Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Leviticus 3:1
And if his oblation [be] a sacrifice of peace offering, if he offer [it] of the herd; whether [it be] a male or female, he shall offer it without blemish before the LORD.
1. And if his oblation ] This clause introducing the Peace-Offering corresponds to Lev 1:3 which stands at the beginning of the regulations for the Burnt-Offering.
The Peace-Offering may be either male or female, ( a) of the herd (Lev 3:1-5) or of the flock either ( b) a lamb (Lev 3:7-11), or ( c) a goat (Lev 3:12-16). The age is not specified. The procedure should be carefully compared with that for the Burnt-Offering in ch. 1. There is nothing corresponding to the last clauses of Lev 1:3-4 referring to acceptance and atonement.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
The peace-offering (like the burnt-offering, Lev 1:3, and the Minchah, Lev 2:1) is here spoken of as if it was familiarly known before the giving of the Law. Peace-offering seems preferable to thank-offering, which occurs in several places in the margin of our Bible. thank-offering appears to be the right name for a subordinate class of peace-offering.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Lev 3:1-17
A sacrifice of peace-offering.
The peace-offering
The word peace in the language of the Scriptures, has a shade of meaning not commonly attached to it in ordinary use. With most persons it signifies a cessation of hostilities, harmonious agreement, tranquillity, the absence of disturbance. But in the Scriptures it means more. Its predominant import there is, prosperity, welfare, joy, happiness. The original Hebrew word includes both these meanings. The old Greek version renders it by terms which signify a sacrificial feast of salvation. We may, therefore, confidently take the peace-offering as a joyous festival, a solemn sacrificial banqueting, illustrative of the peace and joy which flows to believers from the atoning work of our Lord Jesus Christ, and our sanctification through His blood and Spirit. Religion is not a thing of gloom, but of gladness.
I. The peace-offering was a bloody offering. Everything in Christian life, justification and sanctification, the forgiveness of our sins, and the acceptableness of our services, our hopes, and our spiritual festivities, run back into Christs vicarious sufferings, as their fountain and foundation. This is the centre from which all Christian doctrine, and all Christian experience, radiates, and into which it ultimately resolves itself. Without this, Christianity dwindles down into a cold and powerless morality, with no warming mysteries, no animating sublimities, no melting affections, no transforming potencies. Without this, the soul languishes like a plant excluded from the sunshine, or flourishes only in its own disgrace. If we would have a feast of fat things, the provision must come from the altar of immolation.
II. The peace-offering comes after the meat-offering. We must present the fine flour of our best affections, and the fresh firstfruits of uncorrupted obedience, before we can come to feast upon the rich provisions of the altar. We mast surrender ourselves to God, and give up to Him in a covenant of salt before we can taste of the peace-offering, or be happy in the Lord.
III. The peace-offering was so arranged that the most inward, the most tender, and the most marrowy part of the sacrifice became the Lords part. The inner fat of the animal, the kidneys, the caul of the liver, and, if a sheep, the great fatty outward appendage, were to be burned on the altar, a sweet savour unto the Lord. God must be remembered in all our joys. Especially when we come to praise and enjoy Him, and to appropriate to our hearts the glad provisions of His mercy, must we come offering to Him the inmost, tenderest, and richest of our souls attributes. It was thus that Jesus was made a peace-offering for us. And as He devoted every rich thought, every strong emotion, for us, we must now send back the same to Him without stint or tarnish. We may love our friends; but we must love Christ more. We may feel for those united to us in the bonds of domestic life; but we must feel still more for Jesus and His Church. We may be moved with earthly passions; but the profoundest and best of all our emotions must be given to the Lord. The fat, the kidneys, and the most tender and marrowy parts are His.
