception of Gen 4:7, where “sin” may stand for “sin-offering,” it is noticeable that the offerings that are mentioned up to the time of the giving of the law are burnt offerings. This agrees with what we read in Rom 5:13. From the moment of the fall sin was in the world, “but sin is not imputed when there is no law.” God did not ignore the fact of sin, but He did not put it to man’s account in the definite way in which He did when the law was given. Hence the sin offering did not come into prominence before the law was given.
In verse Lev 1:3 we have according to the A.V. the words, “he shall offer it of his own voluntary will,” but in Darby’s New Translation this is rendered, “present it for his acceptance,” and with this the R.V. agrees. So the thought evidently was that the offerer was to stand before God in all the acceptance of the unblemished offering that he brought. Hence the putting of his hand on the head of the offering, of which the next verse speaks, signified that he identified himself with his offering. This, we believe, furnishes us with the root meaning, which is attached to the laying on of hands right through Scripture. It signifies, identification.
Reading through the chapter, we see at once that the instructions given divide into three parts, according to the offering brought, whether from the herd or the flock or from the fowls. We note that there are slight differences in minor details between the three, but the main outline is the same. The blood of each was to be sprinkled on the altar, and in each case neither the priests nor the offerer had any part reserved for them: all was for the Lord.
Yet certain things that are specified remind us that these types are only shadows and cannot portray the full excellence of that which they typify. For instance, the inward parts and the legs of the victims had to be washed with water before they were offered by fire to the Lord, just as the priests had to wash hands and feet every time they entered the tabernacle. So the crop of the fowl with its “feathers,” or “refuse,” had to be cast among the ashes. The fact is that the sin of man had brought defilement into the whole creation, and there is nothing perfect. But, with these precautions taken, the burnt offerings were a fitting type of the sacrifice made when Christ “through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God” (Heb 9:14), thus giving “Himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling savour” (Eph 5:2).
Three times in our chapter do we get the words, “a sweet savour unto the Lord.” The special feature of the burnt offering was thus clearly indicated. It set forth the sacrifice of Christ in its own intrinsic excellence, as appreciated by God Himself. If His sacrifice had not effected anything for man, yet tested as He was by the fire of judgment everything about Him would have gone up as a sweet odour to God. But as a matter of fact though the benefit the believer gets from it is secondary, yet it does come in, for identified, as we are with His sacrifice, we stand in all its acceptability, accepted before God. The passages we quoted above from Heb 9:1-28 and Eph 5:1-33 make this abundantly clear.
The three classes of burnt offerings are mentioned on a descending scale. The rich man might bring his bullock, the man of medium substance his sheep, the poor man his young pigeon. Yet each of the three was a burnt offering, and in each case the offerer was accepted before God. What we see typified in these variations is not a greater or lesser acceptance but a greater or lesser apprehension on the part of the offerer. To put it in another way: every believer stands accepted before God in the perfection and fragrance of the sacrifice of Christ, which never varies and is the same for all. What does vary is the measure in which we appreciate the value of His work. Consequently when we “offer the sacrifice of praise to God… the fruit of our lips, giving thanks to His name” (Heb. 13:15), the character of our praise varies. If we bring together in our thoughts Leviticus I and what we have in 1Jn 2:13-27, we may say that the “father” may bring his bullock, the “young man” his sheep, and the “babe” his young pigeon.
Before leaving Lev 1:1-17, glance again at the closing words of verses Lev 1:9, Lev 1:13, Lev 1:17. As we see in verse Lev 1:4, atonement was connected with the burnt offering, but it was not the prominent thought, but rather the excellence of the offering in the Divine estimation. It was a sweet savour to Him.
In Lev 2:1-16 details are given as to the “meat” or “meal” offering. In the Hebrew a different word is used for this, but still a word which indicates a gift, for this too was a voluntary offering and not compulsory. The basic offering here was fine flour, though it might be offered in a variety of ways: either fresh and untreated, or baked in an oven or a pan, or cooked in a frying pan. But in each case both oil and frankincense were to be associated with it.
Now nothing is softer and more even and less gritty than fine flour, and hence it is a most fitting type of the smooth and flawless perfection of the life on earth of “the Man Christ Jesus.” Moreover the oil here, as elsewhere, is typical of the Holy Spirit of God, in whose power the Lord Jesus went forth in His unparalleled path of service, as we see in Luk 3:22 and Luk 4:1, Luk 4:14.
The oil was to be used in different ways. In the first case, verse Lev 1:2, a handful of both flour and oil was to be taken by the priest and burned as a memorial on the altar. In the other cases, verses Lev 1:4-9, the cakes were to be “mingled” with oil and then “anointed ” with oil. Here again we may see typified what is made abundantly clear in the Gospel of Luke, particularly in the first chapter. When our blessed Lord stooped to become Man, His birth was the result of an action by the Holy Spirit, so that His Manhood, though true Manhood, was yet unique Manhood, “mingled” with the Holy Spirit. Later, as we have seen, He was “anointed” with the Holy Spirit and with power.
In this chapter the word “atonement” does not occur. That is because no blood was shed in the meat offering which typified His perfect life. It is the blood that makes atonement for the soul.
There was thus a certain variety in the way in which the meat offering was constituted, but in each case, while only a part of that which was presented was burnt as a memorial and as a sweet savour to the Lord, all the frankincense had to be burnt with the memorial. This emphasizes again that the prime thought in the meat offering, as with the burnt offering, is that of the pleasure and delight of God Himself in the perfect life of the Lord Jesus, when tested in the fire. He is the only One in whom was found no flaw but rather every perfection in the energy of the Holy Spirit, everything about Him an odour of a sweet smell.
But though in this type God had all the frankincense there was a remainder of the flour and oil, or of the mingled and anointed cakes, which was to be the portion of Aaron and his sons. They were to have as a part of their food that which had been offered to God for His pleasure. In this we may see an indication of our privilege as those who have been “built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices” (1Pe 2:5), for verse Lev 1:7 proceeds to say, “Unto you therefore which believe He is precious,” or, more literally, “is the preciousness.” Christ is precious to God in infinite measure, but His preciousness is also for us.
The believer today then, as a priest, is permitted to have as the food of his soul all that excellence which has been displayed in Christ, and as he thus feeds he has the wherewithal to offer up those spiritual sacrifices of praise which are acceptable to God. But let us note those twice repeated words (verses Lev 1:3; Lev 1:10) that it is “a thing most holy of the offerings of the Lord made by fire.” When Christ is before us, let us never forget the holiness of the theme, but treat it with that reverence and reserve, which springs from self-judgment, that is becoming.
In verses Lev 1:11; Lev 1:13 we have further stringent regulations. From all meat offerings all leaven and honey were to be excluded, and in them salt was always to be found. All through Scripture consistently, leaven is a type of evil in its permeating power. It was wholly absent in the perfect life of our Lord, and it could never be offered to God. Honey is regarded as the sweetest thing among natural products, as is indicated in Jdg 14:18. It too, was not to be offered to God. Our Lord Jesus Christ was the very embodiment of grace. But the grace of God is not natural sweetness, which is akin to human amiability, since truth as well as grace has reached us in Him. The truth that came by Jesus Christ connects itself with the salt that always was to be a part of the sacrifices offered to God.
The Lord’s instruction to His disciples, and to us, was, “Have salt in yourselves, and have peace one with another” (Mar 9:50). Then we have the Apostle Paul writing, “Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt” (Col 4:6), and again, “Speaking the truth in love” (Eph 4:15). These Scriptures make plain what “salt” is, when it is applied to us. Healthy regard for truth preserves from that compromising attitude, which is so sweet if only human amiability be in question. In us, all this is only found in measure. In Christ, all was perfection.
Between verse Lev 1:11, which prohibits both the leaven and the honey, and verse Lev 1:13, which insists on the salt being present, comes verse Lev 1:12, which mentions the first fruits. These though offered to the Lord, were not to be burnt on the altar as a sweet savour. No reason for this is mentioned here, but the reference is to the “new meat offering,” of which we read in Lev 23:16, Lev 23:17, when we discover that these firstfruits consisted of two loaves, which were baked with leaven. They were only to be waved before the Lord and not burnt. They were not typical of Christ but rather of the church, as we shall see when we come to that chapter. Only the offerings that were typical of Christ could be burnt upon the altar as a sweet savour unto the Lord.
In the three verses that close the chapter a meat offering consisting of corn in the ear or beaten out of the ear is contemplated. The firstfruits of the harvest might be presented thus, not having passed through the mill under man’s hand. The memorial of it might be burnt by the priest upon the altar with oil and all the frankincense. This would be acceptable to God. In Lev 23:10, Lev 23:11, the sheaf of firstfruits was only to be waved before the Lord, but, as we shall see, that typified Christ in resurrection. Here we are still occupied with Christ in His life of perfect obedience which culminated in His death. We see Him rather as the perfect “corn of wheat” which fell into the ground and died, and out of whose death springs life for others, as the Lord Himself indicated in Joh 12:24.
Fuente: F. B. Hole’s Old and New Testaments Commentary
The Blood of the Cross in Leviticus
Lev 1:1-9
INTRODUCTORY WORDS
The story of the sacrifices begins in the Bible immediately after the story of man’s sin. It was then that God took the skin of the slain beast with which to robe the nakedness of our first parents.
It was shortly after that the firstling of the flock was slain by Abel, and the smell of his sacrifice went up as a sweet smelling savor unto God. The story of special sacrifices is particularly emphasized, in its details, in the Book of Leviticus. If we took the story of the Cross from Leviticus we would take away the story of the whole Book. Leviticus is the only Book in the Bible that seems to be given exclusively to the discussion of the Blood of the Cross, and to the One whose Blood was shed.
There are various questions which come to the mind of the Bible student relative to the sacrifices. For our part, in this study, we will try to answer some of these questions.
1. What is the relationship between the sacrifices of the Old Testament and the supreme sacrifice of the New Testament? The sacrifices of the Old Testament anticipated and symbolically portrayed the sacrifice of Christ.
2. Why does the Bible say that God had no pleasure in the sacrificing of bulls and of goats? This statement is made in Hebrews to show once and for all that the only sacrifice that could save the sinner was the. sacrifice of Christ on the Cross. God settles forever the fact that the Old Testament sacrifices are absolutely useless apart from the significance which they foretold. It was their foreshadowing of Christ that made them valuable.
3. Why did God say through Isaiah the Prophet: “To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto Me? saith the Lord: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats”? The Lord had definitely commanded the very sacrifices which He proclaimed were an abomination to Him, and a weariness to Him. God said this because those who were offering the sacrifices were offering them merely with a religious zeal without any knowledge whatsoever of their deeper spiritual meanings. God is just as much dissatisfied today with the ordinances of the church, baptism and the Lord’s Supper, when those ordinances are merely formalities which have lost their symbolical significance.
4. Why was it that in the Levitical offerings there were sacrifices of various kinds when the sacrifice of Christ on Calvary was but one supreme sacrifice? The reason for this was that each sacrifice in Leviticus was to set forth one phase of the life and death of our Lord. No one sacrifice could cover all of these.
The burnt offering, set forth in chapter 1, showed that Jesus Christ was a perfect Sacrifice, sinless, and acceptable unto the Father.
The meat offering of Lev 2:1-16 shows us that Jesus Christ upon the Cross was God’s gift to us. It was, in reality, a gift offering, and it set forth that God gave unto us a Saviour, One who was pure, white, without spot or blemish.
The peace offering of Lev 3:1-17 sets forth the ground of acceptable approach unto God. The question of sins had to be set aside before we have the right to enter into the Shekinah presence.
The sin offering for the sins of ignorance in Lev 4:1-35 acclaimed the fact that Jesus Christ on the Cross settled not only the willful sins, but sins of ignorance. It also showed that we are lost whether we sin in ignorance, or not, and therefore Christ in His sacrificial work atoned for our sins of ignorance.
The trespass offering sets forth the Cross of Christ in its atonement for sins, first toward our fellow man, and second toward God.
5. There is a question which is often asked: why does it say in Hebrews that Christ offered one sacrifice for sins forever and sat down? It was because the sacrifices of the Old Testament were many inasmuch as they anticipated the one supreme sacrifice. On the other hand the sacrifice of Jesus Christ was an all-sufficient sacrifice in the one offering, and was the fulfillment of all the many sacrifices which anticipated that offering. Jesus sat down at the right hand of the Father showing that His work was a completed work.
6. In what sense does the Blood of Jesus Christ continue to cleanse from all sin? 1Jn 1:7 is speaking of the sins of believers and the forgiveness which we obtain, as saints, through the virtue of the Cross. The word “cleanseth” is in the present tense, and it suggests that the Blood of Christ cleanses moment by moment, purging the heart and conscience of the believer.
I. THE BURNT OFFERING (Lev 1:3, f.c.)
Our text reads, “If his offering be a burnt sacrifice of the herd, let him offer a male without blemish.” The fact that the offering was a male without blemish sets forth the inherent holiness of the Lord Jesus Christ, He knew no sin; He did no sin; and in Him there was no sin. Jesus Christ could look the people in the face and say, “Which of you convinceth Me of sin?” Every man on the face of the earth who lives now, or has ever lived, was born a sinner, with the exception of Jesus Christ. He was from above, we are from beneath. He was begotten of the Holy Ghost, therefore it was written: “That Holy Thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God”; we were begotten of sinful parents, and were conceived in sin, therefore we are sinners.
This conception of Jesus Christ is absolutely vital to His Calvary work. If He had been a sinner, He could not have atoned for our sins. Had He, as a sinner, been made a sacrifice for sin, and suffered for sin, He would of necessity have suffered and sacrificed for His own sins. He could die for the unjust only because He was Just. He could be made sin for us only because He knew no sin.
Every offering in the Levitical sacrifices represented the Lord Jesus Christ as without sin.
When Peter spoke of the Blood of Christ he said, “Ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, * * but with the precious Blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world.”
Thus it was that God in His eternal purpose sent forth His Son in the form of flesh, that He might become a sacrifice for us. He could not send any man to die for us because all men were sinners. He could not send a sinless angel to die for us because the sinless angel was not flesh on the one hand, and did not have a value sufficient, on the other hand, to pay the price of the redemption of all sinners.
II. THE BURNT OFFERING WAS TO BE OFFERED “OF HIS OWN ‘VOLUNTARY WILL’ AT THE DOOR OF THE TABERNACLE OF THE CONGREGATION BEFORE THE LORD” (Lev 1:3)
Here is a point that is absolutely vital to the story of the Cross. The burnt offering was a gift offering on the part of the people, but more particularly was a gift on the part of God.
1. God so loved that He gave His only begotten Son. We realize that God’s gift was a voluntary gift. There was no compulsion whatsoever in the Father’s sending forth His Son into the world. It was love that lay behind it.
2. Christ’s sacrifice of Himself upon the Cross was also a gift. He “loved the Church, and gave Himself for it.” Jesus Christ said, “I am the Good Shepherd, * * and I [give] My life for the sheep.” We will say more about this anon.
In this voluntary act of Calvary there are two vital things set forth:
(1) Jesus Christ did not go to the Cross under compulsion. He went as a lamb, to be sure, but not as a lamb against his will. As a sheep before her shearers is dumb so He opened not His mouth.
(2) Salvation is a gift freely given, and it cannot be bought by any worth which any man on earth thinks he possesses. The gift of God is eternal life. All of this is anticipated in the statement of Lev 1:3, l.c.
III. THE BURNT OFFERING WAS TO BE OFFERED WITH THE OFFERER’S HAND UPON THE HEAD OF THE OFFERING (Lev 1:4)
1. This act showed that the one who brought his burnt offering confessed that his sins were transferred to the one about to be offered. What we mean is this: in the death of the Lord Jesus Christ we died. Paul put it this way: “I am crucified with Christ.” In the Book of Romans we read: “So many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into His death; * * knowing this, that our old man is crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be destroyed.” In. other words, if Christ died for us, we died in Him. Our sins were imputed unto the Saviour. The statement of 2Co 5:21 is tremendous. It says that Christ was made sin for us, This thought is set forth in the story of the uplifted serpent. The fiery serpents were biting the Children of Israel, and the Israelites were dying on every hand. Moses pleaded on their behalf, and God, in response to Moses’ prayer, commanded that a brazen serpent should be lifted up on a pole, and that every one bitten, who looked to that serpent should be healed.
When Jesus Christ spoke to Nicodemus He referred to this serpent, and said, “Even so must the Son of Man be lifted up: that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have eternal life.” Thus, on the Cross we see, not only Christ dying for us, but we see ourselves dying in Him. We align ourselves to that Cross. We take the position that our stripes fell upon Him; that His soul was made an offering for us.
2, This expression showed that Jesus Christ was acceptable to the Father in our behalf. We want to come to God, but no man can come to God in himself. We are entirely shut out, and forever shut out. God is holy, and the unholy cannot enter into His presence. God is just, and the unjust cannot have admittance before His face. As we place our hand upon the Divine sacrifice, we seek to make our approach unto God by no merit of our own, but solely upon the merit of another, even upon the merit of the slain Lamb of God.
IV. IN THE BURNT OFFERING WE DISCOVER THAT CHRIST IS OUR ACCEPTANCE (Lev 1:4, l.c.)
We have given a little of this but we must emphasize it more. Jesus Christ said on one occasion “No man cometh unto the Father, but by Me.” The Father cannot accept us, however, the Father accepts the Son.
Let us, for one moment, call this offering an approach offering. A burnt offering is an ascending offering, or an entrance offering. We stand at the door and wish to enter in. However, there is no possible method of approach save as we approach through the Blood of the Lamb.
We remember now the story of Rev 7:13, Rev 7:14. It is the story of a great multitude who came out of great tribulation. They came out having their robes washed and made white in the Blood of the Lamb. Now, get the next word. The Elder said: “Therefore are they before the Throne of God, and serve Him day and night.” They stand before the throne of God because they came in by the Blood of the Lamb, For a moment let us see Christ dying upon the Cross, His sacrifice was a sacrifice acceptable unto the Father. This is the vital meaning of the burnt offering, but not only that, His sacrifice was acceptable to the Father, and it also makes us acceptable in Him.
Jesus Christ ascending in the clouds led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto man. All of this sets forth the fact that His ascension is our ascension. Looking at His disciples, He said, “Because I live, ye shall live also.” As we see the Lord sitting at the right hand of the Father we see ourselves raised from the dead, and seated with Him in the glory. We are there because He is there.
V. THE BURNT OFFERING DEMANDED THE KILLING OF A BULLOCK BEFORE THE LORD (Lev 1:5, f.c)
We have emphasized in the earlier part of this study how the lamb had to be without spot and without blemish. However, a spotless Christ is not a Saviour.
When God commanded the Children of Israel to take the lamb and keep it up until the fourteenth day, He commanded that the lamb should be without spot, a male, and a firstling of the flock. All of this referred, of course, to the purity and spotlessness of the Son of God. However, it was not the living lamb that was to be tied at the door, but it was the slain lamb that was to prove the vital memorial at the passover.
There are some people today who are forever giving honor to the Man of Galilee, or to the Bable of Bethlehem. That honor is due Him, we know, but, beloved, it is not the beautiful life of the Babe of Bethlehem, nor the matchless walk of the Man of Galilee which saved us. His holiness and spotlessness made Him a possible, but not an actual, Saviour.
The burnt offering was to be killed. So, also, did Christ die that He might bring us unto God. Had Jesus Christ passed all the way from the manger, where He lay a Babe, to the Garden of Gethsemane, He could not thus have become our Saviour.
It was when He hung upon the Cross that His soul was made an offering for sin. It was there that He suffered, the Just for the unjust. When that agony began, He began to pass around the cycle of His suffering for us. When that sacrifice ended, He cried, “It is finished,” and the work of redemption was then completed.
VI. THE BLOOD OF THE SACRIFICE IN THE BURNT OFFERING WAS TO BE SPRINKLED AROUND ABOUT THE ALTAR THAT IS BY THE DOOR OF THE TABERNACLE OF THE CONGREGATION (Lev 1:5, l.c.)
We now come to a statement that is just as vital as the one we have been considering. We said that the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross was not only vital TO our redemption, but it WAS our redemption. It is the Blood that is all our plea.
We wish now to say that the slain Lamb alone cannot save the sinner. Christ died for all, to be sure. The sacrifice has been made. God has been satisfied. The offended Law has been also satisfied. Every legal obstacle, and Divine demand is forever satisfied, but there is one thing that must be done before a sinner can be saved.