IV. The peace-offerings were sacrifices of gratitude and praise–a species of joyous, thankful banquetings. When the Jew came to make a peace-offering, it was with his heart moved and his thoughts filled with some distinguished mercy. The true Christian has been the subject of wonderful favours. He has had deliverance wrought for him, to which he may ever refer with joyful recollection. He considers the length, and breadth, and depth, and height of that love which thus interposed for his rescue–the mighty woes which the Lord endured for him–the secure ground upon which he now stands in Christ Jesus–and his soul overflows with tremulous gladness. He is melted, and yet is full of delight. He is solemnly joyous. What to say or do he hardly knows. He weeps, and yet exults while he weeps. The whole thing to him becomes a feast of profoundly solemn joy, in which he would gladly have all the world to participate.
V. But the feasting of the peace-offering was on sacred food. The people might have feasts at home, and have other banquets; but they were not peace-offerings. And so the Christian may have feasts and viands apart from the sacred food furnished directly from Christ. There is much virtuous enjoyment in this world of a merely secular sort, from none of which does Christianity exclude us. But all these are mere home-feasts on common viands. The food that was eaten in the joyous feast of the peace-offering fell from the altar. It was holy. No defiled person or stranger was allowed to touch it or to partake of it. And so, superadded to the common joys of ordinary life, the Christian has a feast with which the stranger dare not meddle–a feast of fat things, of which the pure only, can taste–a banquet of holy food proceeding directly from the altar at which His sacrifice was made. Let us briefly review some of the faithful Christians peculiar joys. Let us follow him a little into the sources of his consolation, and see of what sort his feast is.
1. First of all is the great and cheering conviction of his heart that there is a God; that the universe is not an orphan, but has a righteous, almighty, and loving Father, who sees all, and provides for all, and takes care of all.
2. The next is the joyous light that shines upon him from Gods revelation, relieving his native perplexities, comforting his heart, filling him with pleasant wisdom, and kindling radiance along all his path. Here the riddle of life is explained to him, his duty made plain, and his conscience put to rest.
3. Along with these are the gifts and graces of a present redemption.
4. And beyond all present experiences, he is authorised to look forward to still higher and greater things in the future, (J. A. Seiss, D. D.)
The peace-offerings
I. Their nature. They were sacrifices of thanksgiving, whereby the godly testified their gratitude to God for the benefits received from Him.
II. The difference between them and other sacrifices.
1. Generally they were thus distinguished from other sacrifices, which are afterward prescribed (Lev 4:5), because these were voluntary, the other necessary and commanded; and the peace-offerings were never offered alone, but always joined with other sacrifices, showing that the godly should begin always with giving of thanks.
2. Herein it also differs from the holocaust, which might be of birds; but so were not the peace-offerings, because they were to be divided; so could not the holocaust of birds (Lev 1:17).
3. The holocausts, which were of beasts, were only of the males, but the peace-offerings might be either males or females, because this kind of sacrifice was not so perfect as the other.
III. Why the peace-offerings were confined to these three kinds–oxen, sheep, goats.
1. All these were a figure of Christ, who indeed was that Peace-offering whereby God is reconciled to us: the ox resembled His fortitude; the sheep His innocence; the goat, because He took our flesh, like unto sinful flesh.
2. Some apply them to the divers qualities of the offerers: the ox signifying the workers and keepers of the law; the sheep, the simple; the goats, the penitent.
3. But the true reason why these beasts are prescribed only for peace-offerings, not turtledoves or pigeons, as in the burnt-offerings, is because they could not rightly declare their gratitude to God in giving things of no value.
IV. What blemishes and other impediments were to be avoided. The impediments which made the beasts unfit for sacrifice were either general in respect of the kind, or particular in regard of the thing offered.
1. For the kind. Some were both unlawful for meat and sacrifice (chap. 11:3), others for sacrifice but not for meat (Deu 14:4).
2. The particular impediments were either intrinsical in the things themselves, or extrinsical without.
(1) The inward defects were such as made them altogether unfit for any kind of sacrifice, as if they were blind, broken, scabbed, &c.
(2) The external impediments were such as came by touching any unclean thing.
V. Why the fat, as of the belly, kidneys, and liver, was set apart for sacrifice.
1. Generally hereby is signified that all our carnal desires are to be mortified by the fire of the Spirit.
2. More particularly by the fat which covereth the inward parts where the heart is, the seat of anger is insinuated, that we should temper our wrath; and by the kidneys and reins, wherein is the strength of lust, carnal concupiscence; and by the liver the fountain of heat, the gluttonous desire, may be understood all which must be sacrificed unto God. Hereunto the signification of the Hebrew word here used agreeth; for chelaioth, the kidneys, is derived of Calah, desire.
3. And further, because the fat is of its own nature, without sense, and so signifieth the hardness of the heart, which is the cause of unbelief: hereby they were admonished to remove and take away all hardness of heart.
VI. Whether it were required generally in all sacrifices that blood should be sprinkled on the altar. AS there was difference in the end, use, and manner of sacrifices, for some were only for the honour of God, as the burnt-offerings; some for the benefit of the offerer, either for obtaining of some benefit, or giving thanks for some benefit received, as the peace-offerings, or for expiation of sin, so there was difference in the sprinkling and offering of the blood; yet because in all sacrifices there was some relation unto the expiation of some sin, there was an oblation of blood in all sacrifices, &c.; and so the apostle saith that in the law without effusion of blood, there was no remission, whereof this reason is given because the life is in the blood, and therefore the Lord gave the blood for the expiation of their souls (Lev 17:11), that whereas they themselves had deserved to die for their sins.
VII. Of the manner and order of the peace-offerings.
1. The priest killed the beast, sprinkled the blood, flayed it, and took out the inwards.
2. Then he cut the flesh in pieces, and separated the breast and right shoulders with the inwards, and put them into the owners hands.
3. Then the priest put his hands under the owners, and waved all before the Lord; if many Joined in one oblation, one waved for all, the women waved not, but the priest, unless in the offering of jealousy (Num 5:1-31.), and of a Nazarite (Num 6:4). After he salted the inwards, and laid them on the altar, and the priest had the breast and right shoulder, the owner the rest; but the priest was not to have his part until the Lord were first served and the inwards burnt.
VIII. What became of the remainder of the peace-offerings which was not burnt on the altar. Though it be not here expressed, yet it may be gathered out of other places that the priests had part, and the offerer that brought it had his portion also, so then some sacrifices there were of the which nothing remained, as the burnt-offerings.
1. In some other, the part which remained was to be eaten only among the males of the children of Aaron; and they were the sin-offerings (Lev 6:18).
2. But the heave-offerings and shake-offerings, as the shoulder and breast, were lawful to be eaten, not only by the males and sons of the priests, but by their daughters also (Num 18:17).
3. But in the peace-offerings there was greater liberty, for of them they which brought the offering might eat (Pro 7:14). (A. Willet, D. D.)
The peace-offering; or, fellowship with the Father and the Son
I. In the peace-offering we have a beautiful type of the making and bestowing peace, and thereby admitting to fellowship with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ; one of the most blessed privileges resulting to the Lords people from His death. The peace-offering being the central one of the five, as set forth in the opening chapters of Leviticus, seems to tell us that peace was the central object of the Fathers loving purpose when He gave His Son. His desire and design was to give His people peace. We see it as regards Israel of old (Lev 26:6; Num 6:26; 1Ch 22:9), and no less in the gospel dispensation (Luk 2:14), for when we were enemies we were reconciled . . . (Rom 5:10). In the burnt-offering His people are seen as accepted worshippers; in the peace-offering both as participating in the personal result to offerer of previous offerings, and feeding on what delights the heart of God, typified by portions consumed by fire on the altar.