The blood, in the “type” we are now studying, was to be sprinkled around about the altar on every side: to the east, the west, the north, and the south. That sprinkling seems to say, “Calvary is open to men of every kindred, tongue, tribe, and every clime.” The possibility of redemption is for all. “Whosoever will, may come.” Christ said, “By Me if any man enter in, he shall be saved.”
The Blood sprinkled in the four directions, however, carries with it more than a universal call to men of every clime. It also establishes that all men are sinners, and that no man can escape the need of the Cross. Even more than all of this, the sprinkling of that Blood shows that the shed Blood must be applied. It is for every one, but it must be received by each.
In the old days, when the Passover lamb was killed on the fourteenth day, God gave the command that the blood should be sprinkled upon the upper doorpost, and the side-posts of the house. We say it reverently, but we say it with assurance, no sinner can ever come to God without he believes, and believes intelligently, and personally, in the Divine sacrifice.
It is not the Blood of Christ dripping from the wounds of the Saviour, nor rushing from His side, that saves; it is that Blood applied by faith to the individual heart and life. The slain Lamb must be an accepted Saviour, before the lost sinner is an accepted saint.
VII. THE BURNT OFFERING WAS TO BE FLAYED AND CUT IN PIECES (Lev 1:6)
The flaying of the burnt offering signified that the skin of the bullock must be cut off. This skin stands for the outer life of the Lord Jesus Christ, the public manifestations of the Lord, His ministry, and messages, His service, His mighty deeds. All these were before the public gaze, and all of them stood acceptable unto the Father, Now, however, the skin was to be taken from the bullock. The earth-life and deeds of the Master were for the moment to be set aside, and His inner life was to be laid bare.
The bullock was then to be cut in pieces that its inner perfections and spotlessness might be portrayed. In all of this we have set forth the fact of the inherent holiness of Christ. He was not only holy in word and in action, but He was holy within.
There was no sin upon Him save when the Father put our sins upon Him as a substitute. There was no sin within Him; He was the Holy One of God.
When this sacrifice had thus been cut in pieces, the inwards and legs were to be washed in water. All of this, once more, shows that Christ was the spotless Son of God. The priest was commanded to burn all on the altar as a burnt sacrifice, as an offering by fire, a sweet savor unto the Lord. Thus it was that the One who knew no sin died for the sinner.
The fire which consumed the pieces, speaks of the wrath of God which fell upon the Cross, However, mark you, at the same moment we read that this sacrifice was a sweet savor unto God. It is one moment under the wrath of God, and at the same moment it was acceptable unto God.
The sacrifice which Abel offered went up as a sweet-smelling savor unto the Lord. The sacrifice which Noah offered ascended before God as a sweet-smelling savor. The sacrifice of the Son of God, also, was a sweet-smelling and acceptable sacrifice. When Jesus Christ breathed His last upon the Cross, the Father received Him into the arms of His love.
As we close, we wish only to say that, chapter by chapter, Leviticus carries on the wonderful story of the Cross of Christ.
AN ILLUSTRATION
ATONEMENT, HEART OF CHRISTIANITY
There is a strange legend of old St. Martin. He sat one day in his monastery cell, busily engaged in his sacred studies, when there came a knock at the door. “Enter,” said the monk. The door opened and there appeared a stranger of lordly look, in princely attire. “Who art thou?” asked St. Martin. “I am Christ,” was the answer. The confident bearing, and the commanding tone of the visitor would have overawed a less wise man. But the monk simply gave his visitor one deep, searching glance, and then quietly asked, “Where is the print of the nails?” He had noticed that this one indubitable mark of Christ’s Person was wanting. There were no nail-scars upon those jeweled hands. And the kingly mien and the brilliant dress of the pretender were not enough to prove his claim while the print of the nails was wanting. Confused by this searching test-question, and his base deception exposed, the prince of evil-for he it was-quickly fled from the sacred cell.
This is only a legend, but it suggests the one infallible test that should be applied to all truth and to all life. There is much in these days that claims to be of Christ There be those who would have us lay aside the old faiths, and accept new beliefs and new interpretations. How shall we know whether or not to receive them? The only true test is that with which St. Martin exposed the false pretensions of his visitor: “Where is the print of the nails?” Nothing is truly Christ which does not bear this mark upon it. A Gospel without a wounded, dying Christ is not a gospel. The Atonement lies at the heart of Christianity. The Cross is the luminous center, from which streams all the light of joy, peace and hope. That which docs not bear the marks of the Lord Jesus cannot be of Him.-J. R. Miller, D.D.
Fuente: Neighbour’s Wells of Living Water
Subdivision 1. (Lev 1:1-17; Lev 2:1-16; Lev 3:1-17; Lev 4:1-35; Lev 5:1-19; Lev 6:1-7.)
The offerings themselves.
In the first subdivision, then, we have the offerings in themselves, five in number, of which one, the meat, or as the Revised Version puts it, the meal-offering, is not a sacrifice, as no blood is shed in it, no atonement made; the other four are sacrificial: and here again two, -the burnt- and the peace-offering, -are of sweet savor, the last two not -the sin- and trespass-offerings -though here also the offering of the fat is distinguished from the rest, and is in one case (Lev 4:31) expressly stated to be for a sweet savor.
In the order of application to the need of man, that which we have here is reversed; the meal-offering being also in general the appendage of the burnt-offering -“the burnt-offering and its meal offering.” It is very evident, therefore, that which we have here is the divine order, the other the human. Here, as we may say, the ladder of divine grace is let down from heaven; in the other case it is raised up to heaven. This last is also the order of the gospels in which we find again these four offerings, in Matthew the trespass-, in Mark the sin-, in Luke the peace-, and in John the burnt-offering. All this will come up for more examination as we go on with the book.
But there is a doctrine to which we are now brought in connection with these offerings which we must examine briefly before we enter upon the detailed exposition of them. It is the doctrine of the
Atonement.
We have had the thought presented to us in Exodus, just as we have had the offerings before us already; but it is in Leviticus that we come to the development of these. They could not have been treated of before without anticipating largely what we have now come to in the regular order of Scripture, always perfect and to be adhered to if we are to have proper apprehension of the truth it reveals.
In Genesis we had at the outset the effect of sacrifice in the acceptance of Abel. “He obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts” (Heb 11:4). In the Lord’s words to Cain an offering for sin is plainly stated to be God’s way of acceptance for the sinner. In Noah the altar first comes openly in sight, and God smells the sweet savor and will not curse. In Abraham’s offering of Isaac we learn other most precious truths. In Exodus, at the passover, the blood first assumes importance, and God declares, “When I see the blood, I will pass over you.” They feed too upon the lamb. In confirmation of the first covenant at Mount Sinai, the blood is sprinkled upon the people, but the character of the covenant itself necessarily affects the significance of this. Not till we come to the twenty ninth chapter of Exodus do we find the word “atonement” used, which in Leviticus comes into such frequent use as nearly to equal in occurrence all the rest of the Old Testament.
The word used for making atonement is kahphar in its Piel or intensive form. “The correctness of the generally accepted radical significance, ‘to cover,’ ‘to cover up,'” says Kurtz, “is fully established from the related dialects.” When however we ask in what sense we are to understand this “covering” there are conflicting views. Thus Kurtz again says, “Whether the word be understood in the sense of withdrawing from view, or of protecting from danger, the use of the word in other connections seems to show that neither of these interpretations can be sustained.” Why should there not be however a use large enough to allow of different implications in different connections, as the idea of “covering” naturally would? It is safer at least to be content with this idea, and not insist upon a difference which may lead us astray.
To the idea of “covering,” however, we must add the thought of “propitiation” -a “propitiatory covering.” Thus Keil says, “The meaning ‘to make atonement’ lies at the foundation in every passage in which the word is used metaphorically, such as Gen 32:20, where Jacob seeks to expiate the face of his angry brother, i.e., to appease his wrath with a present; or Pro 16:14, The wrath of a king is as messengers of death, but a wise man expiates it,’ i.e., softens, pacifies it; Isa 47:11, ‘Mischief (destruction) will fall upon thee, thou wilt not be able to expiate it,’ that is to say, to avert the wrath of God which has burst upon thee in the calamity, by means of an expiatory sacrifice. Even in Isa 28:18, ‘And your covenant with death is disannulled’ (annihilated) the use of the word is to be explained from the fact that the guilt which brought the judgment in its train could be cancelled by a sacrificial expiation; so that there is no necessity to resort to a meaning which is altogether foreign to the word, viz., that of covering up by blotting over. . . . The meaning of expiation which properly belongs to the verb kipper, is not only retained in the nouns kippurim and kapporeth, but lies at the root of the word kopher, as we may clearly see from Exo 30:12-16, where the Israelites are ordered to pay a kopher at the census, to expiate their souls.”
To this may be added that the Septuagint uniformly translates the verb kahphar in its primary application by exilaskomai, to “propitiate,” a word which in the New Testament is taken up (only dropping the intensive ex) when we are told that Christ was “a merciful and faithful High-Priest to make propitiation for the sins of the people.” (Heb 2:17, R.V.) Moreover, in their translation of kapporeth, the mercy-seat, they have set the example of dropping the “ex” and speak of it (more literally than our common English word) as the hilasterion, or “propitiatory.” (Heb 9:5.) Thus the inspired Greek confirms the meaning of the Hebrew.
In general, as we may see by Keil, the modern writers prefer to render “expiate,” rather than “propitiate,” though not refusing the latter. In fact both thoughts are in the word. As Dr. Wilson says, “This word conveys the idea both of pacification of wrath and of the covering of transgression.” Three of the texts referred to by Keil are better rendered “propitiate” than “expiate.” And the Greek word adopted in the New Testament is used with “sins” as its object, just as in the Septuagint, although the force of the word is to “propitiate.” The Revised Version gives, well enough, “make propitiation for sins,” but it necessarily disguises the fact that “sins” is the direct object of the verb. If we say to “expiate sins” we make less direct and positive the force of propitiation in the word. The only complete rendering would be “to make propitiation for sins by expiation.”
The thought in the Hebrew word then is that of “propitiatory covering.” Dr. Wilson adds to what was just now quoted from him, that it “does not seem to express of itself the full and adequate satisfaction for sin.” But this is surely implied in the fact that as the covering for sin it really propitiates. It must really in the sight of God cover, -cover, so that God is propitiated by it: how far does that differ from making “full and adequate satisfaction”?
To proceed: -atonement is by an offering; even where, as in Num 16:1-50, incense was used, or where in the case of extreme poverty a meal-offering was substituted for the true offering for sin, this character is always found. The need of insisting upon this arises from the contention that what is called propitiation is only reconciliation, and that man, not God, is the object. This is true, if we speak of reconciliation; false, with regard to propitiation: the two, although often confounded, are not the same. No doubt, our word “atonement” even had originally the force (according to its derivation) of “setting at one” or reconciling. That cannot be allowed to settle its present force, much less to dictate as to the Scripture doctrine, which assuredly is a doctrine of propitiation. The offering is to God -the propitiation Godward.
It is true that from the primitive meaning of kipper, God could not be the formal object. It is sin that is covered, or the sinner, and not God. It is not sin however that is propitiated or the sinner: if the thought of propitiation be in the word at all, the object of propitiation must be God.
And when we come to the New Testament, out of the only two occurrences of the verb hilaskomai, one expresses the very thought. The publican, praying in the temple, is made by our Lord to cry, convicted of his sin, “God be propitiated toward me the sinner!” The translations in general give “be merciful,” but it is hard to understand why, when “be propitiated” is the natural force of the words, and the place in which the publican is represented to be is so necessarily suggestive of propitiation. In the temple went up constantly the smoke of sacrifice; the kapporeth, or mercy-seat, God’s throne ideally, though for their sins not actually now, and to which his eyes were directed, spoke of it, as we have seen. And if the difference is insisted on as by some it is, between the thought and language of the heathen in this respect and that of Scripture, the more this difference and the importance of it are dilated on, the more impossible is it to suppose the lips of absolute truth putting into the prayer of an accepted sinner, words in their natural sense so plainly suggestive of a thought alien and derogatory to God, as they say this is of propitiating Him!
But if we are seeking things rather than words, the Old Testament is even from the beginning plain enough. “Put on incense and go quickly unto the congregation, and make an atonement for them,” says Moses to Aaron, “for there is wrath gone out from the Lord; the plague is begun. . . . And he put on incense, and made atonement for the people; and he stood between the dead and the living: and the plague was stayed” (Num 16:1-50.) How vain to say that here there was no appeasal of the wrath, no propitiation of God!
When upon the numbering of the people by David, “God was displeased with this thing, and smote Israel,” and when David cried to God in view of the angel’s drawn sword stretched over Jerusalem, the “angel of the Lord commanded Gad to say unto David, that David should go and set up an altar unto the Lord in the threshing floor of Ornan the Jebusite. . . . David built there an altar unto the Lord, and offered burnt-offerings and peace-offerings, and called upon the Lord; and he answered him from heaven by fire upon the altar of burnt-offering. And the Lord commanded the angel, and he put up again his sword into the sheath thereof.” (1Ch 21:1-30.)
The facts of Scripture thus abundantly illustrate its doctrine.
This, then, is the essential meaning of atonement or propitiation: we need not further anticipate what the offerings will now show us abundantly. What is in God’s sight a “propitiatory-covering” and why it is this, will be apparent as we go on with the picture-lessons of the book of Leviticus.
1. The Burnt-offering comes first here, and the meaning suggested by its numerical place is evident. It is the only offering which altogether goes up to God upon the altar. “Burnt-offering” is more literally the “offering that goes up.” It is the offering that is all offering,* -the typical offering, -GOD’S in the most eminent way: and correspondingly His delight is shown in it; the altar derives its name from it; the fire of it is never allowed to go out; it is the basis of the peace-offering (Lev 3:5), and that with which and in proportion to which, the meal- and the drink-offering are directed to be offered. Every thing marks this as indeed and in the fullest sense, the first of the offerings.
{*So much so that twice (Deu 33:10; Psa 51:19) kahlil, which means “whole,” is given for it.}
As connected with this it was, in contrast with the sin- and trespass-offerings, though not with others, and not at all times, a free-will offering. The common version of verse three must not, however, be quoted for this: the translation should be as it is generally agreed, not “he shall offer it of his own voluntary will,” but “he shall offer it for his acceptance.” Nor did it always depend upon his free-will, being in many cases prescribed, as in general following a sin-offering, and in other cases. Still, however this might be, the thought of a free-will offering is certainly what the burnt-offering presents. Nothing could make it so precious and acceptable to God as it being significant of full and entire devotedness. It could not have been else a whole offering -nothing kept back. It is thus what the burnt-offering psalm expresses: “Sacrifice and offering Thou wouldest not; mine ears hast Thou digged: burnt-offering and sin-offering hast Thou not required; then said I, Lo, I come, in the volume of the book it is written of Me, I delight to do Thy will, O My God” (Psa 40:6-8.) Here indeed Christ replaces all the legal sacrifices with his own marvelous obedience; and “by the which will,” says the apostle, “we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once.” (Heb 10:10.)
This unreserved devotedness, and to death, nothing bringing Him on earth, with nothing therefore to do on earth, no motive for action except the will of God, -this is what the burnt-offering expresses. How beautifully is it said therefore of the burnt-offering as of no other, “he shall offer it for his acceptance!” The exhaustion of wrath in the sin-offering might put away his sin; he might be free from every charge on this account: blessed as that is, it is not all that God has for us in what He calls “acceptance.” This must be not a mere negative -nothing against, but identification with the glorious perfection of that obedience unto death of which He Himself says, “Therefore doth My Father love Me because I lay down My life, that I might take it again.” Thus our acceptance -the favor in which we stand -is “in the Beloved.” (Eph 1:6.)
Now to look at the details of the offering: the usual burnt-offering was of the cattle -of the herd or of the flock. It was not to be a hunted, wild animal, but one which offered itself (so to speak) “at the door.” The “pigeon” which was also permitted, was also domesticated, while the nests of the turtle-dove were all around in gardens and olive-yards (of course when in the land.) The offering must not be far to seek, or requiring craft or toil to secure it; it would not in that case truly represent the blessed Victim. If of the herd, it must be a male, unblemished, presented before the Lord with the offerer’s hand upon its head, to be accepted for him.
There has been much dispute as to the meaning of the “laying on of hands.” Its importance may be noticed from the place the apostle gives it in the “foundation” of Judaism, “the word of the beginning of Christ” (Heb 6:1.) The margin is here evidently right, for no one could be exhorted to “leave” “the principles of the doctrine of Christ,” -that is Christianity. Christianity on the other hand is the “perfection” to which, in contrast with the “shadow” of it in the law, Paul is exhorting the Hebrews to “go on.” Accordingly in this “foundation” which they are not to lay again, nothing distinctive of Christianity is found. Christ Himself, the true foundation, is not named, but only “repentance from dead works, and faith toward God, and resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.” These are things that remain of course as true for Christians as for Jews, but Christ as come and His work for sinners are not named. Thus as the apostle goes on to show -(Heb 9:1-28), the conscience of the Jew was never perfected. Instead of the reality of what puts away sin, they had but the symbols, and it is of these we read in connection with, the plain present truths of repentance and of faith in God, and the truths of future resurrection and judgment. Between them, just where we need the knowledge of sin put away to confirm and fill out the first, and to enable us to meet in peace and confidence the future, the Jew found what? -a “teaching” -not “doctrine” -“of baptism and of laying on of hands.”
It is “teaching,” rather than “doctrine,” for it is not of the underlying truth in these things he is speaking, but that in place of the full soul-enfranchising reality itself; there were taught ordinances -“baptisms” and “laying on of hands.” The “baptisms” are again referred to and explained in Heb 9:10; Heb 9:13. The laying on of hands is only here. Both were sacrificial, the purgings by blood, but which could not satisfy the conscience; the “laying on of hands,” by which the offerer dedicates the victim solemnly as for himself. It is his need, his faith, that is expressed in it. Hence, though there is not in this case any open confession or transference of sin, we see that it is implied; and when over the scape-goat the sins of the people are confessed and put upon its head, we recognize at once that that is only a voice given to the act.
It may be, and has been asked, however, why only then should expression be given thus to it? would it not be rather against the thought of imputation of sin being elsewhere expressed by it? Thus it has been urged that the goat “was not even put to death, but sent alive into the desert; in fact it was not a sacrifice at all, and proves nothing with regard to the ritual of sacrifice.” To which Kurtz adds, “that a verbal explanation was thought necessary as an accompaniment to the act itself, is a proof that here, and nowhere else, the imposition of hands was to be regarded as a laying on of sin.”
This seems, however, to be a lack of discernment. Rather is it that the exceptional treatment of the scape-goat, which is distinctly said to be (in connection with the goat which is Jehovah’s lot) for a sin-offering, necessitates the explanation. We need to be plainly told that the laying on of hands in this exceptional case means what it means elsewhere, and accordingly this is openly declared to us. The meaning of the scape-goat must, of course, wait for exposition till we reach the “day of atonement.”
The victim thus presented is then accepted as the atoning offering for him who brings it. We see that it is not only the sin- or the trespass-offering that makes atonement, but the burnt-offering also. And although so much is not directly said of the peace-offering, yet it is implied: for “the life of the flesh is in the blood,” we are told later (Lev 17:11,) “and I have given it you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls.” We need not quote the rest of the verse, as the meaning is contested, and here it is not the place to examine it; but it is plain by this that wherever the blood is put upon the altar, it is for atonement. Thus all the sacrifices are atoning.
But for this the offering must be slain: for “without shedding of blood is no remission.” (Heb 9:22.) The very word here used for the killing (shachat) is sacrificial. In opposition to Delitzsch, who asserts that the killing “was merely the means of procuring the blood and offering the sacrifice, and hence it was not called killing, but slaughtering,'” Kurtz says: “This thought, however, is derived, not from the Hebrew, but from the German idiom, where the notion of slaughtering has certainly received such an application. And the fact that the word shachat is never used in ordinary life to denote a literal slaughtering for the purpose of cooking the flesh (tabach is the word generally used ought to have created some distrust of this attempt to define shachat. Moreover, we actually find this word applied to the slaying of a man, where there could not have been any other object than to put him to death, viz., for a crime that was thought worthy of death (e.g., Num 14:16; Jdg 12:6, etc.) . . . Its primary meaning was probably to throw down, to strike to the ground, to destroy, to lay in ruins. In the more developed stage of the language it became a technical term for the killing of an animal; from that it settled down into a special term belonging to the sacrificial worship, and thus acquired so definite and fixed a meaning, that people were afraid to apply it to the slaughtering of an animal for the ordinary purposes of life.”