II. Male or female (Lev 3:1; Lev 3:6) were permitted in peace-offering, not male only, as in burnt-offering, which, pertaining to God alone, must be what was esteemed the highest order of offering; while in peace-offering man had a large portion, and this may account for the distinction. Some think the alternative of male or female indicates greater or less appreciation, estimation, or enjoyment of Christ by the worshipper; female perhaps implying deeper love, male stronger devotion. Others take it as showing how God, in His grace and love, would give every facility for approaching Him in and through Christ. And again, as the laying on of offerers hand (Lev 3:2; Lev 3:8; Lev 3:13) tells of identification of offerer and offering, the thoughts are led to Gal 3:28, where we read, There is neither male nor female; for ye are all one in Jesus Christ. Under the Levitical dispensation the males only were to go up at stated periods to worship (Exo 23:17; Exo 24:23); but the mention of male or female in the type before us seems to point onward to this dispensation, in which such distinction no longer exists; for each one, whether male or female, who is justified by faith, has peace with God, through our Lord Jesus Christ (Rom 5:1).
III. The blood sprinkled by Aarons sons, the priests (verses 2, 8, 13), tells of the worshipper approaching God on the ground of reconciliation made (Rom 5:11, mar.). Jesus made peace . . . (Col 1:20). God calls His people to peace (1Co 7:15). He fills with (Rom 15:13), and keeps in perfect peace the trusting one (Isa 26:3). Jesus gives peace (Joh 14:27), for He gave Himself (Tit 2:14); and if we have Christ as our life (Col 3:4), He is our Peace (Eph 2:14) likewise; and dwelling in us by His Spirit, peace is the fruit (Gal 5:22).
IV. The Lords portion is–not the whole, as in burnt-offering, but–the choicest parts. The fat with portions of inwards (Lev 3:3-5; Lev 3:9-11; Lev 3:14-16), representing the rich excellences or preciousness of the Lord Jesus (see Psa 37:20, mar., same word as Isa 43:4), His truth, purity, wisdom, &c. (Psa 51:6; Joh 14:6; Job 38:36; 1Co 1:24). This was typified by the burning on the altar, called the food of the offering made . . . (Lev 3:5; Lev 3:11; Lev 3:16). The burnt-offering was continual (Exo 29:42; Num 28:6); and the peace-offering being burnt upon it tells of virtue of former, possessed by latter. The meat-offering also was offered with peace-offering, the three sweet-savour offerings together, to the full satisfaction of the Father; and giving solid ground for–
V. Communion or fellowship, to which God calls those who are accepted in the Beloved (1Co 1:9; Eph 1:6). Fellowship signifies partnership, companionship; and what treasures and blessings does this ensure (Isa 45:3; Col 2:3), as portrayed by the portions assigned to priest and offerer, graciously permitted to partake of what delights the Fathers heart! This is the striking feature of peace-offering. Breast waved may tell of risen with Christ (Col 3:1); shoulder heaved, that He, who is the strength of our life (Psa 27:1), is on high; breast representing affection, and shoulder strength of Him whose love is strong . . . which many waters cannot quench (Son 8:6); for He is everlasting Strength (Isa 26:4). Upon His heart and shoulders Jesus bears His people (as typified in high priests dress, Exo 28:12; Exo 28:29), now, in the presence of God (Heb 9:24), while they feast in His banqueting house under His banner love (Son 2:4), and are strengthened with might by . . . (Eph 3:16).
VI. Unleavened cakes–offered with peace-offering when for a thanksgiving (Lev 7:12)–tell of holy life of Jesus as inseparably connected with His death, for had He not magnified the law and . . . (Isa 42:21), He could not have atoned for the sins of those who had broken it. They tell also of holiness needed in offerer (Heb 12:14), and for such holiness and fellowship there must be abiding and walking in the light (Joh 15:4; Joh 15:6; 1Jn 1:6-7; 1Jn 2:6). This is further seen in what is said of–
VII. LEAVEN AND UNCLEANNESS (Lev 7:13; Lev 7:20-21). The leavened bread offered besides the cakes betokens sin in the offerer, never wholly eradicated while life lasts. Our best efforts are tainted by sin (Isa 64:6), and need the cleansing blood; but though sin is within, it is not to reign or have dominion over those under grace, who, being justified by faith in the precious blood . . . (sprinkled in type by priest, chap. 3:13), are reckoned dead to sin, and risen with Christ to newness of life (Rom 5:1; Rom 5:9; Rom 6:1-2; Rom 6:4-7; Rom 6:11-12). (Lady Beaujolois Dent.)
The peace-offering
I. In its contrast to the other offerings, it may be sufficient to enumerate two chief points–
1. It was a sweet-savour offering; and–
2. The offerer, God, and the priest were fed by it.
(1) In the peace-offering the offerer feasts, in other words, finds satisfaction, and feeds upon the same offering of which a part has already satisfied God: for a part of the peace-offering, the fat, the blood, the inwards, before the offerer can touch his part, must have already been consumed on the altar. I fear that there are but too many saints who never realise this aspect of the offering, and therefore never fully experience that satisfaction which the offering has purchased for them. Thank God, the sufficiency of His work does not depend upon our apprehension of it. But our satisfaction depends much on our apprehension. It is because we apprehend so little that we have so little comfort. And our strength particularly depends on our apprehension of that view of Christ which the peace-offering teaches; for strength is sustained by food, and the peace-offering shows man fed by the sacrifice. Yet how little is this view of Christ apprehended! Am I asked the cause? It is because so few really know acceptance.
(2) The offerer feasts with God. Man (in Christ) and God find common food. The offering is shared between them. The thought here is not, as in the burnt-offering, merely that God finds satisfaction in the offering. It includes this, but it goes further. It shows communion; for God and man share together.
(3) But further, in the sacrifice of peace-offerings, the offerer feasts with the priest. The sacrificing Priest, as I have already observed, is always Christ, viewed in His official character as Mediator. We learn here how the offering, which He offered as man, feeds, that is, satisfies Him, not only as man, but also as Mediator. To understand this we must recollect and apprehend the varied relations in which Christ stands connected with the offering; for He appears for us in many offices, in more than one relation. In connection with the offering alone we see Him, as I have said, in at least three characters. Now, if this simple distinction be apprehended, it will be manifest that there are things true of Christ in one relation which are by no means true of Him in another. For instance, His intercession for us is as Priest. As the Offering, He does not intercede; as Lamb, He dies for us. So again as Priest and Offerer, He is fed; as the Lamb, as the Offering, He is not fed. Now there are offerings in which the priest finds food, but from participating in which the offerer is excluded: some of the sin-offerings are of this latter character, for in them the priest is fed, while the offerer has nothing. The sin-offerings, as we shall see more fully in the sequel, are man satisfying offended justice. They are not man giving something sweet to God, but man receiving from God in iris offering the penalty of sin. These sin-offerings supply food to the priest, that is, Christ as Mediator finds satisfaction in them, but they afford Him no food as man the offerer: as man in them He only confesses sin. The priest, Gods official servant, is satisfied, because offended justice is vindicated: but man, who pays the penalty in his offering, finds no satisfaction in the act.
(4) But the type takes us further still, and shows us the priests children also sharing with the offerer in the peace-offering. They, too, as well as the offerer, the priest, and God, find satisfaction in this blessed offering. Our first question here, of course, must be, Who are represented by the priests children? We have already seen that the Priest is Christ–Christ viewed in His official character as Mediator. His children, that is, His family, are therefore the Church. Just as of old he that really feasted with God in the peace-offering could not do so without sharing with Clods priests, so now communion with God, if enjoyed at all, must be shared with all in communion with Him. There is no question of choice: it cannot be otherwise; for he that is in communion with God must be in communion also with all whom He communes with.
II. The different grades or varieties which are observed in this offering. These show us the different measures of intelligence with which this view of Christs offering may be apprehended. And here, as there are several distinct sharers in the offering–for God, man, and the priest, have each a portion–it may be well to consider each portion separately with its particular differences, since in each portion there are distinct varieties observed.
1. First, then, as to Gods part in the peace-offering. In this certain varieties at once present themselves; some of them relating to the value of the offering, others connected with the offerers purport in the oblation.
(1) To speak first of the varieties touching the value of the offering. We have here, just as in the burnt-offering, several different grades. There is the bullock, the lamb, the goat; and these respectively represent here what they do in the burnt-offering. Each gives us rather a different thought as to the character of Christs blessed offering.