It is striking and blessed to see how God has fenced round this institution of sacrifice from the mistakes which nevertheless even those who are at bottom orthodox are falling into. Here the emphasis laid upon the slaying of the victim corresponds to the emphasis put on the “shedding of blood” by the apostle. It is killed in one appointed place, and expressly “before Jehovah.” why insist upon this, if there were no special significance attaching to what is thus marked out as concerning Him and taken notice of by Him?
Indeed, if the eye were not off Christ, who is the substance of these shadows, how would it be possible to misinterpret in this way? That is above all the failure of those German theologians, who with their indefatigable research and abundant learning are leading so many at the present day: even the very best of them fail strangely, signally, in most important points; and that because, though they see Him in the types, He is not the central and sufficient explanation of them. At the best, they reason up to Him, not down from Him, and thus continually lose the very One they seek for. May He keep us from this, -our eyes ever and first of all upon Himself!
If we see Christ in the burnt-offering, how is it possible to say of His death, that it had no special significance? How the Old Testament itself rebukes the unholy thought! “For He was cut off out of the land of the living; for the transgression of My people was He stricken; . . . when thou shalt make His soul an offering for sin, He shall see His seed, He shall prolong His days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in His hand. . . . Therefore will I divide Him a portion with the great, and He shall divide the spoil with the strong: because He hath poured out His soul unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors, and He bare the sin of many.” (Isa 53:8; Isa 53:10; Isa 53:12.)
It is this slighting of the death of the victim which has opened the way for much strange teaching as to the true meaning of atonement, and even to the denial of it altogether, as in the Swedish heresy of Dr. Waldenstrm. The meaning of the blood is separated from the thought of death, and turned by degrees into its opposite, because the “blood is the life.” So it is, and yet the out-poured and sprinkled blood are not the types of life, but of death. This we must almost immediately consider.
The New Testament is abundantly plain. It speaks of the blood of Jesus fully and with emphasis as the type before us does; but it speaks also of the death of the Lord in the most distinct and definite relation to atonement, and as fundamental to it. Even Caiaphas’ unconscious prophecy declared “that Jesus should die for the nation.” (Joh 11:51). The Lord expands this and emphasizes it in the next chapter: “Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone; but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit.” (Joh 12:24.) The apostle Paul tells us that “in due time Christ died for the ungodly,” (Rom 5:6,) yea, that He “died for our sins, according to the Scriptures” (1Co 15:3); and in Hebrews, the great storehouse of New Testament interpretation as to all this service, that “He was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, that He by the grace of God should taste death for every man,” and that “for this cause He is the Mediator of the New Testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions which were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.” (Heb 2:9; Heb 9:15.)
Is it possible that this could be forgotten in the type, so that the death of the victim should be meaningless, except as a means of furnishing the blood? On the contrary, the blood itself is only the witness and commentary upon the precious death which indeed has furnished it, and is thus fundamental to it.
But it is said, the death of the victim is not at the hand of the priest but of the offerer -although there might be, and were, cases in which the offerer and the priest were one. The fact is so, and deserves consideration; but the meaning is not, we may be sure, in the least a contradiction to the testimony of Scripture elsewhere.
It has been the thought of some, that Christ being both offerer and victim, the offerer slaying the victim speaks Of Christ laying down His own life for men. It seems, however, as if in that case it should be the priest, rather than the offerer. For he who brings his substitutionary victim to make atonement for him can hardly be a figure of Christ at the same time. Rather would it seem that the offerer in this act confesses himself as needing death for atonement; which the priest then takes up to exhibit in its relation to God, as being the one who can draw near to God for others, the mediator. He it is who now developes and presents to God -of course, for our instruction, -the value of this precious offering.
The offerer’s work is thus the text, of which the priest’s work is the sermon: and this explains very simply what follows, and puts death and the blood in their true relation to one another. “And the priests, Aaron’s sons, shall present the blood, and sprinkle the blood round about upon the altar which is at the entrance of the tent of meeting.”
We must now anticipate what is only formally declared in the seventeenth chapter, but which has been already partially quoted, and must be fully, in order that we may be able to realize what is here before us: “For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it to you upon the altar, to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.” This is according to the common version, but there are some changes called for in it that we must consider before we have title to use it for our purpose.
And first, we have to remember that “life” and “soul” are the same word in Hebrew, and the German interpreters in general read “soul” all through. Says Oehler, “The real covering, that which atoned for the souls of the people, needed to be soul itself . . . for the unclean and sinful soul of the worshiper, God substituted the soul of a clean and guiltless animal.” But there are insuperable objections to this view of the matter: it is too theological, too little scriptural. For while it is true that the Old Testament distinctly speaks of the soul of the beast, it never speaks of “clean and guiltless” as if they were qualities of the beast’s soul, or could affect it, and never of covering the soul of man with the soul of beast.
“Clean” the beast was to be, and “guiltless” it necessarily was; but these are in different orders of thought, and not thus to be associated. The cleanness and the unblemished condition of the beast were both bodily, not soul-conditions, and in that way simply and evidently typical, not moral. Typically, they do not suggest the soul of a beast, but spiritual qualities such as could have no place in it. It is the eye that is addressed, taught by what can be put before the eye, and the soul is not that.
But the result of these views is, to ignore, or diminish to nothing, the death of the victim. If the soul of man is to be covered by the soul of beast (strange covering for it!), then some way, in the blood sprinkled on the altar, the soul of the beast must be supposed still to survive; And to justify this, we are reminded of the expressions “living water” and “living flesh” (in distinction from cooked meat -1Sa 2:15). As Oehler asks, with Kurtz’s distinct approval, “Can it be surprising, then, that the fresh, steaming, and still fluid blood should be regarded as blood with life and soul in it still?” And this is sought to be maintained by the rendering of the last part of the verse -“‘for the blood expiates through the soul,’ -that is, in virtue of the fact that the soul is in it.”
Substituting “life” for “soul,” for the reasons given, there can be no objection to translating with the R.V., “For it is the blood that maketh atonement by reason of the life.” The blood is the life of the body, and so represents it, and he that ate blood would be therefore cut off: -not merely “fresh, steaming blood,” as these views would suppose, but blood in any way. The blood poured out is thus the life poured out -the symbol of death, not of existing life.
This, then, instead of separating in meaning death and the blood, brings them together, and the whole ritual into entire agreement and simplicity. The blood means death, and, as presented to God upon the altar, atones; for the altar, according to its meaning in the Hebrew, is just “the place of sacrifice;” and thus the death is declared to be and accepted as a sacrificial death.
On the other hand, Dr. Waldenstrm has carried out the separation between the blood and the death of the victim to the uttermost. “Notice,” he says, “that the atonement is not ascribed to the blood by reason of the suffering or death which the shedding of it had caused, but by reason of (or through) the life that is or was in it . . . Not by the shedding of the blood was atonement made, but by the sprinkling of the blood. But what did this sprinkling signify? It signified cleansing or purging from sin, as the apostle says, ‘Almost all things are by the law purged with blood.'” Strange it is that the very verse that he appeals to, if he had not stopped short before its close, would have been his sufficient refutation: -“and without shedding of blood is no remission.” (Heb 9:22.) Here it is evident that for him the apostle emphasizes the wrong point, and that he himself has confounded two entirely different things -the sprinkling upon the altar, as in Lev 17:1-16, and the sprinkling upon the person, as when God entered into covenant with the people at Mount Sinai, or in the case of the leper. The “cleansing” he has in mind is an internal cleansing by a communication of life to the soul, (which he enters into at length elsewhere, as what is meant by it,) but the sprinkling upon the altar is incompetent to convey this thought; it is a cleansing from guilt that results from this, God accepting the propitiation made by the sacrifice.
Let us keep together what God has joined together, and all these errors are avoided, while the typical meaning of the ritual gains an absolute simplicity, which is itself a confirmation of its truth. The blood on the altar is just the witness of the character and power of the death which has taken place, and which is the central point in the whole ritual.
And this is still more evident as we go on to consider that from which the burnt-offering gains, as we have seen, its special significance -the burning of the entire animal upon the altar. Here, with those whose views have been before us, it is no longer in any sense Christ that is represented, but the person of the offerer himself; and the burning is the action of the Holy Spirit, by which he is sanctified to God! The two parts of the offering are related to one another, they tell us, as justification and sanctification.
Kurtz allows that by this interpretation the “unity of idea” in the sacrificial ritual “appears unquestionably” to be destroyed. It is so indeed; and we need not consider the reasons he advances nevertheless for this inconsistency. We have a sure guide to the right thought in the apostle’s words, that “Christ loved us and gave Himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling savor.” (Eph 5:2.) Now it was just this burning upon the altar, by which the sweet savor was produced.
It is surely a strange thought that the fire should typify the action of the Spirit of God. On the other hand it is clearly not of necessity a type of wrath. The incense and the meat-offering went up in fire, and the word for burning is the same word that is used for the incense, a different word from that which is used for the sin-offering, where the judgment upon sin is the prominent feature. Here, too, it is intimated, for the death of the substitute of necessity implies it, but this is not developed; rather, here in the place of sin is found that wonderful display of an obedience which, tried with fire, yielded to the testing of perfect holiness nothing but sweet savor. It should be plain that in this it is still the death of the victim which is the text of all this commentary here. Preceding this altar-burning, the offering is flayed and cut -not into pieces merely, but into its pieces. There is to be no hacking, -no disfigurement, but part distinguished from part, all opened to the light, the inward parts and legs, -the heart and inward affections, no less than the practical life, -washed with water to be the figure of the absolute cleanness according to the Word, which was then brought out in sweet savor as submitted to the fire.
Little can we speak of such things; yet may they not be lost upon us! may we with holy reverence consider this unique thing upon earth, the wonder and joy of heaven: the obedience of One who did not owe obedience, perfect in leaving His natural place where another would have been apostate, and whose obedience led Him into depths of unequalled suffering, through utter darkness into the light and glory of God. To us it is the pattern of that to which we are sanctified, but in the value of which we are also before God.
The gospel of John it is, as already said, that gives us this side of the glory of the cross. First, He delivers Himself up, when those who came to take Him had all fallen on the ground before Him: it is the Father’s cup He takes, and no man taketh His life from Him. The word that is written of Him, this is what is supreme in His heart: at the entrance upon His ministry, when tempted in the wilderness, unmoved by bodily need to put forth the power which He had to make bread of stones, He proclaims the principle of His life, “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God shall man live.” On the cross He proclaimed His thirst, using indeed no miraculous power to release it, but yet as if to invite the compassion of the hostile throng around Him? No; it is not so: the principle of His life it is that prompts and sustains Him to the end. In the midst of concentrated sufferings He is master of Himself and of the circumstances; conscious that the predicted course is just at its end, but that there remains one thing yet unaccomplished, Jesus, “that the Scripture might be fulfilled, saith, ‘I thirst.'” Then when He has received the vinegar He says, “It is finished.” The glorious work is fulfilled: triumphant in the conviction, He has but to bow His head and render up His spirit.
Then we hear of a mandate which could not be executed upon Him: there could be no outward disfigurement even of His perfection; “howbeit one of the soldiers with a spear pierced His side, and straightway flowed there out blood and water.” The blood is witness of death, not life; but life in the power of atonement -“justification of life” -proclaims for men the acceptance of this precious death.
(2) We have yet to look at the grades of the burnt-offering presented here: grades they are clearly, and not, as might be thought, equal presentations of it from different sides. The bullock stands by itself in the first grade: not only is it the largest offering, but it is also that which typically most fully develops the thought of the burnt-offering. According to the apostle’s interpretation (1Co 9:9-10), the ox is the type of the laborer for God. The sheep speaks, as is well-known, of self-surrender: “He is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so He openeth not His mouth.” (Isa 53:7.) The goat, on the other hand, as the type of the sinner, in our Lord’s familiar parable, can only be the figure here of the Substitute for sinners. All these convey some true thought as to the great Sacrifice, and so it is with every grade of every offering. Nothing could be permitted any where but what was true and worthy; while yet some views may be more complete, and in the connection in which they are found bring out more or less fully the mind of God. Now that is apparently the case here. “The Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world” is so before our minds as the sufficient picture of the Lord’s sacrificial work that there may be natural jealousy of the thought that there could be any higher type. We shall see perhaps more definitely before we leave the offerings to what specific form the expression links itself; but it may be easily seen that it is the effect in blessing that is spoken of in it, and that in what appeals most or first to man as a sinner, the removal of sin; and this is not properly the burnt-offering. The ox and the sheep differ in the thought associated with them in this way, that the latter shows us Christ as in the world meeting the evil in it that assailed Him, and overcoming it by patient goodness; the former carries us back to the thought of His entrance into the world as the fulfiller of the eternal counsels. It is evident which thought most connects itself with the type of the burnt-offering.
The goat again is very distinct from either of these. It expresses nothing that could be attributed to the Lord personally, any more than does the serpent lifted up by Moses in the wilderness. It speaks of the substitutionary character of the cross, which the burnt-offering has in it also, as we have seen; yet how far is it from expressing what is conveyed under the thought of “sweet savor”! Its association naturally is with the sin-offering, for which alone it is definitely prescribed, though only emphasizing what is a necessary character of every sacrifice: except as vicarious the cross could have no worthy or holy significance.
(3) When we come to the birds in connection with the burnt-offering, we are made to see clearly that it is fitness of relation rather than the character of the type in itself that gives it its grade in connection with these offerings. Here, for example, we have in the birds -the “birds of heaven,” as they are commonly called in Scripture -the type of the Lord as a heavenly being: yet they come in as a lower grade, and evidently a smaller offering. Beautiful types they are, the turtle-dove and the pigeon, though it may not be easy to distinguish between them. The latter is the word most commonly rendered “dove,” being the rock-dove or rock-pigeon (Son 2:14; Jer 48:28.) It is the bird of love and sorrow (Isa 38:14; Isa 59:11; Eze 7:16,) and fittingly therefore characterizes the Spirit of Him whose love made Him a man of sorrows in an alien world. Its wings are again referred to in the sixty-eighth Psalm: “Though ye have lain among the pots, yet shall ye be as the wings of a dove, covered with silver, and her feathers with yellow gold.” The sense of the first part is disputed, yet the reference is surely to Israel in her defilement, now redeemed from her misery and degradation: silver wings speak of redemption; redeeming love has come in for them, and in the silver is the gleam of gold -the glory of God therein displayed.
Why then should this heavenly visitant be but so poor an offering in this case? In general, it seems plain, at least, that it is that which is permitted to poverty (Lev 5:7; Lev 12:8; Lev 14:22,) or where the case is that of minor defilement (Lev 12:6; Lev 15:14; Lev 15:29; Num 6:10,) and usually a pair are commanded, one not being enough. There is indeed in the case of the leper an exceptional offering of two birds (here “sparrows,” or small birds, not even doves,) but for a special reason into which we must inquire in its place; and this can hardly affect the matter. Why, then, is what is in itself so blessed here comparatively of less esteem? Is it not because in fact with us there is so little competency to prevent the very glory of the Saviour’s Godhead from blurring to our eyes the full truth of His manhood, when His suffering, His conflict, or even the perfection of His obedience, is before them? And therefore, while God puts here His seal upon the truth, in itself so needful and so blessed, that the Second Man is from heaven,” (1Co 15:47,) He yet would caution us by the very place assigned to the offering here, that we must not allow this truth to take a place which is not its right place -to confuse what should be clear, to dull a glory which it should only intensify.
We cannot but gain some understanding here why the bird is not divided into its parts as with the former offerings. We cannot know the Son apart from the humanity in which He came to tabernacle among us; and here is just the warning of how for us the fullness of His manifestation may be dimmed. On the other hand the notice of the rejection of the crop and what pertains to it, may perhaps illustrate how the types themselves begin to fail us here. On the mount with God, the children of Israel saw “no similitude.” (Deu 4:15.)
2. The “Meat-offering” of the common version has been changed in the late revision to meal-offering, a change which is here preserved on account of its slightness in form, and yet sufficiency for the purpose of avoiding a difficulty resulting from the change in meaning of the first word of this compound term. In fact neither “meat” nor “meal” is in the Hebrew minchah, which means simply “gift” or “offering,” and is used of Abel’s offering as well as Cain’s; but in the law is restricted to bloodless offerings, and often in fact to that part of it which consisted of meal. We may in these cases accept the term.
It is at least doubtful whether the meal-offering proper could ever be offered independent of an animal sacrifice. The refusal of Cain’s offering would argue against it, and no example beside can be appealed to. The worshiper never came before God as one fit without atonement for His presence. If also on the other hand it may be said that the burnt-offering or peace-offering was not to be offered without a meal-offering, yet the relation of these to one another is clearly intimated in the expression often used, -“the burnt-offering and its meal-offering,” which is never, and could never be reversed. The meal-offering is thus the appendage to the animal-offerings, and explicitly to the burnt-offering; and this apparently is the first point that its numerical place indicates.
The value of this we shall realize when the meaning of the meal-offering is ascertained; and this cannot be difficult. Christ’s own words as to the “bread of life,” -a truth perpetuated for us by the symbols of the Lord’s Supper, -of necessity come into our mind as we think of what is the ordained portion of the priests of God. Moreover, as in the sixth of John the “flesh” is associated with the blood of Christ, so the cup which is the blood of the New Covenant is associated with the bread which we break at the table of the Lord. Thus the connection between the meal- and the other offerings is maintained in these, although not in the same sense offerings: they speak of the human, as the offerings do (though not exclusively) of the divine side. Thus the bread and the meal-offering present alike the “flesh” (or humanity) of Christ, and that in contrast with His “blood” or death. therefore Christ in all that was manifest in Him in His life on earth: His humanity, apart from death.
He is thus as presented to God the Second Man, essentially in contrast (though true Man) with other men, -with the world by which He was surrounded, and in which He was, as the result of this, the Man of sorrows. This among these offerings could not lack expression, -could not be merged and lost even in the amazing self-surrender of His soul to death. These two things also -His life and His death -are thus seen in their essential distinctness from, and at the same time in their relation to, each other. For, just because of what He was, Man, but the Second Man, in whom under whatever trial there was only and perfectly a sweet savor to God, there could be for us no part in Him, except through His sacrificial death. His own testimony is, “Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone, but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit.” The doctrine so prevalent of union with man in incarnation is thus stamped as false, even fundamentally. It is used in fact every where for the purpose of obscuring the true character and glory of the cross. It is not true that in incarnation Christ became “flesh of our flesh and bone of our bone.” It is not true that He became one with all men by becoming man. It is we who by His precious death for us, and in the new place which He has assumed (not in the world, but outside it), become flesh of His flesh and bone of His bone.
Thus the numerical place is most important. That only through participation in His death can we be partakers in Him, is its voice to us; while on the other hand those who are partakers in the value of His death find thus their place before God in Him, who as the Second Man is also the last Adam, Head and Representative of His people. Christ in the whole value of what He is and has done, is ours, the sweet savor in which we are accepted before God.
(1) The number intimates distinctly to us also this Second Man, in contrast with the first and with the world sprung from him; and this we shall find the characteristic teaching of the meal-offering. There are as usual different forms of it, the difference consisting not in the fine flour itself; but in the accompaniments and mode of preparation.
The fine flour has been characterized by another thus:
“This meat-offering of God, taken from the fruit of the earth, was of the finest wheat; that which was pure, separate and lovely in human nature was in Jesus under all its sorrows, but in all its excellence, and excellent in its sorrows. There was no unevenness in Jesus, no predominant quality to produce the effect of giving Him a distinctive character. He was, though despised and rejected of men, the perfection of human nature. The sensibilities, firmness, decision (though this attached itself also to the principle of obedience), elevation and calm meekness, which belong to human nature, all found their perfect place in Him. In a Paul I find energy and zeal; in a Peter, ardent affection, in a John, tender sensibilities and abstraction of thought, united to a desire to vindicate what he loved which scarce knew limit. But the quality we have observed in Peter predominates and characterizes him. In a Paul, blessed servant though he was, he did not repent, though he had repented. . . . In him in whom God was mighty toward the circumcision, we find the fear of man break through the faithfulness of his zeal. John, who would have vindicated Jesus in his zeal, knew not what manner of spirit he was of and would have forbidden the glory of God, if a man walked not with them.