2. But there are other varieties noticed in the type, as to that part of the peace-offering which was offered to God, which are connected, not with the value of the offering, but with the offerers purport in bringing the oblation. If we turn to the seventh chapter, where the distinction I refer to is mentioned, it will be seen that the peace-offering might be offered in two ways. It might be offered either as a thanksgiving, that is for praise, or as a vow or voluntary offering, that is for service. If it were seen to be offered for thanksgiving, many particulars are noticed respecting mans share in it, which are entirely lost sight of and omitted when it is seen to be offered for a vow. And most of the varieties in the peace-offering (I may say all the varieties touching the priests and offerers part in it) depend upon the view which may be taken of the general character of the offering, whether it were offered for thanksgiving, or whether it were offered for a vow.
(2) The priests and offerers part, and the varieties which are observable here. It will be found that the particulars respecting this portion of the peace-offering differ very much according as the offering is apprehended for praise or for service.
(a) In the offering for praise, a meat-offering is offered of which the offerer as well as the priests partake. The purport of the meat-offering is the fulfilment of the second table of the Decalogue; man offering to God as a sweet savour the perfect accomplishment of his duty towards his neighbour. The peculiarity here is that the offerer partakes of this meat-offering–a thing not permitted in the common meat-offering. The common meat-offering shows us the fulfilment of the law, simply with reference to God, to satisfy Him. But that same fulfilment of the law has other aspects, one of which is, that it satisfies the offerer also. This is the truth brought out in the peace-offering, in which the offerer, as well as God, finds satisfaction in the fulfilment of all righteousness. And this satisfaction is not only in the fulfilment of that part of the law which had reference to God, and which was represented by the offering of a life, but in that part also which referred to man, and was represented by the unleavened cakes of the meat-offering. The latter part of this appears to be quite lost sight of, unless the peace-offering is apprehended as offered for praise.
(b) But further, in the offering for praise leavened cakes also are seen to be offered with the sacrifice. Those cakes represent the offering of the Church. When Christs work is seen merely as the vow, as a matter of service, the Churchs offering does not come into sight: but when His offering is seen for praise, that is for Gods glory, the Church is seen united with Him.
3. One cake out of all the oblation is given to the priest who sprinkles the blood, while the remainder, belongs to him who brings the offering. Christ, as Priest, finds food and satisfaction not only in His own blessed and perfect offering: He feeds also on the leavened cake: the offering of His Church, with all its failings, satisfies Him.
4. The last particular noticed respects the period during which the peace-offering was to be eaten. The time for eating the offering for praise was the same day, or until the morning: in the vow-offering there is a little difference; it might be eaten the same day and on the morrow, or until the third day. Now the morning and the third day are sufficiently common types, and are both constantly used, I believe, to denote the resurrection: but I am not so certain as to the different aspect of the resurrection represented by each of them. I am disposed, however, to think that the morning represents the resurrection as the time of Christs appearing, while the thought connected with the third day is simply deliverance from the grave. In either case the main truth remains the same–that the peace-offering is our food until the resurrection: but in the one case we eat as those whose time is short, in the night it may be, but in hope of the morning; in the other the thought of the morning is lost, and instead of it we see days of labour to intervene. I need not say that the first is the higher and happier view. (A. Jukes.)
Christ our Peace-offering
1. Be persuaded and encouraged to feed and feast upon Christ our Peace-offering. Do not say, Such and such may; if I had such parts and such abilities, and so eminent as such and such, I durst believe. This blessed Peace-offering is not for the priests only, for saints of the highest rank and greatest eminency, but for the common people also. Do but draw near with a pure heart, and then come and welcome.
2. Do not defer the eating of your peace-offerings. Take heed of a procrastinating spirit.
3. Let all your peace-offerings be seasoned with the new leaven of grace and holiness; get this blessed leaven of the kingdom of God into your hearts.
4. Give God the fat, the strength, the vigour of your spirits, the best of your endeavours; do not leave the worst you have to Him, the very dregs of time at night, when you are all sleepy, for prayer and family duties, when you have spent the strength of your time in your callings.
5. Take heed of accounting the blood of the peace-offering a common thing. But, as the typical blood might not be eaten, but was sacred to the Lord, let the blood of Christ be sacred and precious to you.
6. To you that believe, let Christ be precious. There is a reverential esteem of Him in the hearts of all that are His. (S. Mather.)
The peace-offering
Some anxious soul sighs for felt peace with God. What shall be done? God smooths the way. His voice declares, Let the appeasing victim be now brought. Peace rightly sought shall surely be obtained. Now mark this victim. It may be male or female. It may be taken from larger cattle, or from sheep or goats (Lev 3:1; Lev 3:6; Lev 3:12). There is permission of unwonted breadth. The prince, the peasant, from richest pastures, or bare mountains brow, may readily obtain the expiating means. But from whatever flock the male or female came, one test must prove it. It must be free from fault. A blameless type proclaims the blameless Lord. God next directs the offerer to touch its head (Lev 3:2). This act denotes the transfer of all guilt. The burdened thus rolls off his load. The lightened shoulder thus receives relief. The victim is then slain (Lev 3:2). Here is the wondrous fact, which is the light of types, and rites, and prophecies. Death falls on Christ. He claims the dying place. The slaughtered animal was then divided. The best–the choicest of the parts, were placed on the burning altar. Another portion was the priests own due. The rest supplied the offerer with food.
1. God claims His share. All which seems rich and precious is first brought to Him. The holy fire reduces it to dust.
2. Provision is then made for those who ministered. The altar-servant never wants. They who leave all for God have all in God.
3. The offerer then takes his part and eats. We see the essence of true faith. It finds soul-sustenance in Jesus work. (Dean Law.)
The best for God
1. That in all things we should give thanks unto God. This is all the recompense which God requires for all His benefits.
2. That the best things are to be offered to God. Especially in spiritual duties the fat must be offered, that is, the heart and inward affection. Ambrose well says, Thy affection gives a name to thy work.
3. To abstain from all kinds of cruelty (Lev 3:17).
4. That all the parts and members of our body should be dedicated to Gods service. (A. Willet, D. D.)
The peace-offerings
These peace-offerings were offered first of all, on the recovery of peace with God in consequence of the expiation. The expiatory offering was first, not the peace-offering: first the atonement, then the calm that results from peace with God through Christ the Atonement. These peace-offerings were also presented as expressive of thanksgiving for mercies, blessings, and benefits that had been received. They were also presented on the performance of a vow that had been made by any of the children of Israel. You will notice another feature in all these offerings–that the offerer might kill the lamb, but the priest of Levi alone might offer it: so Jew and Gentile slew with wicked hands the Lord of glory, but He Himself was the Priest that presented Himself a sacrifice on the altar of Deity, perfect and complete, for the sins of all that believe. These offerings were also made, I may mention, at the consecration of priests, on the expiry of a Nazarites vow, at the dedication of the Tabernacle and the Temple, and at the presentation of firstfruits. You will notice that in the Jewish economy everything brought a Jew to the Temple, and above the Temple, to the Temples God. Was he afflicted? He prayed. Was he merry? He sung psalms. Was he blessed with a golden harvest? He gave the firstfruits to God. Had he finished a vow? He went to God to thank Him. Had he received any mercy, was he enriched with any blessing? He felt it his first duty to ask Gods blessing, to give to God praise, and to expect prosperity in the ratio in which he did so. Does God expect less of us in this dispensation? And yet how often do we murmur when we lose, how rarely are we thankful when we gain! You will notice, too, in this account, that the person that made the offering was to lay his hand upon the head of the victim that was slain. What a beautiful picture is that of our interest in Christ Jesus! The poor Jew–though this was not confessing sin in this chapter, but giving thanks–yet whether he confessed his sins or gave thanks he did the same; he laid his hand upon the head of the victim, confessed his sins over it, gave thanks over it; and all the sin was transferred typically to the victim that suffered, and all the glory transferred typically to him who was the great antitype and object of that victim. Thus the believer still lays, not his literal hand–for ours is the economy of the Spirit; whatever a Jew did materially, mechanically, palpably, that a Christian does spiritually, but no less truly and really. The Jew laid his literal hand upon a literal victims head; the Christian lays the trust of his heart upon an unseen but not an unknown Saviour. I say, the Jew laid his hand upon the head of his victim, confessed his sins, and was forgiven; the Christian lays, not his hand, but his heart, not upon a slain bullock or a slain lamb, but on a once slain but now living Saviour. And as sure as the Jew got ceremonial forgiveness by doing literally that act, so surely will the greatest sinner that thus leans, and looks to, and trusts in the only Atonement, receive the pardon and the remission of his sins. (J. Cumming, D. D.)