“But in Jesus, even as man, there was none of this unevenness. There was nothing salient in His character, because all was in perfect subjection to God in His humanity, and had its place, and did exactly its service, and then disappeared. God was glorified in it, and all was in harmony. When meekness became Him He was meek; when indignation, who could stand before His overwhelming and withering rebuke? Tender to the chief of sinners in the time of grace; unmoved by the heartless superiority of a cold Pharisee (curious to judge who He was); when the time of judgment is come, no tears of those who wept for Him moved Him to other words than ‘Weep for yourselves and for your children,’ -words of deep compassion, but of deep subjection to the due judgment of God. The dry tree prepared itself to be burned. On the cross, when His service was finished, tender to His mother, and entrusting her in human care, to one who (so to speak) had been His friend, and leaned on His bosom; no ear to recognize her word or claim when His service occupied Him for God; putting both blessedly in their place, when He would show that, before His public mission, He was still the Son of the Father, and though such, in human blessedness, subject to the mother that bare Him, and Joseph His father as under the law; a calmness which disconcerted His adversaries; and in the moral power which dismayed them at times, a meekness which drew out the hearts of all not steeled by opposition. . . . Such was Christ in human nature.” (J. N. Darby, Synopsis.)
Upon this fine flour of the offering there was poured oil, the symbol of the anointing of the Spirit which, coming upon Him because of what He was, declared His perfection. It is thus the Lord Himself cites it as proof that there was no corruptible element in that which was given nevertheless to be the food of man: “Labor for the meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of Man shall give unto you: for Him hath God the Father sealed.” (Joh 6:27.)
But there was another side also to this picture: “upon the flour frankincense also was to be put, the white gum of a tree that yields it to incision and requires no preparation to fit it for use.” These are all features which seem significant; and the frankincense, all of which was claimed by God, and went up in the fire to Him, clearly points to a life lived to God, and fragrant with His praise.
Of this offering, a handful of the flour, with all the frankincense, was burnt upon the altar for a “memorial” -a word only used beside this of the very similar showbread (Lev 24:1-23) and of the jealousy offering (Num 5:1-31.) A beautiful word in relation to this one perfect life on earth: will God ever forget it? Tried by the fire of God’s holiness it was nothing but sweet savor. The rest became the portion of the priest, -the worshiper.
(2) In the flour, then, we have had the perfect humanity of Christ, at unity with itself. This first view of it is apart from its surroundings and the opposition of the world. It was fitting that we should first see Christ so: not as if it was mere comparison with others that made Him excellent; such indeed is mere human excellence, such was not the Lord’s. Yet for this precious Bread of Life the world was what in the preparation of our food, the oven and the frying-pan and the cauldron are. As flour simply man could scarcely feed upon it: and so Christ even for us could hardly suffice us, if we could know Him apart from that concrete life of His which the gospels give, and in which the trial and sorrow which were His intimates, the heat of hatred, the fire of persecution, make sweet to our taste and satisfying to our souls the fruit of God’s precious Wheat-corn.
There are three forms of the meal-offering in this way, each with its lesson for us. First, that which was baked in the oven, -as it is thought, a large earthen pot or jar, which would at least make the figure a more striking one. For the sufferings that are indicated here seem, as indeed in the other cases, to be from the world, in which He was as it were shut up; not open sufferings, -not from the hand of violence, but from the heated atmosphere of a place of strife and wars of the lusts which strive in the members, and of the will of the flesh at enmity with God. How terrible a place for the Son of God! And here, again, we find two forms: thick cakes, pierced, it is said, and mingled or made up with oil, and thin beaten-out wafers, anointed with oil. Whatever else is difficult in this, it seems plain that we have in the first, Christ as born through the power of the Spirit of God; and in the second, Christ anointed of the Spirit, -that is, as the holy One, the Son of God, or as the Christ, the anointed One, the minister of God. In both ways we can understand (though how little!) that there was intensity of suffering: perhaps the greater intensity, as brought nearer to it, may be pictured in the last case in the thinner “wafer,” which the heat would more completely penetrate, although in the former also there would be special lines of more direct access indicated by the piercing of the cake.
Next, the pan seems to speak of open suffering, the outbreak of enmity against the Lord; and here the mingling with oil and anointing are both found: for it was undoubtedly when He came forward with the open claim to be what He was, that the hostility of the world became fully manifest.
The cauldron again speaks of the action of water, though the fire is of course outside; and here sufferings of another kind seem indicated, and, according to the usual meaning of water, from the Word of God. Doubtless the Word which guided his footsteps ever led Him on through paths of ordained sorrow, until the cup was taken from His Father’s hand. “For I say unto you, that this which is written must yet be accomplished in Me, ‘And He was numbered among the transgressors.'” “Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to My Father, and He shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels; but how then should the Scripture be fulfilled, that thus it must be? “
We have then the presentation of the memorial to the Lord enjoined as before, and that the remainder is for the priest (the worshiper) as a most holy thing.
Leaven and honey are both forbidden to be put into any offering made by fire unto Jehovah. Leaven we have seen already to be always characterized as evil, the “leaven of malice and wickedness,” the ferment of the lust of the flesh, -the human will in revolt from God. Honey is a different thing, and not in itself evil, -the sweetness of nature, which may be tasted but which must not be yielded to, -readily producing fermentation also. In the loaves of the first-fruits presented at Pentecost there was leaven in what was offered, and on that account a sin-offering was offered with them: but on that account also they could not be burnt as a sweet savor on the altar. They are the similitude of the Church and not of Christ.
Salt was in meaning the very opposite of leaven, the symbol of that which opposes corruption, the type, therefore, of what endures, of the holiness which the “covenant of God” implies. A holy God can only go on with what is holy, and therefore salt is the “salt of His covenant.” This was never to be lacking, therefore, in any offering.
(3) The meal-offering of first fruits stands by itself in a third section of the chapter, and must present some characteristic difference, and that it is first-fruits must imply the difference, which the number of the section, the resurrection-number, confirms. The first-fruits represent the new harvest, the revival of the buried seed, and the fruitfulness of death stooped to for victory over it.
It is Christ also who is before us still. The Church as we have seen, could only be pictured by leavened loaves, which could not therefore be burnt upon the fire; but this is burnt upon the altar. As in the first case it is anointed with oil, and frankincense is put to it, and there are beside peculiar features which speak distinctly of Christ. The green ears of corn roasted in the fire, recall the Lord’s words to the women that bewailed Him: “if they do these things in a green tree, what shall be done in the dry?” He alone was the green tree full of the sap and vigor of true spiritual life; man was dead, as shown in his alienation from the Life. Yet though green, the ears were to be “full ears,” -no coming short could be admitted: they must be as unblemished as the lamb of sacrifice.
It is Christ, then, as the first-fruits, and yet not in resurrection here. The wave-sheaf after the Passover is that, -for that reason simply waved, and not burned upon the altar: all the significance of this would be lost if it could be applied to a type of actual resurrection.
There remains, therefore, but one explanation that seems possible at all, -that it is Christ who is seen, though down here, the representative of the harvest of blessing to come in through Him, but for which He must suffer! God gives us here to see what he saw in Christ in His path of sorrow and necessary separation upon earth: not simply the Second Man, in His own personal perfection, but as the beginning of the new race of men in whom shall be found His likeness, -the fruit so precious to Him of the travail of His soul.
3. The Peace-offering speaks of peace with God accomplished, on man’s part reconciliation, salvation realized, the theme of the third gospel. Hence, as characteristic of it, the offering, instead of all going up to God as with the burnt-offering, or being simply given to the priest, as with the meal-offering, furnishes, as it were, a table at which God, the priest, and the offerer meet together. For if we have peace with God, it cannot be merely peace: God in the work of salvation satisfies His own heart and brings ours to Him. Thus the peace-offering is also the praise-offering, and more perhaps than any other the expression of the free-will of the offerer, while it is (along with the burnt- and meat-offering) a sweet savor to God.
In this chapter, indeed, it is only what the offering is to God that is spoken of; it is reserved for the law of the offerings to show us the priest’s and the offerer’s part in it; while all that constitutes it an offering is in the three grades of it, given three times over, with little variation, for He cannot weary of His Beloved.
It is upon the blood and the fat that emphasis is laid: the blood sprinkled upon the altar is (according to the canon in Lev 17:11) for propitiation, although the word is not mentioned, the character of the victim’s death being thus declared. The fat we have seen to speak of the energy of a will devoted to God, here specially emphasized as the food of the offering made by fire unto Jehovah -easily intelligible as what the flame would fasten on above all.
(1) The first grade here is as usual the offering from the herd. We have already seen its significance, and have nothing to add to it. It was to be burnt upon the altar upon the burnt-offering: acceptance in Christ is the foundation of communion with God, and this can have, therefore, no narrow range.
(2) The second grade seems to include both the lamb and the goat under the head of peace-offerings of the flock: there seems no difference except in the animal, whether lamb or goat, and the meaning of these has been also before us.
As has been said, Luke is without doubt the peace-offering gospel: it is that in which we find salvation realized, and man brought into the presence of God, as in the story of the prodigal so familiar and so dear to us. Upon the cross this character is manifest, where the prayer, “Father, forgive them,” is the Lord’s first utterance, and the thief is accepted and assured of paradise. “Salvation,” “peace,” and “grace,” are key-words in the book; and the praise and worship of glad hearts ring throughout it.
4. The Sin-offering fills the fourth place among these offerings. The number speaks, as we know, of failure, and it is strictly for failure that it is provided: “If a soul sin through inadvertence.” And on the other hand it is said in connection with this provision of atonement, “But the soul that doeth aught presumptuously . . . that soul shall be cut off from among his people: because he hath despised the word of Jehovah, and hath broken His commandment, that soul shall be utterly cut off; his iniquity shall be upon him.” (Num 15:30-31.)
This lack of power to atone for the gravest sins has been urged against the vicarious character of atonement as set forth in the Levitical sacrifices. Thus Dr. Waldenstrm declares, “God’s ordinance concerning these sacrifices is such, that it excludes every thought of vicarious penal suffering. For, in the first place, sacrifices were never allowed to be made for other sins than such as were not to be visited by death or capital punishment. Thus, for instance, sins against the ten commandments were never to be atoned for by sacrifices. Sacrifices were never to be made for idolatry, Sabbath-breaking, adultery, etc. But if sacrifices were allowed to be made only for such sins as were exempt from death, or capital punishment, how then could any one think that the animal which was offered suffered the punishment of death instead of the offender? Why, his sin was not at all liable to be visited by the death-penalty.”
It is not to our present purpose to show that there is in this a strangely inadequate idea of the range of the ten commandments. As to the rest he is right as to the fact that there was no explicit provision in the law of the offerings for the expiation of sins to which the death penalty was attached. Nevertheless, his inference from this shows a very superficial idea of both sin and sacrifice. There was, of course, every reason why it should not be permitted to a flagrant offender to avert the righteous penalty of his sin by the cheap offering of an animal sacrifice. The objection that sacrificial expiation might have preceded execution” proceeds from a fundamental mistake, which has been already made evident, as to the character of legal penalty. As the law could not promise heaven, so neither did it threaten with hell -in the New Testament sense of hell. Long life in this world was the reward of comparative obedience: “Honor thy father and mother, that thou mayest live long in the land.” And so “the soul that sinneth, it shall die” must be interpreted of literal death. This might not come as the penalty upon one specific act, or as an infliction by human hands, and yet be truly the penalty which the breach of law involved. Thus there could be no such thing as expiation before execution, because it would necessarily mean expiation so as to deliver from some penalty beyond death, for which the sacrifices of the law were totally inadequate.
Types of a higher atonement they were, and for that reason never to be confounded with that higher one, and the marks of inadequacy which they were allowed to bear upon them only made this plainer, not injured them as such. There were thus many cases in which the soul was compelled to look outside the sacrificial forms, and to say, “Thou desirest not sacrifice, else would I give it; Thou delightest not in burnt-offering:” “deliver me from blood-guiltiness, O God, Thou God of my salvation; and my tongue shall sing aloud of Thy righteousness.” Thus where there was faith, a practical dependence would be induced upon that which the offerings only pointed to and themselves were not.
There was, therefore, a double reason for the fact that the sin-offering in Israel was professedly for failure, and not for every grade of sin. But the “wages of sin is death,” -not of this sin or that merely, -and thus it will not raise any question with us, that for atonement in any case the victim dies. Here, indeed, the comparative littleness of the sin only preaches the more solemnly of what sin is to God! No ignorance ever avails to lessen the need or alter the character of atonement. Sin is sin no less because we are too stupid or too indifferent to recognize it as such, and God must bring us to His thoughts, not come down to ours. If “by the law is the knowledge of sin,” we find that its types teach this as plainly as the two tables: the very atonement for sin proves that failure even in ignorance is accounted that by God, and for the least sin the wages is death, -the atoning victim dies.
It is upon the penalty of sin that this offering insists more strongly than any other, and this is indicated by its name. If the burnt-offering spoke of the perfect obedience in which we are accepted, and the peace-offering of the effect of Christ’s work in reconciliation and communion, the sin-offering declares the judgment of God which the sin-bearer must remove by coming under; and thus while the three preceding offerings are all declared to be sweet savor to God, the sin- and trespass-offerings are not, as such. For judgment is not that in which God can delight, but that to which He is forced: it is His “strange work.” And this is why, no doubt, the chapter begins as a new communication from the Lord with the accustomed phrase, “And Jehovah spake unto Moses.” This we must go back to the first chapter to find, again. After this, we find it indeed at the beginning of the trespass-offering also, and even of the two parts of it, so that the division which it makes is not of equal importance in each case; yet on the other hand where as in the first three chapters, we have an unbroken communication, the contents of it are necessarily linked thus together in a special way. So it is then with the sweet-savor-offerings.
It is noticeable that while we have three grades of burnt-offering, and three (much less perceptible) of the peace-offerings, the sin-offering has no less than seven forms. This at first sight would seem strange and anomalous enough, plain as it is that just here we have not, and cannot have, the element of voluntariness apparent in the preceding forms. The burnt-, meal-, and peace-offerings constituted those which could be and were often brought as an expression of the devotion of the worshiper apart from any command; the sin- and trespass-offerings were imperative -the claim of God upon the sinner which he could neither escape nor diminish, nor even add to. Burnt-offerings and peace-offerings he might bring according to his means, but the sin-offering was one, never multiplied or added to, offered distinctly as obligation, not of choice.
The more remarkable is it, then, that the law itself admitted grades, most of which were apportioned to the station of the person whose sin was in question, but the lower ones permitted to poverty, and with a concession so great that finally even a meal-offering is allowed in place of that which alone could furnish the atoning blood. Here it is impossible, then, to deny that there are grades, natural poverty plainly representing poverty in spiritual apprehension, or in the riches with which it endows the wise of heart. And in these seven forms of the sin-offering we must surely recognize the complete provision which God has made for all possible need.
The epistle to the Hebrews reminds us of one distinctive feature of the sin-offering which it is of the greatest importance for us rightly to understand -that “the bodies of those beasts whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high-priest for sin are burned without the camp.” And the explanation is added, “Wherefore Jesus also, that He might sanctify the people with His own blood, suffered without the gate.” (Heb 13:11-12.) Why this necessary link between the place “outside the camp” or “without the gate” and the entrance of the blood into the sanctuary?
Let us take the last first as the apostle puts it, surely in order that we may find in it the key to the other. In the offering also it is put first, while, however, in the antitype the order must have been reversed. The didactic order is thus the opposite to the order of fact: to see the facts aright, we must reverse the order.
“The sanctuary” is here literally “the holy places,” -the tabernacle as a whole. Only once a year, on the day of atonement, did the blood enter into the holiest of all. At other times it might be sprinkled before the vail, or on the horns of the altar of incense. The passage in Hebrews contemplates both of these. The regular place for the sprinkling of blood in connection with other offerings was the altar of burnt-offering; and it was there that God says He gave it for atonement: but where it was carried into the sanctuary it was not put upon the altar outside except on the day of atonement, (Lev 16:18-19,) and then for a special purpose, which we shall consider in its place. Ordinarily, (and in fact even on the day of atonement,) the blood that was carried into the sanctuary was the blood which otherwise would have been upon the altar. The meaning in each case was in its appeal to God on man’s behalf, and in the various grades of presentation we find it in nearer and nearer approach to God, sprinkled on the altar-sides, anointing its horns, passing across the court into the holy place, and finally reaching, in the mercy-seat, the throne of God itself. All through it is the same truth that is presented by it -atonement, or propitiation, -but with increasing emphasis, although its being the altar-blood is the essential point to be kept in mind. If it be not, the meaning is really lost, “I have given it you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls.”
It is the blood of the sin-offering only which goes into the sanctuary, or, as the apostle explains to us, “sanctifies the people.” Why that, when the fundamental sweet-savor-offering is the burnt-offering, and the sin-offering is not that? If the sin-offering is that in which the judgment of sin is what is specially enforced, then it is evident. The judgment of sin is an essential necessity with a holy God; its judgment fully carried out in the penal suffering of a substitute sanctifies those for whom it is borne, -i.e. separates them to God according to holiness. Thus approach to God is by the sin-offering rather than the burnt-offering: not that there is none by the burnt-offering, for it too is for atonement; each offering emphasizes certain features, none (in its full thought) omits altogether any; death and the sprinkled blood are found in all. But the marked features are for our instruction, and it is marked for us here that only the blood of the sin-offering enters the sanctuary.
We have not, however, yet reached the full significance of this, as is plain. For of the sin-offerings themselves, only one form could provide the blood that entered, and that was where the body of the victim was burned without the camp. This was the case only in that of the day of atonement, in the red heifer, or the first two grades of the sin-offering here. Lower grades could, however, lift the blood to the horns of the altar where the blood of the burnt-offering could not reach; and it is thus the culmination of the sin-offering character where the flesh is in this manner burned. If, then, the idea of the sin-offering is the judgment of sin which the holiness of God requires, it will be this, in the fullest way, which is shown in the burning.
And this all the details show: the very word used for it is not alah, “to ascend,” “mount up,” or hiqtir, “to consume as incense,” but saraph, simply “to burn.” The meaning of this is not, as Oehler supposes, to show that the burning is not sacrificial, but simply, as with what remained over of the paschal lamb, or of the peace-offerings, to destroy what could not be eaten! He must surely have forgotten Heb 13:1-25. But it distinguishes between what was sweet savor and what typified or implied the wrath of God. It thus contradicts also the view of those who with still less propriety would make the fire every where a type of wrath. Thus the meal-offering, the incense, and the burning of the fat would be confounded with the burning here. Rather, the fire is the type of that holiness of God which if it try One perfectly obedient could only develop the sweet savor, but as against sin, or one made sin, indeed becomes wrath by the very necessity of its being holiness. Then it is on the ground without an altar, where, if the altar speak of Christ Himself as we have seen, the burning on the ground would signify that it is not now Christ in His own person, as it were, that is in question, but the sin or sinner with whom God is dealing. While the place “outside the camp,” outside of what is in recognized relationship to God, speaks, like that “without the gate” of the epistle to the Hebrews, of distance from God, that real “forsaking” which in the twenty-second psalm we see to be the agony of all others, the one exception to all God’s dealings with the righteous since the world was.
It is this that the passage in Hebrews insists on as the main point, -“Christ, that He might sanctify the people with His own blood suffered without the gate.” Here the order of connection between the “sanctifying” or penetrating to the sanctuary, and the place taken by the Lord is clearly shown to us, -a place which gives its deepest character to the suffering. Nothing in all that makes up the full story of the cross could be unimportant, -relation to it suffices to give value to every detail, -and in what is most external a spiritual meaning may be found enfolded, -the life by which it develops in the soul. Here, “without the gate” of the city of God, what does it not speak for Him whose glory enlightens the heavenly city?
“Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law,” says the apostle again, “being made a curse for us.” How is this shown? “For it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth upon a tree.” (Gal 3:13.) Here once more there seems to be what is perfectly circumstantial. Why should a man be cursed that hangs upon a tree? How many an innocent man might hang there! Here there is a vail of type after the manner of the law, and yet (with our eyes upon Him who alone is the key to all types) how thin is the vail! This man that hangs between earth and heaven belongs, as it were, to neither. “Lifted up,” as if to invite the verdict of heaven, heaven answers not, nor interferes. How could the picture of utter distress be more complete? But “as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so also must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whosoever believeth on Him should not perish, but have eternal life.” (Joh 3:14-15.) Not die, merely, but be lifted up, and as the serpent! How plainly the sin-offering character of the cross comes out here! For there is no altar surely in such a picture: how least of all fitted to remind us of Him, a “serpent”! Yet He must be after this manner lifted up, or none could pass from death to life, -no sinner anywhere be born again.
How manifold the witness to this meaning of the cross! The outside place, the cross itself, and then as He hangs there, fruit of the ripened iniquity for which He dies, the pall of darkness wraps Him in full day, out of it the interpreting Voice, but in agony of appeal where there is no answer, “My God, My God! why hast Thou forsaken me?” Yes, “God is light,” and this is truly the light withdrawn; the shadow is that of a more awful shadow cast inward upon the soul -who indeed can penetrate it?
This is the judgment of sin, not death merely, as if that were the whole of it: to assert that is to dishonor the Lord morally, making Him feebler than many who as martyrs have trod in His steps; and yet many make atonement to consist in nothing more than death. The type here with the other scriptures that we have been examining speaks plainly of man’s full penalty borne, the awful separation between God and the soul, which is the outer darkness. And in this lies the power of atonement, that God in it is glorified in holiness by Christ taking our place in that which He had proclaimed the due of sin. He must thus come where we were, and the cross is as much the display of what sin is before God as it is the blessed witness of His love to sinners. The darkness in which we were was that of necessary distance from Him who is of purer eyes than to behold iniquity and who cannot look upon sin. For faith the darkness is gone, the vail is rent, as at the cross we see it, the precious blood in its power and value has entered heaven for us, and (what the law could never teach us) we too have “boldness to enter the holiest by the blood of Jesus.” (Heb 10:19.)
This, then, is the distinctive character of the sin-offering. When we have seen it, we naturally ask why then it should in so many grades of it be so little marked as in fact we find it to be. Only in the first two forms here is there the burning outside the camp; and elsewhere only in the offerings of the day of atonement and the red heifer. In the lower grades almost every other form of offering seems to be substituted for it: in Lev 5:1-6 a trespass-offering; in the offering of the doves, a burnt-offering is brought in; in that of the poorest it is a meal-offering! How strange and like confusion all this seems! but in fact is it not true that, when we come to detail, numbers of believers even know not in what atonement really consists. Many deny all “penalty” in the death of the cross; many more confound the life and the death of the Lord together; many again speak of “equivalent” penalty as true satisfaction. How strange is all this contradiction as to what really puts away sin from before God! and of lesser differences there are many.
Strange is it still, perhaps, when we look at Scripture itself, to find in the plain teachings of the New Testament, a measure, may we not say, of reserve as to the full truth. Taught in the epistle to the Galatians, taught in the Hebrews, taught less openly in the gospel of John, while the doctrine of wrath-bearing is there, there is still not anywhere the full plain language we should expect upon such a point. That which is everywhere is rather Christ’s death for us, the power of His blood, -in fact the language of the type is the common language of the New Testament also in this respect.
Some of the plainest speech is in the Old; as in the fifty-third of Isaiah; or in the twenty-second psalm, wherein the sin-offering aspect of the cross is to faith unvailed.
The truth is there, but not insisted on as we might expect: it is left for discovery, perhaps we may say, rather than forced upon notice. But why this is, the type before us will tell us also. Not surely that God does not desire that we should have the knowledge of it, but because we must grow into this knowledge, learning it as we learn ourselves with God. It can never be too well remembered that in divine things we cannot learn as we do in natural ones: we must learn of God, and for that must be with Him.
(1) We must now take up the specific cases, and here we find what is peculiar to the sin-offering, that the magnitude of the sin depends upon the position of the person who sins. This needs no enlarging on -it is an admitted principle in the estimation of sin everywhere. We must not be satisfied, however, to stop here: nay, if Christ be before us in these offerings, it would not be true to argue that the greater sinner needs a greater offering; His work is needed alike by all, nor has one a larger interest in it than another. We must distinguish thus between any moral lesson as to sin, and the typical instruction (always the greater) which has Christ as its object throughout. This is just where appears the immense inferiority of some modern methods by which it is aimed at, as the beginning of all true knowledge, to put you back at the Jewish stand-point instead of at the Christian one. The types all look forward; and the method is as wise, as if, to give you clear knowledge of the landscape, they should propose to show it you by night rather than by day. It is very simply intelligible, therefore, why one should often find more satisfaction to the mind even, as well as satisfaction to the heart, in the views of some unlearned Christians as to these things than in the tomes of many learned men.
Here, the moment we have Christ before us, it must strike us to find in the first place in the sin-offering the case of the high-priest. The day of atonement naturally occurs to us, when the high-priest does all the work; with the apostle’s application of it: “Wherefore in all things it behoved Him to be made like unto His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful high-priest in things pertaining to God to make propitiation (R.V.) for the sins of the people.” (Heb 2:17.)
In making atonement it is clear that the high-priest had a place belonging to no other. As the high-priest, -the great priest, -the priesthood culminates in him, or still more simply and emphatically, as the priest, he absorbs it, as it were, into himself. He alone, as here, is the anointed, or (merely anglicizing the Hebrew word) the Messiah-priest. He alone bore the names of the people upon his shoulders and on his breast. He alone bore the iniquity of the holy things. His representative character shows itself throughout, and this is evidently what the apostle has in mind when he says that to be a high-priest it behoved Christ “in all things to be made like unto His brethren:” He must be in some sense one with them in order to represent them.
Notice: all men are not “His brethren;” there is no thought here of what has been before examined and rejected, -union by incarnation with men in the flesh. It is “of the seed of Abraham He taketh hold” (v. Heb 2:16, marg.); and both He that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one; for which cause He is not ashamed to call them brethren.” (v. Heb 2:11.) He calls them “brethren,” because they are such, not as born naturally, but as born anew of the Spirit, and so truly children of God. Here is the principle of sanctification for them; and as they are the sanctified, so He is the Sanctifier, the last Adam, Head of the new race, Quickener out of death. Here He is found in His own place and with His own company.
The evident difficulty confronts us, however, in any application of the high-priest in this case to the Lord, that it is for his own sin that he offers. That this could not apply to the One who knew no sin, needs no affirming. Yet on the day of atonement also the high-priest offers for himself, without prejudice to his typical character in other respects. These defects are necessarily inherent in types, and had their use also in preventing real confusion between type and anti-type. Here also, then, the high-priest may speak of Christ, with this reserve as to a point which can lead none astray who know Christ, and which may even in some ways enable us (as with a darkened glass one may the sun) to see Christ better.
That the sin of the high-priest inculpates the people certainly leads us on in the direction in which we were already looking. It shows that He is already their representative, and it is in this character that Christ undertakes for His people. In this sense alone could the language of the Psalms apply to Him, where as in the fortieth He who says, “Lo, I come: in the volume of the book it is written of Me, I delight to do Thy will, O My God!” cries yet “out of the horrible pit,” “for innumerable evils have compassed Me about; Mine iniquities have taken hold upon Me, so that I am not able to look up: they are more than the hairs of My head, so that My heart faileth Me.” This is the full reality of substitution, which the vivid words impress us with more strongly perhaps than any other words could do. It is the One for the many, with the iniquity of the many thus accumulated upon Him: “the Lord hath laid on Him” -caused to light on Him -“the iniquity of us all.” (Isa 53:6.)
To this the type of the sin-offering here brings us perhaps nearer than any other; while the reiteration of the unusual expression, “the Messiah-priest,” seems as if it were given as a guard at once. So do we take it then: as speaking of the One who alone, as the last Adam-head, united upon Himself the sins of those who as new-born of God are “all of one” with Him.
A bullock is again the victim here, hands are laid upon it as before, and it is killed before Jehovah: Christ, priest and victim, needs, as in other places also, a double type to represent Him. The priest takes some of the blood and passing into the tabernacle, sprinkles it seven times before the vail of the sanctuary. This seems not for presentation to God, but to secure a standing before the throne, like the seven-fold sprinkling of the day of atonement (Lev 16:14.) The presentation to God is rather by the anointing the horns of the altar of incense, the only place of communion at all ordinary times with the inner holiest. The rest of the blood in emphatic witness of the death of the victim, emphasized here as nowhere else, is poured out at the bottom of the altar of burnt-offering.
Next follows the burning of the fat upon the altar, just as we are reminded it was done in the case of the peace-offerings. The sacrifice is naturally, therefore, the same; and here we have an example of what we shall find all through these offerings, that they are by no means independent of one another, but pictures from different sides only of the same thing, each emphasizing some part of the truth, while none, perhaps, is altogether omitted. The slaying of the victim and the sprinkling of the blood bind all together. The burning of the fat of the peace-offering is a reflection in part of the burnt-offering, and here links both with the sin-offering. The flesh of the sin-offering is burned where the ashes of the other offerings are poured out, the character of rejection from the altar stamped thus on it also. Here, though in the midst of the sin offering, God would have us realize in the burning of the fat the sweet savor that Christ is to Him: as where we are told, that “He was made sin for us,” it is directly added, “who knew no sin,” -not unsuitable words surely, but most suitable; and so here: the lights go with the shadows and make the picture clear.
The burning of the bullock outside the camp we have already considered.
The sin-offering for all Israel is in its ordering exactly similar to that for the high-priest. The truth presented in it seems parallel or complementary to that. The assembly of Israel are, of course, the very people who are represented by the high-priest, and must stand, therefore, as in the last offering, for the “brethren” for whom Christ offers. We may notice with what perfection, suitably to the type, it is said at the close, as nothing similar could be said in previous cases, “and the priest shall make atonement for them, and it shall be forgiven them.”
I believe it is not the Church only here, as I once thought, but the redeemed generally; while on the day of atonement the distinction between the Church and Israel is clearly maintained. But the offerings here know nothing of dispensations.
The need typically of the present offering is to remedy the necessary defect of the last one. In that, it was the high-priest offering for sin which he accepts as his own. It would not do to leave this so, and thus the other side is now given. The high-priest is in his normal place, offering for the congregation; the atonement made by him there is, as it were, identified with the atonement made for them here, and the effect in forgiveness is made theirs.
(2) We now come to the case of the “prince” or “ruler;” and here it is natural to think that Christ is again before us. The same word is used of Christ in Daniel, “Messiah the Prince” (Dan 9:25). He is the royal priest, or priest-king, Melchisedek; of that order now, and soon to act in that character also. If this “prince” does not speak of Christ, then we seem to have no clue to any typical meaning.
Furthermore, if we look at the next offering -that for one of the people of the land, we shall find almost as complete accordance with the present one, as in that of the congregation there was with that of the high-priest. The four offerings seem to fall into two pairs, the last three being also as plainly, though in a different way, connected with one another; and this is a not uncommon division of a septenary series, namely, into four and three (which is usual), and then the first four into two and two. In these two pairs also there is a parallel order of thought, -the high-priest and the assembly that he represents; the prince, the head of a tribe, or the division of a tribe, and one of the tribe, such as he represents.
There is surely, then, a designed correspondence; and yet looking, as we are doing, at the typical meaning, it is also evident that there is in this second pair an order of thought less congruous to the subject, as the offering itself is lower in kind, a goat instead of a bullock. The goat, however, is still in complete accordance with the idea in the sin-offering, speaking, as it does, of substitution, of Christ in the sinner’s place. In the day of atonement, the bullock and the goat are both taken for the sin-offering, the bullock for the priests, the goat for the people. Representation is evidently the controlling thought of the sin-offering, and here the “prince” falls necessarily behind the priest, as indeed the individual does behind the congregation. The prince represents the people over whom he is placed, as responsible for them, but in government, not in mediation. True as it is of Christ that He is King, propitiation appertains to His priestly, not His kingly office: the truth is not in its place, and this is commonly the way in which error as to the Word of God arises, by dislocation of the truth.
It is not that the truth of priesthood is wholly lost, for it is still the priest that makes atonement, but this is simply official, not grounded upon that kinship to the “sanctified” which we have seen to be necessary to representation in this way. It is from the loss of this that on the one side we hear of general redemption in all its phases to complete Universalism; on the other hand, of atonement for the elect as such. Thus atonement becomes for many indecisive and uncertain, or narrowed so as to limit God’s love by that which alone presents it in its fullness. Scripture rightly understood delivers us from both narrowness and looseness. Propitiation becomes for the people of God the full and perfect satisfaction which alone gives rest to the conscience, and yet is for the whole world upon condition of faith, all being welcome and besought to avail themselves of it. We shall have occasion to examine this again when we come to the day of atonement, in which so many of the sacrifices are brought together for us. Meanwhile, the prince and the individual Israelite here may well suggest those thoughts of atonement in which sovereignty of counsel and individual election -both true in themselves -control the doctrine unduly, banishing the full tenderness of priesthood, and the largeness of a love that goes out to all. Yet here a true substitution -the goat -remains, and therefore a genuine salvation. The flesh, however, is not burned without the camp, and as a consequence, the blood does not enter the sanctuary; for true oneness being lost, an “equivalent” penalty can be thought of, -not the actual, and really, therefore, not equivalent. The very idea shows what is lost, for what can the equivalent be to the wrath of God? Present entrance into the sanctuary is also lost, the old man not being completely set aside in judgment. But to enter into this would lead one too far at this time.
The sheep allowed to the Israelite in place of the goat is still a descent from the truth here, for in the sheep the full thought of substitution is now also lost.
(3) The last three forms of the sin-offering are plainly connected together by the fact that they are provision for the same offenses, only differing in this, that the last two are concessions to poverty. From the trespass-offering being mentioned in ver. 6, commentators have taken these cases to be trespasses rather than sins; indeed the law of the trespass-offering was supposed to begin with the fifth chapter. Kurtz rightly urges against this,
(1) that the introductory formula of the trespass-offering is in ver. 14, while the present section is in direct continuation of the fourth chapter;
(2) that the sins mentioned are in other places also given as requiring sin-offerings, while the ram, the only animal prescribed for the known trespass-offerings, does not occur here;
(3) in the trespass-offerings proper, no allowance for the poverty of the person is or could be made, while there are unquestionably other places where this occurs in the laws relating to the sin-offerings (Lev 12:8; Lev 14:21). These considerations are conclusive, and the fact before remarked on, that the burnt- and the meal-offering are also found among these offerings takes away all strangeness from the occurrence of the trespass-offering. We are evidently in a doctrinal descent, already begun in the previous chapter, from the full truth as to atonement for sin given in the first two offerings, God in His goodness accepting the sinner coming thus, in spite of imperfect apprehensions of his need and the fullness of the provision for it.
As to that for which these offerings are prescribed, it is to be observed that in the previous chapter the sins are not specified. So to speak, the exact character of the sins is not the important thing, but that they are sins; and it is in this way that sin receives its most real judgment. Thus it would seem that in the specification here we have another evidence of the lower ground upon which we are. It is about this or that that the soul is troubled, -the specific character of the thing rather than the generic, and the idea of the trespass-offering introduced exactly corresponds with this; for in the trespass-offering we find the exact estimate made of the wrong done which has to be made up -the debt which has to be paid. The trespass-offering contemplates sin as injury rather than sin -against God’s government rather than His nature. Both views are of course right, but the former is the more superficial, and if substituted for the other, is poverty itself. Just so with the governmental theory of atonement,” which makes the necessity of dealing with sin to be in the interests of good government merely. God must show Himself against it in the interests of good government, -true indeed; but He must show Himself for what He is, because He must be what He is, -the requirements of His nature are the deepest and most fundamental of all.
The offering in this case is to be either of a female sheep or of a she-goat, that which was most appropriate to the sin-offering coming last, for in the case of the true trespass-offering it does not appear. The governmental theory, in like manner, has no true substitution -Christ was not in the sinner’s place. It has a substitute for penalty, not a Substitute under penalty: and yet this is not universally so; a happy inconsistency with some who present the trespass- for the sin-offering is that they present nevertheless the goat for their trespass-offering! Yet it is (whether sheep or goat,) the female that is offered, a lower thought perhaps even because the thought of fruitfulness is so distinct in it. This can be so pressed as to obscure the primary necessity for atonement.
In the next case we find an assemblage of contradictory thoughts: for his trespass in which he has sinned, the offerer brings a pair of doves for a burnt-offering and sin-offering together. The doves are already, as we have seen, the lowest form of burnt-offering; but here, (as where the heart is truer than the head,) save one, no offering fails entirely to be represented. But who can interpret aright the thoughts that crowd together here? One offering, as has been said, is wanting -alas! the peace-offering! how significant is its absence, where the cross of Christ is only seen as in the confusion of a dream!
Finally -for plainly we can go no further in this direction, -in case of poverty so great that even the offering of doves is beyond reach, -a meal-offering of fine flour, but without oil or frankincense, is accepted for a sin-offering. Here, at least, there can be no question with any that we have not God’s thought of what is atonement for sin, -for even the blood that maketh atonement for the soul is absent -but what God in mercy can accept where man has no better. It is Christ, of course, who is trusted in, and trusted in as Saviour, though the soul may be so deeply ignorant as not to know that even His death was needed for atonement. God knows the need, and Christ has met it, even for those utterly unconscious of the depth to which He must descend for this. How blessed the assurance here that the cross it is that saves, not one’s intelligence about it! Yet we must remember that ignorance of the cross and opposition to it are different things, though it be true that Peter, when he first heard of it, opposed. Here we must leave Him who knoweth the hearts to draw the line.
5. The Trespass-offering, as the governmental offering, occupies the fifth place. As already said, it is sin as injury rather than as sin that is contemplated, and thus the thought of compensation is prominent in connection with it: the amount of compensation due was to be estimated by the priest, and then a fifth part more added to it and given to the person injured; so that he was more than recompensed.
No one doubts that this is the peculiar feature of the trespass-offering. As for the rest, it was a ram in every case that was offered, but the manner of the offering is entirely omitted in this place. Further on we shall find that it was very little different from the ordinary forms of the sin-offering: here, all this is omitted, that our eyes may be fixed upon this special feature.
The estimation of the priest seems to include that of the ram: to make it the whole thing, attaching to the animal, as Hengstenberg imagines, a suppositious value, is impossible to believe. Think of God ordaining a fictitious compensation to a person wronged! On the other hand, the words certainly give the impression that the ram was estimated; and although this is the only case of such a thing in the sacrificial offerings, we cannot say that it is a contradiction in thought to this one. Otherwise, indeed, we should have to look at the compensation as something merely added to the sacrifice rather than as giving it its character. As it is, the offering becomes the restitution-offering.
If still we have Christ before us, the thought of restitution by the cross will not be difficult to understand or hard to follow out. The law of the offering divides into two parts, clearly distinguished by the “Jehovah spake unto Moses” which divides them, and no less by their subjects, -the first part treating of wrongs done to God, the latter of wrongs done to man. In both respects it should be clear that Christ has not only restored what He took not away, but overcompensated -added the fifth part more. This is the double tithe which the Egyptians gave to Pharaoh in testimony that Joseph had saved their lives, and that all they had was of Pharaoh’s bounty. It is the witness of grace and salvation: mark, the overplus is the witness of this; for God could not be content with mere restoration of what had been taken away; He could not satisfy Himself with merely repairing the damage sin had done, -the disorder it had introduced. No; there must be for His people greater blessing, and for Himself a greater glory -blessing, thus, for all His creatures, as they behold it.
The failure to apprehend this is the foundation of much error in theology. It leads to a real degradation of Christ’s blessed work, which is made to consist in merely canceling the evil Adam did, and completing that which Adam failed to do. But then Adam has to be made from the beginning a candidate for heaven, and law-fulfillment the means originally designed for getting there! As it has been said by one, “This do, and live,” was written over the gate of heaven. A creature was to leave the place God had made him for and put him into, -was taught to aspire, when Satan had lost heaven by aspiring. All this, for many, has dislocated their theology from the foundation. Adam is looked at as “holy” instead of innocent; the image of God in righteousness and true holiness into which we are new-created is thought only the renewal of that in which man was created. And it is no wonder if, on the other hand, many should think of earth in a heavenly state, as the only heaven intended for us.
How differently does Scripture speak! contrasting the Second Man with the first, the old with the new creation. It is Christ who has opened heaven to us; manhood has entered it in Him; grace has made ours what God could never have proposed to us to gain by working: as children of God, possessors of eternal life; as indwelt of the Spirit, members of Christ’s body; Eden but the type of the paradise of God; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ! Had Adam ever been invited to take possession of such an inheritance?
Godward also He has wrought, glorifying Him, as Adam could never have done. Where was His righteousness told out as in the cross? eternal love at the same time manifest in the Son of God bearing our sins in His own body on the tree! God and man in His own blessed person held fast in an everlasting embrace never to be sundered. Surely salvation is, by the whole fullness of what constitutes it that, an overplus every way of blessing and of glory.
This is the trespass-offering: one perfect Man in the depth of humiliation, lifted up upon the cross, has accomplished this. Manhood itself has been, in Him, raised from its fall to be the dwelling-place of Deity. The divine answer to the question, “What is man, that Thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, that Thou visitest him?” has been given in Jesus: “Thou hast made him a little lower than the angels; Thou hast crowned him with glory and honor: Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of Thy hands; Thou hast put all things under his feet.”
It only remains to show briefly now how the first two gospels compare with these last two offerings. Matthew’s is, without doubt, the governmental gospel. Its theme is the kingdom of heaven, and Christ the King; while Mark’s is ministry and the perfect Servant. In each case, the character is preserved throughout: even the forgiveness of sins in the former, as taught in one of the parables of the kingdom, is conditional and can be recalled; in the prayer taught His disciples we find “Forgive us our debts” instead of “our sins,” as elsewhere; in the parables of the thirteenth chapter He is the man who buys the field, and who buys the pearl.
A difficulty in deciding between the two gospels lies in this, that at the cross, in Matthew as in Mark, the cry of desertion is found, and the darkness which it interprets. This in the offerings is characteristic, as we have seen, of the sin-offering and not the trespass. It only shows, however, that there is not the repetition in Scripture which we often imagine to be there. In God’s governmental ways He must display His nature; so that there is nothing really contradictory in this. On the other hand, while in both the effect of the darkness endured is that it passes away -the vail is rent, -on the other hand, it is in Matthew only that His death is followed by the resurrection of the saints. But death is governmental, not the necessary penalty of sin. So too the threefold vindication of the blessed Sufferer by the traitor who betrays Him, the judge who condemns Him, and in the dream of Pilate’s wife, is again governmental. Mark omits all this, in order to concentrate our attention on the great expiation being wrought, the fruit of which is seen, not, as in Matthew, in disciples bidden to baptize into the kingdom, but in the gospel going forth to men, with the power of the adversary broken down before it.
Space forbids further dwelling upon a theme so precious, and we must close here our comment upon the offerings in themselves.
Fuente: Grant’s Numerical Bible Notes and Commentary
THE BURNT OFFERING
There are five offerings in chapters 1-7, and these five include all the offerings and sacrifices referred to in the history of Israel. It will simplify matters if we remember this. Sometimes offerings are presented for the priest himself, sometimes for the nation, a ruler of the nation, or a common individual; sometimes the offering is a bullock, sometimes a sheep, a goat, a turtle dove, or a pigeon; but in any case, it is always one of these five offerings. Chapter 7, for example, refers to offerings for vows, thanksgiving offerings and voluntary offerings, but these are all simply different aspects of one of the five, namely, the trespass offering.
It should not be supposed that these offering in themselves satisfied God (Heb 10:4), but their importance lay in what they symbolized, namely, the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ.
These five offerings, again, may be divided into three kinds. The first two (that is, the burnt and the meal offerings) are forms of dedication by which the surrender of the offerer to Gods perfect service is expressed. The third (the peace offering) is really an offering of thanksgiving by which the offerer expresses his praise to God and communion with Him. The last two (the sin and the trespass offerings) are those of expiation, and deal with the removal of sin and pardon of its guilt.
The order in which these five are revealed here is not that in which Israel presented them, but in their actual use the sin and trespass offerings came first. Then in the consciousness that sin was put away and pardon secured through those offerings the burnt and meal offerings followed, by which their desire to devote themselves to God wholly for His service was expressed. Lastly, in the peace of a cleansed conscience and a surrendered life the peace offering was presented, expressing fellowship and communion with God. See 2Ch 29:21-31 for an illustration of the order in which the offerings were presented.
THE BURNT OFFERING
Which offering is first referred to (Lev 1:3)? It is probably called the burnt offering from a Hebrew word which means that which ascends. It is distinguished from the other offerings, in that the whole of it was consumed upon the altar, and none of it was eaten by either the offerer or the priest. The typical significance of this is as follows: (1) it acknowledged Gods claim for the perfect services and entire devotedness of the offerer; (2) it acknowledged that the offerer was destitute of that service and devotedness, and hence presented as substitute in his stead; (3) it acknowledged that the absence of this service and devotedness involved guilt and deserved death, hence the slaying of the substitute; and (4) it acknowledged that because no such service and devotedness was found in the offerer he needed an offering to be wholly accepted in his place as a sweet savor to God.
How is the acknowledgment of the final point above expressed in the first specification of the burnt offering (Lev 1:3)? What class of victim is referred to here? Of what sex and quality must it be? We thus see that God claims the best as to strength, energy and perfectness (compare Mal 1:8; Mal 1:13). Christ is the only and absolutely perfect One.
What other kinds of victims might be used in the burnt offerings (Lev 1:10; Lev 1:14)? It is difficult to say why these varieties were permitted. Some think they represent consideration for the poor, who might be unable to present those more costly; others say they represent different aspects of Christ, as (for example) service in the case of the bullock, submission in the case of the lamb, mourning innocence in the case of the dove; while others that they represent different degrees of faith or apprehension of Christ on the part of believers, some being more feeble than others in their apprehension of Christ having only a partial recognition of what He has done or what He is to them.
THE RITUAL OF THE BURNT OFFERING
Seven features constitute the ritual of the burnt offering, as follows:
1. the presentation (Lev 1:3).
2. the laying on of hands (Lev 1:4).
3. the slaying of the victim (Lev 1:5).
4. the sprinkling of the blood (Lev 1:5).
5. the separating of the pieces (Lev 1:6).
6. the washing of the pieces (Lev 1:9).
7. the burning of the whole (Lev 1:9).
Concerning the presentation, who was obliged to make it (Lev 1:2)? That the offerer should do this was doubtless to represent his individual confession of his need, his individual acceptance of Gods way of salvation, and his individual recognition of the excellency of his offering. The Revised Version adds a thought to Lev 1:3 namely, that the offerer is to present his offering in order that he may be accepted. In other words, it is not enough for a man to praise God, or even to see to serve Him, until he first is accepted before God, and for this acceptance of himself he requires a propitiatory offering. God is thus satisfied by the perfectness in the offering. In the sin offering the atonement is for sin and not acceptance, but here in the burnt offering the worshipper comes without sin. That, therefore, which he offers is received as a sweet savor by the Lord (Eph 5:2), and on the ground of it the service of the offerer is received. Note, where the offering was to be presented, namely, at the door of the Tabernacle. This not only to guard against idolatry in groves, or to compel men to worship as God appointed, but to provide for publicity (see Mat 10:32; Rom 10:9-10).
The laying on of hands (Lev 1:4) is instructive. The act implied the identification of the offerer with the offering not only, but also the transfer of his obligation of guilt to it as his substitute. What expression in this verse proves that the offering was in his stead? (Compare to Lev 16:21; Numbers 8-11 RV; 1Pe 1:24.
Who should kill the victim, the offerer or the priest (Lev 1:5)? The fact that the offerer did this signifies each individuals responsibility for his own sin.
But who sprinkled the blood? That the priest should do this shows us Jesus presenting our offering of Himself before God.
The flaying and cutting were done by the offerer (Lev 1:6). Some would say that this was to render the parts more convenient for burning; others say it signifies a minute appreciation on the part of the offerer of the excellence of his offering. The application of this to the believer on Christ is clear.
The burning of the whole is important, since it signifies the ascending of the offering in consecration to God, and His acceptance of it (9:24). As He taught the Israelites that complete consecration to God is essential to right worship, so He teaches us that Christ represented us in perfect consecration and surrender (Joh 17:19; Rom 5:19; Heb 10:5-39). He died that we might not die, but it does not follow that since He was consecrated for us we need not be consecrated. This will be referred to later, but just now examine Rom 12:1.
QUESTIONS
1. How many offerings are included in the Law of the Offering?
2. What do they symbolize?
3. Name them, and describe their meaning.
4. In what order did Israel present them?
5. What spiritual acknowledgments were involved in the burnt offering?
6. Name the seven features of its ritual.
7. State the spiritual significance of the presentation.
8. Do the same for the laying on of hands.
9. Who killed the victim, and what did it signify?
10. What was signified by the burning?
Fuente: James Gray’s Concise Bible Commentary
Lev 1:1. And the Lord called unto Moses The particle and shows that the beginning of this book is closely connected with the conclusion of the former; and therefore it is probable that this order was given to Moses immediately after the consecration of the tabernacle; that now, when all things were ready for divine service, he drew nigh to the oracle of God, to receive the following instructions about its ministrations and sacrifices.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Lev 1:4. Make atonement for him, he having first laid his hand on the head of the bullock, and confessed his sin. A burnt-offering for sin is here mentioned as the first of all the sacrifices, because deliverance from guilt, and reconciliation with God, should ever be our great and principal concern. It must be offered at the door of the tabernacle, then slain and cut in pieces, and its parts conveyed to and burnt upon the altar, for there is no entrance into this holy habitation without the shedding of blood.
Lev 1:5. Sprinkle the blood round about the altar; and elsewhere, pour the blood at the foot of the altar; to prefigure the blood of our Saviour poured out at the foot of the cross.
Lev 1:6. He shall flay. The priest, aided by the levites, 2Ch 29:34. They cut the victims throat across, separating the windpipe at a single stroke.
Lev 1:7. Put fire; that is, increase the fire by fresh wood, which was always kept burning.
REFLECTIONS.
God being high and holy, and his people corrupt and sinful, there was no access to him but by a hallowing process of mediation and sacrifice. The animals selected for the altar were bulls, sheep and doves. The latter were received principally in behalf of the poor, who could not bring a richer gift. These oblations were not for individuals only; but sometimes large burnt- offerings were presented in favour of the nation, when afflicted with grievous calamities, or when anxious to obtain some signal mercy. So Israel, when twice defeated by Benjamin, in the wicked affair of the Levites concubine; and the Lord heard their prayers. So Samuel, when the Philistines invaded the land, and the Lord drove them back by the terrors of supernatural thunder. So David, during the plague, and the Lord stayed it; and so Solomon, when he sought wisdom to govern the kingdom.
The sin-offering must be a male, without spot or blemish; and in that view we have a more striking figure of the Lamb of God, who was holy and undefiled. The animal must be tied to a convenient place; so was the Saviour bound for us. He was led as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he opened not his mouth.
The offender laid his hand on the head of the victim. This was a most significant action. Hereby he acknowledged his sin, and his worthiness to die; and if he had the shadowy light which irradiated some of the prophets, he desired that the Messiahs atonement and death might procure his life and salvation; and if he was ignorant, as was generally the case, a sincere heart was accepted. By putting his hand on the head of the victim, we learn that it is not sufficient to approve of Christ and his gospel, we must actually put forth the hand of faith to lay hold of the benefits of his sufferings and death. It marked also, that the worshipper brought his beast with a willing and a contrite heart; and with a firm purpose not to return to his sins. If these dispositions were wanting, the richest offerings were but an abomination to the Lord.
The victim so presented was slain, flayed, and burnt on the altar, with the blood; and so consumed, it was a sweet savour to God, and made atonement for the sin of the soul. Here we have the holy and immaculate Lamb of God evidently set forth before our eyes. His back was flayed with the scourges, his whole humanity endured the sorrows of death, and sustained the fire of divine justice for our redemption. All his merits were a sweet savour unto God, and life and salvation are obtained by the blood of the cross.
Having therefore redemption in his blood, let us think of making some returns to heaven for the great riches of its grace; let us present our bodies to the Lord, a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable, which is our reasonable service. Let us devote that life to his glory which has been so dearly ransomed by the oblation of the Son of God. Thus purged in conscience, and sanctified in heart, we poor sinners shall be counted worthy to enter the congregation of the Lord, and to dwell in his presence for ever.
Fuente: Sutcliffe’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Leviticus 1
Ere entering upon the details of the chapter before us, there are two things which demand our careful consideration; namely, first, Jehovah’s position; and, secondly, the order in which the offerings are presented.
“And the Lord called unto Moses, and spake unto him out of the tabernacle of the congregation.” Such was the position from which Jehovah made the communications contained in this Book, He had been speaking from Mount Sinai, and his position, there, gave marked character to the communication. From the fiery mount “went a fiery law;” but, here, He speaks “out of the tabernacle of the congregation.” This was an entirely different position. We have seen this tabernacle set up, at the close of the preceding book. “And he reared up the court round about the tabernacle and the altar, and set up the hanging of the court gate. So Moses finished the work. Then a cloud covered the tent of the congregation, and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle . . . . . . . For the glory of the Lord was upon the tabernacle, by day, and fire was on it, by night, in the sight of all the House of Israel, throughout all their journeys.” (Ex. 40: 33-38)
Now, the tabernacle was God’s dwelling place, in grace. He could take up His, abode there, because He was surrounded, on all sides, by that which vividly set forth the ground of His relationship with the people. Had He come into their midst, in the full display of the character revealed upon Mount Sinai, it could only have been to “consume them in a moment,” as a “Stiff-necked people.” But He retired within the veil – type of Christ’s flesh, (Heb. 10: 20) – and took His place on the mercy seat where the blood of atonement, and not the “stiff-neckedness” of Israel, was that which met His view, and satisfied the claims of His nature. The blood which was brought into the sanctuary, by the high priest, was the type of that precious blood which cleanses from all sin; and, although Israel, after the flesh, saw nothing of this, it, nevertheless, justified God in abiding amongst them – it “sanctified to the purifying of the flesh.” (Heb. 9: 13)
Thus much as to Jehovah’s position in this Book, which must be taken into account, in order to a proper understanding of the communications made therein. In them we shall find inflexible holiness united with the purest grace. God is holy, no matter from whence He speaks. He was holy on Mount Sinai, and holy above the mercy-seat; but, in the former case, His holiness stood connected with “a devouring fire;” in the latter, it was connected with patient grace. Now, the connection of perfect holiness with perfect grace is that which characterises the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, which redemption is, in various ways, shadowed forth in the Book of Leviticus. God must be holy, even though it should be in the eternal condemnation of impenitent sinners; but the full display of His holiness, in the salvation of sinners, calls forth heaven’s loudest and loftiest note of praise. “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, Good-will toward men.” (Luke 2: 14.) This doxology could not have been sung in connection with “the fiery law.” No doubt, there was “glory to God in the highest,” but there was no “Peace on earth” nor “good pleasure in men,” inasmuch as it was the declaration of what men ought to be, ere God could take pleasure in them. But when “the Son” took His place, as a man, on the earth, the mind of Heaven could express its entire delight in Him as the One whose Person and work could combine, in the most perfect manner, divine glory with human blessedness.
And, now, one word, as to the order of the offerings, in the opening chapters of the Book of Leviticus. The Lord begins with the burnt offering, and ends with the trespass offering. That is to say, He leaves off where we begin. This order is marked and most instructive. When, first, the arrow of conviction enters the soul, there are deep searchings of conscience, in reference to sins actually committed. Memory casts back its enlightened eye over the page of one’s past life, and sees it stained with numberless trespasses against God and man. At this point of the soul’s history, it is not so occupied with the question of the root from whence those trespasses have sprung, as with the stern and palpable fact that such and such things have actually been committed; and, hence, it needs to know that God has provided a sacrifice through which “all trespasses” can be “frankly forgiven.” This is presented to us in the trespass offering.
But, as one advances, in the divine life, he becomes conscious that those sins which he has committed are but branches from a root, streams from a fountain; and, moreover, that sin in his nature is that fountain – that root. This leads to far deeper exercise, which can only be met by a deeper insight into the work of the cross. In a word, the cross will need to be apprehended by that in which God Himself has “condemned sin in the flesh,” (Rom. 8: 3) My reader will observe, it does not say, “sins in the flesh,” but the root from whence these have sprung, namely, “sin in the flesh.” this is a truth of immense importance. Christ not merely “died for our sins, according to the scriptures,” but He was “made sin for us.” (2 Cor. 5: 21) This is the doctrine of the sin offering.
Now, it is when the heart and conscience are set at rest, through the knowledge of Christ’s work, that we can feed upon Himself as the ground of our peace and joy, in the presence of God. There can be no such thing known as peace or joy, until we see all our trespasses forgiven and our sin judged. The trespass offering and the sin offering must be known, ere the Peace offering, joy offering, or thanksgiving offering can be appreciated. Hence, therefore, the order in which the peace offering stands, corresponds with the order of our spiritual apprehension of Christ.
The same perfect order is observable in reference to the meat offering. When the soul is led to taste the sweetness of spiritual communion with Christ – to feed upon Him, in peace and thankfulness, in the divine presence, it is drawn out in earnest desire to know more of the wondrous mysteries of His Person; and this desire is most blessedly met in the meat offering, which is the type of Christ’s perfect manhood.
Then, in the burnt offering, we are conducted to a point beyond which it is impossible to go, and that is, the work of the cross, as accomplished under the immediate eye of God, and as the expression of the unswerving devotion of the heart of Christ. All these things will come before us, in beauteous detail, as we pass along; we are here only looking at the order of the offerings, which is truly marvellous, whichever way we travel, whether outward from God to us, or inward from us to God. In either case, we begin with the cross and end with the cross. If we begin with the burnt offering, we see Christ, on the cross, doing the will of God – making atonement, according to the measure of His perfect surrender of Himself to God. If we begin with the trespass offering, we see Christ, on the cross, bearing our sins, and putting them away, according to the perfection of His atoning sacrifice; while, in each and all, we Behold the excellency, the beauty, and the perfection of His divine and adorable Person. Surely, all this is sufficient to awaken in our hearts the deepest interest in the study of those precious types which we shall now proceed to consider in detail. And may God the Holy Ghost, who penned the Book of Leviticus, expound its contents in living power to our hearts; that so, when we have reached the close, we may have abundant cause to bless His name for many thrilling and soul-stirring views of the Person and work of our blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, to whom be glory, now, henceforth, and for evermore. Amen.
———————
In the burnt offering, with which our book opens, we have a type of Christ “offering himself without spot to God.” Hence the position which the Holy Ghost assigns to it. If the Lord Jesus Christ came forth to accomplish the glorious work of atonement, His highest and most fondly-cherished object, in so doing, was the glory of God. “Lo, I come, to do thy will, O God,” was the grand motto in every scene and circumstance of His life, and in none more markedly than in the work of the cross. Let the will of God be what it might, He came to do it. Blessed be God, we know what our portion is in the accomplishment of this “Will” for by it “we are sanctified, through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once.” (Heb. 10: 10) Still, the primary aspect of Christ’s work was to God-ward. It was an ineffable delight to Him to accomplish the will of God on this earth. No one had ever done this before. Some had, through grace, done “that which was right in the sight of the Lord;” but no one had ever, perfectly, invariably, from first to last, without hesitation, and without divergence, done the will of God. But this was, exactly, what the Lord Jesus did. He was “obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.” (Phil. 2: 8) “He steadfastly set his face to go to Jerusalem.” And as He walked from the garden of Gethsemane to the cross of Calvary, the intense devotion of His heart told itself forth in these accents: “The cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?’
Now, in all this self-emptied devotedness to God, there was truly a sweet savour. A perfect Man on the earth accomplishing the will of God, even in death, was an object of amazing interest to the mind of Heaven. Who could fathom the profound depths of that devoted heart, which displayed itself, under the eye of God, on the cross? Surely, none but God; for in this, as in everything else, it holds good that “no man knoweth the Son, but the Father;” and no one can know ought about Him, save as the Father reveals Him. The mind of man can, in some measure, grasp any subject of knowledge “under the sun.” Human science can be laid hold of by the human intellect; but no man knoweth the Son, save as the Father reveals Him, by the power of the Holy Ghost, through the written word. The Holy Ghost delights to reveal the Son – to take of the things of Jesus, and show them unto us. These things we have, in all their fullness and beauty, in the word. There can be no new revelation, inasmuch as the Spirit brought “all things” to the apostles’ memory, and led them into “all truth.” There can be nothing beyond “all truth;” and, hence, all pretension to a new revelation, and the development of new truth, – meaning thereby truth not contained in the sacred canon of inspiration – is an effort, on man’s part, to add to what God calls “all truth.” No doubt, the Spirit may unfold and apply, with new and extraordinary power, truth contained in the word; but this is, obviously, a very different thing from our travelling outside the range of divine revelation, for the purpose of finding principles, ideas, or dogmas, which shall command the conscience. This latter can only be regarded in the light of impious presumption.
In the gospel narrative, we have Christ presented to us in the varied phases of His character, His Person, and His work. To those precious documents the people of God in all ages have rejoiced to betake themselves, and drink in their heavenly revelations of the object of their love and confidence – the One to whom they owed everything, for time and eternity. But very few, comparatively, have ever been led to regard the rites and ceremonies of the Levitical economy as fraught with the most minute instruction in reference to the same commanding theme. The offerings of Leviticus, for example, have been too much regarded as so many antiquated records of Jewish customs, conveying no intelligible voice to our ears – no spiritual light to our understandings. However, it must be admitted that the apparently abstruse records of Leviticus, as well as the sublime strains of Isaiah. take their place amongst the “things which were written aforetime,” and they are, therefore, “for Our learning.” True, we shall need to study those records, as indeed all Scripture, with an humble, self-emptied spirit; with reverent dependence upon the teaching of Him who graciously penned them for us; with sedulous attention to the general scope, bearing, and analogy of the entire body of divine revelation; with an effectual curb on the imagination, that it may not take unhallowed flights; but if thus, through grace, we enter upon the study of the types of Leviticus, we shall find in them a vein of the richest and finest ore.
We shall now proceed to examine the burnt offering, which, as we have remarked, presents Christ, offering Himself, without spot, to God.
“If His offering be a burnt sacrifice of the herd, let him offer a male, without blemish.” The essential glory and dignity of Christ’s Person form the basis of Christianity. He imparts that dignity and glory to every thing He does, and to every office He sustains, No office could possibly add glory to Him who is “God over all, blessed for ever” – “God manifest in the flesh” – the glorious “Immanuel” – “God with us” – the eternal Word – the Creator and Sustainer of the universe. What office could add to the dignity of such an One? In point of fact, we know that all His offices are connected with His humanity; and in assuming that humanity, He stooped from the glory which He had with the Father, before the world was. He thus stooped, in order to glorify God perfectly, in the very midst of a scene where all was hostile to Him. He came to be “eaten up” by a holy, unquenchable zeal for the glory of God, and the effectual carrying out of His eternal counsels.
The unblemished male, of the first year, was a type of the Lord Jesus Christ offering Himself for the perfect accomplishment of the will of God. There should be nothing expressive either of weakness or imperfection. “A male of the first year” was required. We shall see, when we come to examine the other offerings, that “a female” was, in some cases, permitted; but that was only expressive of the imperfection which attached to the worshipper’s apprehension, and in nowise of any defect in the offering, inasmuch as it was “unblemished” in the one case, as well as in the other. Here, however, it was an offering of the very highest order, because it was Christ offering Himself to God. Christ, in the burnt offering, was exclusively for the eye and heart of God. This point should be distinctly apprehended. God alone could duly estimate the Person and work of Christ. He alone could fully appreciate the cross as the expression of Christ’s perfect devotedness. The cross. as foreshadowed by the burnt offering, had an element in it which only the divine mind could apprehend. It had depths so profound that neither mortal nor angel could fathom them. There was a voice in it which was intended exclusively for, and went directly to, the ear of the Fat her. There were communications between the cross of Calvary and the throne of God, which lay far beyond the highest range of created intelligence.
“He shall offer it of his own voluntary will at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation before the Lord.” The use of the word “voluntary,” here, brings out, with great clearness, the grand idea in the burnt offerings. It leads us to contemplate the cross in an aspect which is not sufficiently apprehended. We are too apt to look upon the cross merely as the place where the great question of sin was gone into and settled, between eternal Justice and the spotless victim – as the place where our guilt was atoned for, and where Satan was gloriously vanquished. Eternal and universal praise to redeeming love! The cross was all this. But it was more than this. It was the place where Christ’s love to the Father was told out in language which only the Father could hear and understand. It is in the latter aspect that we have it typified, in the burnt offering; and, therefore, it is that the word voluntary” occurs. Were it merely a question of the imputation of sin, and of enduring the wrath of God on account of sin, such an expression would not be in moral order. The blessed Lord Jesus could not, with strict propriety, be represented as willing to be “made sin” – willing to endure the wrath of God, and the hiding of His countenance; And, in this one fact, we learn, in the clearest manner, that the burnt offering does not foreshadow Christ, on the cross, bearing sin but Christ on the cross, accomplishing the will of God. that Christ Himself contemplated the cross in these two aspects of it, is evident from His own words. When he looked at the cross as the place of sin-bearing – when He anticipated the horrors with which, in this point of view, it stood invested, He exclaimed, “Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me.” (Luke 23: 42) He shrank from that which His work, as a sin-bearer, involved. His pure and holy mind shrank from the thought of contact with sin; and His loving heart shrank from the thought of losing, for a moment, the light of God’s countenance.
But, then, the cross had another aspect. It stood before the eye of Christ as a scene, in which He could fully tell out all the deep secrets of His love to the Father – a place in which He could, “of his own voluntary will,” take the cup which the Father had given Him, and drain it to the very dregs. True it is that the whole life of Christ emitted a fragrant odour, which ever ascended to the Father’s throne – He did always those things which pleased the Father – He ever did the will of God; but the burnt offering does not typify Him in His life – precious, beyond all thought, as was every act of that life – but in His death, and in that, not as one “made a curse for us,” but as one presenting to the heart of the Father an odour of incomparable fragrance.
This truth invests the cross with peculiar charms for the spiritual mind. It imparts to the sufferings of our blessed Lord an interest of the most intense character. The guilty sinner, no doubt, finds in the cross a divine answer to the deepest and most earnest cravings of heart and conscience. The true believer finds in the cross that which captivates every affection of his heart, and transfixes his whole moral being. The angels find in the cross a theme for ceaseless admiration. All this is true; but there is that, in the cross, which passes far beyond the loftiest conceptions of saints or angels; namely, the deep-toned devotion of the heart of the Son presented to, and appreciated by, the heart of the Father. This is the elevated aspect of the cross, which is so strikingly shadowed forth in the burnt offering.
And, here, let me remark that the distinctive beauty of the burnt offering must be entirely sacrificed, if we admit the idea that Christ was a sin-bearer all His life. There would then be no force, no value, no meaning in the word “voluntary.” There could be no room for voluntary action in the case of one who was compelled, by the very necessity of his position, to yield up his life. If Christ were a sin-bearer, in His life, then, assuredly, His death must have been a necessary, not a voluntary, act. Indeed, it may be safely asserted that there is not one of the offerings the beauty of which would not be marred, and its strict integrity sacrificed, by the theory of a Life of sin-bearing. In the burnt offering, this is especially the case, inasmuch as it is not, in it, a question of sin-bearing, or enduring the wrath of God, but entirely one of voluntary devotedness, manifested in the death of the cross. In the burnt offering we recognise a type of God the Son, accomplishing, by God the Spirit, the will of God the Father. This He did “of His own voluntary will.” “Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.” (John 10: 17) Here we have the burnt offering aspect of the death of Christ. On the other hand, the prophet, contemplating Him as the sin offering, says, “his life is taken from the earth.” (Acts 8: 33, which is the LXX. version of Isaiah 53: 8) Again, Christ says, “No one (ou deis) taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself.” Was He a sin-bearer when He said this? Observe, it is “no one” man, angel, devil, or else. It was His own voluntary act, to lay down His life that He might take it again. “I delight to do thy will, O my God.” Such was the language of the divine burnt offering – of Him who found His unutterable joy in offering Himself without spot to God.
Now, it is of the last importance to apprehend, with distinctness, the primary object of the heart of Christ, in the work of redemption. It tends to consolidate the believer’s peace. The accomplishment of God’s will, the establishment of God’s counsels, and the display of God’s glory, occupied the fullest, deepest, and largest place in that devoted heart which viewed and estimated everything in reference to God. The Lord Jesus never once stopped to inquire how any act or circumstance would affect Himself. “He humbled himself” – “He made himself of no reputation” – He surrendered all. And, hence, when He arrived at the close of His career, He could look back upon it all, and say, with His eyes lifted up to heaven,” I have glorified thee on the earth; I hare finished the work which thou gavest me to do.” (John 17: 4) It is impossible to contemplate the work of Christ, in this aspect of it, without having the heart filled with the sweetest affections toward His Person. It does not detract, in the smallest degree, from our sense of His love to us, to know that He made God His primary object, in the work of the cross. Quite the opposite. His love to us, and our salvation in Him, could only be founded upon God’s established glory. That glory must form the solid base of everything. “As truly as I live, All the earth shall be filled with the glory of the Lord.” (Num. 14: 21) But we know that God’s eternal glory, and the creature’s eternal blessedness, are, in the divine counsels, inseparably linked together, so that if the former be secured, the latter must needs be so likewise.
“And he shall put his hand upon the head of the burnt offering; and it shall be accepted for him, to make atonement for him.” The act of laying on of hands was expressive of full identification. By that significant act, the offerer and the offering became one; and this oneness, in the case of the burnt offering, secured for the offerer all the acceptableness of his offering. The application of this to Christ and the believer sets forth a truth of the most precious nature, and one largely developed in the New Testament; namely, the believer’s everlasting identification with, and acceptance in, Christ. “As he is, so are we, in this world.” “We are in him that is true.” (1 John 4: 17; 1 John 5: 20) Nothing, in any measure, short of this could avail. The man who is not in Christ is in his sins. There is no middle ground. You must be either in Christ or out of Him. There is no such thing as being partly in Christ. If there is a single hair’s-breadth between you and Christ, you are in an actual state of wrath and condemnation. but, on the other hand, if you are in Him, then are you “as he is” before God, and so accounted in the presence of infinite holiness. Such is the plain teaching of the Word of God. “Ye are complete in him” – “accepted in the beloved” – “members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.” “He that is joined to the Lord, is one Spirit.” (1 Cor. 6: 17; Eph. 1: 6; Eph. 5: 30; Col. 2: 1) Now, it is not possible that the Head can be in one degree of acceptance and the members in another. No; the Head and the members are one. God counts them one; and, therefore, they are one. This truth is, at once, the ground of the loftiest confidence, and of the most profound humility. It imparts the fullest assurance of “boldness in the day of judgement,” inasmuch as it is not possible that ought can be laid to the charge of Him with whom we are united. It imparts the deep sense of our own nothingness, inasmuch as our union with Christ is founded upon the death of nature and the utter abolition of all its claims and pretensions.
Since, therefore, the Head and the members are viewed in the same position of infinite favour and acceptance, before God, it is perfectly evident that all the members stand in one acceptance, in one salvation, in one life, in one righteousness. There are no degrees in justification. The babe in Christ stands in the same justification as the saint of fifty years’ experience. The one is in Christ, and so is the other; and this, as it is the only ground of life, so it is the only ground of justification. There are not two kinds of life, neither are there two kinds of justification. No doubt, there are various measures of enjoyment of this justification – various degrees in the knowledge of its fullness and extent – various degrees in the ability to exhibit its power upon the heart and life; and these things are frequently confounded with the justification itself, which, as being divine, is, necessarily, eternal, absolute, unvarying, entirely unaffected by the fluctuation of human feeling and experience.
But, further, there is no such thing as progress in justification. The believer is not more justified today? than he was yesterday; nor will he be more justified tomorrow than he is today; yea, a soul who is “in Christ Jesus” is as completely justified as if he were before the throne. He is “complete in Christ.” He is “as” Christ. He is, on Christ’s own authority, “clean every whit.” (John 13: 10) What more could he be, at this side of the glory? He may, and – if he walks in the Spirit-will, make progress in the sense and enjoyment of this glorious reality; but, as to the thing itself, the moment he, by the power of the Holy Ghost, believed the gospel, he passed from a positive state of unrighteousness and condemnation into a positive state of righteousness and acceptance. All this is based upon the divine perfectness of Christ’s work; just as, in the case of the burnt offering, the worshipper’s acceptance was based upon the acceptableness of his offering. It was not a question of what he was, but simply of what the sacrifice was. “It shall be accepted for him, to make atonement for him.”
“And he shall kill the bullock before the Lord: and the priests, Aaron’s sons, shall bring the blood, and sprinkle the blood round about upon the altar that is by the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.” It is most needful, in studying the doctrine of the burnt offering, to bear in mind that the grand point set forth therein is not the meeting of the sinner’s need, but the presentation to God of that which was infinitely acceptable to Him. Christ, as foreshadowed by the burnt offering, is not for the sinner’s conscience, but for the heart of God. Further, the cross, in the burnt offering, is not the exhibition of the exceeding hatefulness of sin, but of Christ’s unshaken and unshakable devotedness to the Father. Neither is it the scene of God’s out-poured wrath on Christ the sin-bearer; but of the Father’s unmingled complacency in Christ, the voluntary and most fragrant sacrifice. Finally, “atonement,” as seen in the burnt offering, is not merely commensurate with the claims of man’s conscience, but with the intense desire of the heart of Christ, to carry out the will and establish the counsels of God – a desire which stopped not short of surrendering up His spotless, precious life, as “a voluntary offering’ of “sweet savour” to God.
From the carrying out of this desire, no power of earth or hell, men or devils, could shake Him. When Peter ignorantly sought to dissuade Him, in words of false tenderness, from encountering the shame and degradation of the cross – “Pity thyself, Lord! this shall not be unto thee” – what was the reply? “Get thee behind me, Satan; thou art an offence unto me; for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.” (Matt. 16: 22, 23) So also, on another occasion, He says to His disciples, “Hereafter, I will not talk much with you, for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me: but that the world may know that I love the Father, and as the Father hath given me commandment, even so I do.” (John 14: 30) These and numerous other kindred scriptures, bring out the burnt offering phase of Christ’s work, in which, it is evident, the primary thought is His “Offering himself without spot to God.”
In full keeping with all that has been stated, in reference to the special point in the burnt offering, is the place which Aaron’s sons get, and the functions assigned them therein. They “sprinkle the blood” – they “put the fire upon the altar” – they “lay the wood in order upon the fire” – they “lay the parts, the head and the fat, in order upon the wood that is on the fire which is upon the altar” These are very prominent actions, and they form a marked feature of the burnt offering, as contrasted with the sin offering, in which Aaron’s sons are not mentioned at all. “The sons of Aaron” represent the church, not as “one body,” but as a priestly house. This is easily apprehended. If Aaron was a type of Christ, then Aaron’s house was a type of Christ’s house, as we read, in Heb. 3, “But Christ as a Son over his own house, whose house are we.” And, again, “Behold I and the children whom God hath given me.” Now, it is the privilege of the Church, as led and taught by the Holy Ghost, to gaze upon, and delight in, that aspect of Christ, which is presented in this opening type of Leviticus. “Our fellowship is with the Father,” who graciously calls us to participate, with Him, in His thoughts about Christ. True, we can never rise to the height of those thoughts; but we can have fellowship therein, by the Holy Ghost who dwells in us. It is not, here, a question of having the conscience tranquillised, by the blood of Christ, as the sin-bearer, but of communion with God in the matter of Christ’s perfect surrender of Himself on the cross.
“The priests, Aaron’s sons, shall bring the blood, and sprinkle the blood round about upon the altar that is by the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.” Here, we have a type of the Church, bringing the memorial of an accomplished. sacrifice, and presenting it in the place of individual approach to God. But, we must remember, it is the blood of the burnt offering, and not of the sin offering. It is the Church, in the power of the Holy Ghost, entering into the stupendous thought of Christ’s accomplished devotedness to God, and not a convicted sinner, entering into the value of the blood of the sin-bearer. I need hardly say that the Church is composed of sinners, and convicted sinners, too; but “Aaron’s sons” do not represent convicted sinners, but worshipping saints. It is as “priests” they have to do with the burnt offering. Many err as to this. They imagine that, because one takes the place of a worshipper – being invited by the grace of God, and fitted by the blood of Christ, so to do – he, thereby, refuses to acknowledge himself a poor worthless sinner. this is a great mistake. the believer is, in himself, “nothing at all.” But in Christ, he is a purged worshipper. He does not stand, in the sanctuary, as a guilty sinner, but as a worshipping priest, clothed in “garments of glory and beauty.” To be occupied with my guilt, in the presence of God, is not humility, as regards myself, but unbelief, as regards the sacrifice.
However, it must be very evident to my reader, that the idea of sin-bearing – the imputation of sin – the wrath of God, does not appear in the burnt offering. True, we read, “it shall be accepted for him, to make atonement for him;” but, then, it is “atonement” not according to the depths and enormity of human guilt, but according to the perfection of Christ’s surrender of Himself to God, and the intensity of God’s delight in Christ. this gives us the very loftiest idea of atonement. If I contemplate Christ as the sin offering, I see atonement made according to the claims of divine justice, with respect to sin. But when I see atonement, in the burnt offering, it is according to the measure of Christ’s willingness and ability to accomplish the will of God; and according to the measure of God’s complacency in Christ and His work. What a perfect atonement must that be which is the fruit of Christ’s devotion to God! Could there be anything beyond this? Assuredly not. The burnt offering aspect of atonement is that about which the priestly household may well be occupied in the courts of the Lord’s house, for ever.
“And he shall flay the burnt offering, and cut it into his pieces.” The ceremonial act of “flaying” was peculiarly expressive. It was simply the removing of the outward covering, in order that what was within might be fully revealed. It was not sufficient that the offering should be, outwardly, “without blemish,” “the hidden parts” should be all disclosed, in order that every sinew and every joint might be seen. It was only in the case of the burnt offering that this action was specially named. This is quite in character, and tends to set forth the depth of Christ’s devotedness to the Father. It was no mere surface-work with Him. The more the secrets of His inner life were disclosed, the more the depths of His being were explored, the more clearly was it made manifest that pure devotion to the will of His Father, and earnest desire for His glory, were the springs of action in the great Antitype of the burnt offering. He was, most assuredly, a whole burnt offering.
“And cut it into his pieces.” this action presents a somewhat similar truth to that taught in the “sweet incense beaten small,” (Lev. 16) The Holy Ghost delights to dwell upon the sweetness and fragrance of the sacrifice of Christ, not only as a whole, but also in all its minute details. Look at the burnt offering, as a whole, and you see it without blemish. Look at it in all its parts, and you see it to be the same. Such was Christ; and as such He is shadowed forth in this important type.
“And the sons of Aaron the priest shall put fire upon the altar, and lay the wood in order upon the fire. And the priests, Aaron’s sons, shall lay the parts, the head and the fat, in order upon the wood that is on the fire which is upon the altar.” This was a high position for the priestly family. The burnt offering was wholly offered to God. It was all burnt upon the altar;* Man did not partake of it; but the sons of Aaron the priest, themselves being likewise priests, are here seen standing round the altar of God, to behold the flame of an acceptable sacrifice ascending to Him – an odour of sweet smell. this was a high position – high communion-a high order of priestly service – a striking type of the Church having fellowship with God, in reference to the perfect accomplishment of His will in the death of Christ. As convicted sinners, we gaze on the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, and behold therein that which meets all our need. The cross, in this aspect of it, gives perfect peace to the conscience. But, then, as priests, as purged worshippers, as members of the priestly family, we can look at the cross in another light, even as the grand consummation of Christ’s holy purpose to carry out, even unto death, the will of the Father. As convicted sinners, we stand at the brazen altar, and find peace through the blood of atonement; but, as priests, we stand there, to behold and admire the completeness of that burnt offering – the perfect surrender and presentation of the spotless One to God.
{*It may be well, at this point, to inform the reader that the Hebrew word which is rendered “burn,” in the case of the burnt offering is wholly different from that which is used in the sin offering. I shall, because of the peculiar interest of the subject, refer to a few of the passages in which each word occurs. The word used in the burnt offering signifies “incense,” or to “burn incense,” and occurs in the following passages, in some one or other of its various inflections. Lev. 6: 15; “and all the frankincense, . . . . and shall burn it upon the altar.” Deut, 33: 10; “they shall put incense before thee, and whole burnt sacrifice upon thine altar. Ex. 30: 1; “and thou shalt make an altar to burn incense upon.” Ps. 46: 15; “with the incense of rams.” Jer. 44: 21 “The incense that ye burned in the cities of Judah.” Cant. 3: 15 Perfumed with Myrrh and frankincense.” Passages might be multiplied, but the above will suffice to show the use of the word which occurs in the burnt offering.
The Hebrew word which is rendered “burn,” in connection with the sin offering, signifies to burn, in general, and occurs in the following passages. Gen. 40: 3; “let us make brick, and burn them thoroughly.” Lev. 10: 16; “And Moses diligently sought the goat of the sin offering and, behold, it was burnt.” 2 Chr. 16: 14; “And they made a very great burning for him.”
Thus, not only was the sin offering burnt in a different place, but a different word is adopted by the Holy Ghost to express the burning of it. Now, we cannot imagine, for a moment, that this distinction is a mere interchange of words, the use of which is indifferent. I believe the wisdom of the Holy Ghost is as manifest in the use of the two words, as it is in any other point of difference in the two offerings. The spiritual reader will attach the proper value to the above most interesting distinction.}
We should have a very defective apprehension of the mystery of the cross, were we only to see in it that which meets man’s need as a sinner. There were depths in that mystery, which only the mind of God could fathom. It is, therefore, important to see that when the Holy Ghost would furnish us with foreshadowings of the cross, He gives us, in the very first place, one which sets it forth in its aspect to God-ward. This alone would be sufficient to teach us that there are heights and depths in the doctrine of the cross which man never could reach. He may approach to “that one well-spring of delight,” and drink for ever – he may satisfy the utmost longings of his spirit – he may explore it with all the powers of the renewed nature; but, after all, there is that in the cross which only God could know and appreciate. Hence it is that the burnt offering gets the first place. It typifies Christ’s death as viewed and valued by God alone. and surely, we may say, we could not have done without such a type as this, for, not only does it give us the highest possible aspect of the death of Christ, but it also gives us a most precious thought in reference to God’s peculiar interest in that death. The very fact of His instituting a type of Christ’s death, which was to be exclusively for Himself, contains a volume of instruction for the spiritual mind.
But though neither man nor angel can ever fully sound the amazing depths of the mystery of Christ’s death, we can, at least, see some features of it which would needs make it precious, beyond all thought, to the heart of God. From the cross, He reaps His richest harvest of glory. In no other way could He have been so glorified, as by the death of Christ. In Christ’s voluntary surrender of Himself to death, the divine glory shines out in its fullest brightness. In it, too, the solid foundation of all the divine counsels was laid. This is a most comforting truth. Creation never could have furnished such a basis. Moreover, the cross furnishes a righteous channel through which divine love can flow. and, finally, by the cross, Satan is eternally confounded, and “principalities and powers made a show of openly.” These are glorious fruits produced by the cross; and, when we think of them, we can see just reason why there should have been a type of the cross exclusively for God Himself, an d also a reason why that type should occupy the leading place – should stand at the very top of the list. Again, let me say, there would have been a grievous blank among the types had the burnt offering been lacking; and there would be a grievous blank in the page of inspiration had the record of that type been withheld.
“But his inwards and his legs shall he wash in water: and the priest shall burn all on the altar, to be a burnt sacrifice, an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the Lord.” This action rendered the sacrifice, typically, what Christ was essentially – pure, both inwardly and outwardly, pure. There was the most perfect correspondence between Christ’s inward motives and His outward conduct. The latter was the index of the former. All tended to the one point, namely, the glory of God. The members of His Body perfectly obeyed and carried out the counsels of His devoted heart – that heart which only beat for God, and for His glory, in the salvation of men. Well, therefore, might the priest “burn all on the altar.” It was all typically pure, and all designed only as food for the altar of God. Of some sacrifices the priest partook; of some, the offerer; but the burnt offering was “all” consumed on the altar. It was exclusively for God. The priests might arrange the wood and the fire , and see the flame ascend; and a high and holy privilege it was so to do. But they did not eat of the sacrifice. God alone was the object of Christ, in the burnt offering aspect of His death. We cannot be too simple in our apprehension of this. From the moment that the unblemished male was voluntarily presented at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, until it was reduced to ashes, by the action of the fire, we discern in it Christ offering Himself, by the Eternal Spirit, without spot to God.
This makes the burnt offering unspeakably precious to the soul. It gives us the most exalted view of Christ’s work. In that work God had His own peculiar joy – a joy into which no created intelligence could enter. This must never be lost sight of. It is unfolded in the burnt offering, and confirmed by “the law of the burnt offering,” to which we shall just refer.
“And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Command Aaron and his sons, saying, this is the law of the burnt offering: it is the burnt offering, because of the burning upon the altar all night unto the morning, and the fire of the altar shall be burning in it. And the priest, shall put on his linen garment, and his linen breeches shall he put upon his flesh, and take up the ashes which the fire hath consumed with the burnt offering on the altar, and he shall put them beside the altar. And he shall put off his garments, and put on other garments, and carry forth the ashes without the camp unto a clean place. And the fire upon the altar shall be burning in it, it shall not be put out: and the priest shall burn wood on it every morning, and lay the burnt offering in order upon it, and he shall burn thereon the fat of the peace offering. The fire shall ever be burning upon the, altar: it shall never go out.” (Lev. 6: 8-13) The fire on the altar consumed the burnt offering, and the fat of the peace offering. It was the apt expression of divine holiness which found in Christ, and His perfect sacrifice, a proper material on which to feed. That fire was never to go out. There was to be the perpetual maintenance of that which set forth the action of divine holiness. Through the dark and silent watches of the night, the fire blazed on the altar of God.
“And the priest shall put on his linen garment,” &c. Here, the priest takes, in type, the place of Christ, whose personal righteousness is set forth by the white linen garment. He, having given Himself up to the death of the cross, in order to accomplish the will of God, has entered, in His own eternal righteousness, into heaven, bearing with Him the memorials of His finished work. The ashes declared the completion of the sacrifice, and God’s acceptance thereof. Those ashes, placed beside the altar, indicated that the fire had consumed the sacrifice – that it was not only a completed, but also an accepted, sacrifice. The ashes of the burnt offering declared the acceptance of the sacrifice. The ashes of the sin offering declared the judgement of the sin.
Many of the points on which we have been dwelling will, with the divine blessing, come before us with increasing clearness, fullness, precision, and power as we proceed with the offerings. Each offering is, as it were, thrown into relief, by being viewed in contrast with all the rest. All the offerings, taken together, give us a full view of Christ. They are like so many mirrors, arranged in such a manner, as to reflect, in various ways, the figure of that true and only perfect Sacrifice. No one type could fully present Him. We needed to have Him reflected in life and in death – as a Man and as a Victim – to God-ward and to us-ward; and we have Him thus, in the offerings of Leviticus. God has graciously met our need, and may He give us an enlarged capacity to enter into and enjoy His provision.
Fuente: Mackintosh’s Notes on the Pentateuch
Leviticus 1-7. The Law of Sacrifices: Burnt Offering (1), Meal Offering (2), Peace Offering (3), Sin Offering (Lev 4:1 to Lev 5:13), Trespass Offering (Lev 5:14-19), Directions chiefly for Priests (Lev 6:8 to Lev 7:38).
I. Burnt Offering or Whole Burnt Offering.This is constant element in the worship of the community; it is too solemn for the victim to be shared by the offerer. In the historical books, we find it practised before some great occasion or enterprise or after a reverse (Gen 8:20, Jdg 6:26, 2Sa 24:25). Only domestic and clean animals and birds could be offered (a restriction peculiar to Heb. practice). The part of the worshipper is to lay his hand on the victim, kill, flay, cut it up, and wash it, on the N. side of the altar; the priest does the rest at the altar itselfpouring out the blood, bringing the fire, arranging the parts of the victim. For further sacrificial arrangements, see Num 15:1-16.
Lev 1:1 f. Introductory formula, common throughout P. The original of oblation is a technical and general word, identical with Korban (Mar 7:11); brought near.
Lev 1:3-9. First Kind of Burnt Offering: Cattle.The two conditions (male, and without blemish) are indispensable for all burnt offerings, cf. Lev 22:17-25; contrast for peace offerings, Lev 3:1. For the laying on of hands, cf. Lev 3:2, Lev 8:22, Lev 16:21, Lev 24:14 Exo 29:15. It denotes, not substitution, but responsibility and sharing; it is a solemn declaration, and the gesture itself has its importance. P does not remove this element in the sacrifice from the laity. References in the Law to sacrifice as atoning are peculiar to P. The term is nowhere explained; it is evidently of far wider application than an act of personal renunciation for anothers wilful disobedience; it is used for all those acts which are regarded in the cultus as putting the individual into the right relation with Yahweh. The layman kills, as in older Heb. and Arab practice; but the blood is regarded in P as too sacred (and dangerous) for the layman to manipulate. It is presented, or brought near (the root is that of the word oblation); and sprinkled from a bowl (for sprinkling from the fingers, another word is used, Lev 16:14). The skin is flayed, because it is the perquisite of the priests (cf. 2Ch 29:34). The parts are arranged on the altar, as if a meal for the Godhead were being prepared. The fat, or the suet round the entrails, is a special delicacy. The entrails themselves and the legs must be washed as being the unclean parts. The text does not make it clear whether this is to be done by priest or offerer. Sweet savour is a term almost confined to P; it is used of offerings made by fire, and suggests a smell of rest and contentment, almost as if it were a narcotic. The hint of archaism here, as in the sprinkling and laying in order, will be noted. Certain elements in the cultus must be retained, however completely their original purpose may be forgotten or even repudiated. Note also that Levites are not mentioned here, or elsewhere in Lev. Contrast Ezr 8:15, Neh 8:7; Neh 11:18, etc., and note Eze 44:11.
Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible
THE BURNT OFFERING
(A) A BULL (vv. 1-9)
The first verse is significant of the character of the whole book of Leviticus. The Lord speaks to Moses from the tabernacle, His place of dwelling among the people. If we are to approach Him, it must be where He is, and on His terms. When we have been redeemed by Him and to Him, it is surely our desire to be near to Him, enjoying the light of His face. But this must be in His own way.
Therefore the burnt offering comes first, for this gives the most important aspect of the sacrifice of Christ. If one desired to offer a burnt sacrifice from the herd, this must be a male without blemish, a male because the burnt offering is altogether objective: all was to be offered in fire to the Lord. It was not in any way subjective, for the offerer has no part in the offering, as was true in the peace offering, which could be either a male or female (Lev 3:1). The words in verse 3, of his own free will (KJV) are rightly rendered that he may be accepted (NASB).
The offerer was to put his hand on the head of the bull, signifying his personal identification with the sacrifice. This was necessary if God was to accept the offering as applicable to the offerer, just as believers are to signify their personal identification with Christ in accepting Him by faith. Then the offerer must kill the bull before the Lord, and the priests would sprinkle the blood of the offering all around the copper altar. Following this the offerer was to skin the animal and cut it into its various pieces. Lev 7:8 shows that the priest who offered the sacrifice was to keep the skin for himself. But all the rest of the animal, after the inwards and legs were washed, was to be laid in order on the altar and all burnt. Thus all was to go up in fire to God, for the most vital matter in the sacrifice of Christ is that in this God is glorified. The offerer is accepted, but this is simply the result of God being glorified. Our blessing through Christ’s sacrifice is a lesser matter than God’s glory. Indeed, if not one soul had been saved, yet God has been eternally honored by the work of Calvary. Yet the other offerings also were necessary as picturing other aspects of the value of Christ’s sacrifice that involved the blessing of believers.
The cutting into various parts indicates that we are to value everything about Christ’s sacrifice as being for God, and specially mentioned are the head (intelligence) the fat (typical of His devotion), the inwards, the hidden motives of His heart, and the legs (His walk). Thus the thoughts of the Lord Jesus were above all for God, His devotion was always Godward, His hidden motives were for God’s glory, and His walk was always to please the Father. Thus the offering was a sweet aroma to the Lord. This is not said of the sin or trespass offerings.
(B) A SHEEP OR A GOAT (vv 10-13).
A burnt offering could be a sheep or a goat. The bull (larger and stronger) would remind us that some have a more full recognition of the great value of the sacrifice of Christ than others have. It speaks of the strength of the offering. The sheep denotes the submission of Christ, and the goat His substitution. Again, only a male was acceptable, and the offerer was to kill the animal before the Lord, and the priests were to sprinkle the blood all around the altar. This offering was also to be cut in pieces, each piece laid in order on the wood placed in the copper altar. As with the bull, the head and the fat are specially mentioned, and the inwards and legs being washed before burnt with all the rest of the animal on the altar. All ascended in fire to God as a sweet aroma.
(C) TURTLEDOVES OR YOUNG PIGEONS (vv. 14-17)
One might be too poor to bring a bull or sheep or goat, and provision was made that he could bring turtledoves or young pigeons. This would tell us that whatever may be our poverty of apprehension of the greatness of Christ’s sacrifice, yet there is still glory given to God in only recognizing that Christ is the true Man from heaven who came to sacrifice Himself, for the birds speak of His heavenly character.
In this case the offerer did not kill the bird, but the priest was to wring off its head, its blood being drained out at the side of the altar. Its crop and its feathers were removed and put into the place of the ashes. Then it was split at its wings, but not divided. For the heavenly glory of the Lord Jesus is higher than man can perceive, and therefore not to be divided, though the two things must be distinguished in Him, that is, His deity and His Manhood. Also those spiritually poor cannot easily discern the many characteristics of the Lord Jesus that are implied in the pieces of the bull or sheep or goat. Therefore, however different might be the apprehension of the sacrifice on the part of the offerer, the burnt offering was still acceptable to God: He receives glory from it. All three of these burnt offerings are called a sweet aroma to the Lord. All were burned, thus ascending in fire to God. The burnt offering aspect of the sacrifice of Christ is specially emphasized in John’s Gospel.
Fuente: Grant’s Commentary on the Bible
1:1 And the {a} LORD called unto Moses, and spake unto him out of the tabernacle of the congregation, saying,
(a) By this Moses declares that he taught nothing to the people but that which he received from God.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
[See the Chapter Comments for Leviticus Chapter 1 for introductory information]
1. The burnt offering ch. 1
The burnt offering (in Greek, holokautoma, from which we get the English word "holocaust") expressed the offerer’s complete consecration to Yahweh (cf. Mat 22:37; Rom 12:1-2) and God’s complete acceptance of the worshiper. However it also made atonement for the offerer. Some rabbis believed the burnt offering atoned for all sins not covered under the sin offering. [Note: Rooker, p. 85.] Peace with God was the goal of all the sacrifices. The reasons for listing this offering first are that it was the most common and therefore the most important one, in this sense, and because it belonged completely to God. The priests offered a burnt offering every morning and every evening, and more frequently on holy days.
"The first case is dealt with in the most detail. The two subsequent ones are explained more briefly. But in all three the law makes clear exactly what the worshipper does and what the priest does. The worshipper brings the animal, kills it, skins it or guts it, and chops it up. The priest sprinkles the blood on the altar and places the dismembered carcass on the fire." [Note: Wenham, p. 49.]
"The sense of God’s presence, which permeates the entire book, is indicated forty-two times by the expression ’before the LORD [Lev 1:3, passim].’" [Note: Schultz, p. 30.]
With this offering the worshiper was seeking to please the Lord and find acceptance into his presence. Leviticus thus begins with the good news of the way for redeemed Israelites, who were still sinners, to find acceptance with God.
"As we will observe, sacrifice often, but not always, focuses on the blood of the victim. Some critical scholars speak of this as a magical understanding of sacrifice, and some evangelical readers of the Old Testament seem to have this idea also when they insist on the translation ’blood’ rather than its symbolical referent, death. It is the death of the sacrificial victim that renders the rite effective, and the manipulation of the blood highlights the death that stands in the place of the sinner who offers it." [Note: Longman and Dillard, p. 86.]
Note several distinctives of this offering.
1. It was a soothing aroma (or sweet savor; Lev 1:9; Lev 1:13; Lev 1:17). God was happy to receive this sacrifice because it was an offering of worship as well as payment for sin. It gave Him pleasure. The priests presented all three soothing aroma offerings on the brazen altar in the tabernacle courtyard. God saw the offerer as a worshiper as well as a guilty sinner. The offering was to be without any blemish, which was also true of the sin and trespass offerings. This indicated that the offerer was presenting the best to God who is worthy of nothing less (Lev 1:3; Lev 1:10).
2. It was for acceptance (i.e., so that God would accept the offerer, Lev 1:3-4). This offering satisfied God’s desire for the love of His redeemed creatures as well as His offended justice. This offering satisfied God by its wholeness quantitatively and qualitatively. The Israelite worshiper offered a whole spotless animal in place of himself.
3. The offerer gave up a life on the altar (Lev 1:5). God has always claimed life as His own. In slaying this animal the offerer was symbolically saying that he was giving the life that God had given him back to God, its rightful owner. Giving one’s life to God is not an act of great sacrifice. It is simply giving back to God what already belongs to Him. It is only "reasonable service" (Rom 12:1).
4. The animal perished completely, consumed in the fire on the altar (Lev 1:9), except for the skin, which went to the priest (Lev 1:6; Lev 7:8). This symbolized the comprehensive nature of the offerer’s consecration to God. Perhaps God excluded the skin to focus attention on the internal elements, the real person. God deserves the surrender of the entire person, not just a part.
"In the overfed West we can easily fail to realize what was involved in offering an unblemished animal in sacrifice. Meat was a rare luxury in OT times for all but the very rich (cf. Nathan’s parable, 2Sa 12:1-6). [Note: Wycliffe Bible Encyclopedia, 1975 ed., s.v. "Food," by Ralph E. Powell.] Yet even we might blanch if we saw a whole lamb or bull go up in smoke as a burnt offering. How much greater pangs must a poor Israelite have felt." [Note: Wenham, p. 51.]
There were also some variations within this offering.
1. The animals acceptable for this offering varied. Bullocks (oxen), lambs, goats, turtledoves, and pigeons were acceptable. Some commentators suggest that each type of animal bore characteristics shared by man that made it an appropriate substitute (e.g., strong, foolish, flighty, etc.). Generally the higher the individual Israelite’s responsibility before God (e.g., priests, rulers, common people, etc.) the larger and more expensive was the animal that he had to offer. People with greater responsibility would also have had more money and therefore more ability to bring the more expensive sacrifices.
2. The butchering of the animals also varied. The offerers cut the bullocks, lambs, and goats into four parts, but they did not do so with the birds. This difference at least reflects the practical need to divide larger animals into more easily manageable pieces. Moreover they washed the entrails and legs of the animals in water (Lev 1:9; Lev 1:13). This washing probably symbolized the need for internal purity. They did not wash the birds. Perhaps they were regarded as clean already. The offerer pressed (Heb. samek) his hand on the animals but not on the birds (cf. Isa 59:16; Eze 24:2; Eze 30:6; Amo 5:19). [Note: See M. C. Sansom, "Laying on of Hands in the Old Testament," The Expository Times 94:11 (August 1983):323-26.] Laying on hands often accompanied prayer (cf. Lev 16:21; Deu 21:6-9) suggesting that prayer accompanied sacrifice. The offerer personally slew the animals, but the priest slew the birds (Lev 1:5; Lev 1:15). In later periods, the priests slew all the animals.
"The bird . . . offerings were, by and large, concessions to the poor (cf., e.g., Lev 5:7-10; Lev 12:8; Lev 14:21-32) and, therefore, not considered to be one of the primary categories of animal offerings." [Note: The NET Bible note on 1:2.]
In summary, the burnt offering was an act of worship in which the Israelite offered to God a whole animal. The fire on the altar completely consumed it as a substitute for the offerer and as a symbol of his total personal consecration to God. These sacrifices were voluntary on the Israelite’s part, as is self-sacrifice for the Christian (Rom 6:12-13; Rom 12:1-2).
"The burnt offering was the commonest of all the OT sacrifices. Its main function was to atone for man’s sin by propitiating God’s wrath. In the immolation [burning] of the animal, most commonly a lamb, God’s judgment against human sin was symbolized and the animal suffered in man’s place. The worshiper acknowledged his guilt and responsibility for his sins by pressing his hand on the animal’s head and confessing his sin. The lamb was accepted as the ransom price for the guilty man [cf. Mar 10:45; Eph 2:5; Heb 7:27; 1Pe 1:18-19]. The daily use of the sacrifice in the worship of the temple and tabernacle was a constant reminder of man’s sinfulness and God’s holiness. So were its occasional usages after sickness, childbirth, and vows. In bringing a sacrifice a man acknowledged his sinfulness and guilt. He also publicly confessed his faith in the Lord, his thankfulness for past blessing, and his resolve to live according to God’s holy will all the days of his life." [Note: Wenham, p. 63.]
"It [the burnt offering] could serve as a votive [connected with a vow] or freewill offering (e.g., Lev 22:18-20), an accompaniment of prayer and supplication (e.g., 1Sa 7:9-10), part of the regular daily, weekly, monthly, and festival cultic pattern (e.g., Numbers 28-29), or to make atonement either alone (e.g., Lev 1:4; Lev 16:24) or in combination with the grain offering (e.g., Lev 14:20) or sin offering (e.g., Lev 5:7; Lev 9:7)." [Note: The NET Bible note on 1:3.]
"The clearly stated purpose of the whole burnt offering was for atonement (lekapper in Lev 1:4). But the way that this offering made atonement or expiation was in a slightly different way than the purification [sin] and reparation [trespass] offerings. It was a more general offering than either of them; it did not emphasize the removal of sin or guilt or change the worshiper’s nature; but it made fellowship between sinful people and God possible . . ." [Note: Ross, pp. 92-93.]
Christians, too, need to remember our need for daily forgiveness, confess our sins, and purpose to walk in God’s ways (cf. 1Jn 1:7-9).
"The LORD accepts with pleasure whoever comes into his presence by substitutionary atonement through the shedding of blood." [Note: Ibid., p. 95.]