The peace sacrifice
Peace through the blood of His Cross, Reconciliation in the body of His flesh through death, Fellowship with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ, are the great leading truths in the peace sacrifice. The prodigals repentance, the return home, the ready embrace, the ring, the rich feast within the house, the mutual rest and rejoicing–all are here; nothing is lacking to assure our hearts before God. If there be any lack, it is our want of ability to appreciate the rich and varied grace displayed in every particular of the peace-offering. Happy is it for us that the possession of its blessings does not depend upon the measure in which we understand the type. The peace of God which passeth all understanding is the sure portion of all the justified. It belongs to the babe in Christ as much as to the more advanced in Divine knowledge. (F. H. White.)
The sacrificial feast of the peace-offering
How are we to conceive of the sacrificial feast of the peace-offering? Was it a feast offered and presented by the Israelite to God, or a feast given by God to the Israelite? In other words, in this feast who was represented as host and who as guest? Among other nations than the Hebrews it was the thought in such cases that the feast was given by the worshipper to his god. This is well illustrated by an Assyrian inscription of Esarhaddon, who, in describing his palace at Nineveh, says: I filled with beauties the great palace of my empire, and I called it the palace which rivals the world. Ashur, Ishtar of Nineveh, and the gods of Assyria, all of them, I feasted within it. Victims, precious and beautiful, I sacrificed before them, and I caused them to receive my gifts. But here we come upon one of the most striking and instructive contrasts between the heathen conception of the sacrificial feast and the same symbolism as used in Leviticus and other Scripture. In the heathen sacrificial feasts it is man who feasts God; in the peace-offering of Leviticus it is God who feasts man. Do we not strike here one of the deepest points of contrast between all of mans religion and the gospel of God? Mans idea always is, until taught better by God: I will be religious and make God my friend by doing something, giving something for God. God, on the contrary, teaches us in this symbolism, as in all Scripture, the exact reverse–that we become truly religious by taking, first of all, with thankfulness and joy, what He has provided for us. A breach of friendship between man and God is often implied in the heathen rituals, as in the ritual of Leviticus; as also in both a desire for its removal and renewed fellowship with God. But in the former man ever seeks to attain to this intercommunion of friendship by something that he himself will do for God. He will feast God, and thus God shall be well pleased. But Gods way is the opposite. The sacrificial feast at which man shall have fellowship with God is provided, not by man for God, but by God for man, and is to be eaten, not in our house, but spiritually partaken in the presence of the invisible God. (S. H. Kellogg, D. D.)
Reason for minute prescriptions
Some may think that these prescriptions are so needlessly specific and minute that they appear unworthy of the God that instituted them. But you will recollect that this people were surrounded by dense masses of heathenism, just as the Dutch are by the sea, and that every provision made in Israel was to keep at bay the inrush of heathenism, and to present a people that should be the witnesses of God in spite of heathendom; and the very rites and ceremonies that they were to practise were designedly minute, that there might be no opening for conformity to the heathen, very often crossing those of the heathen; that they might be a marked, a distinctive, and a peculiar people. There is, therefore, far greater wisdom in these prescriptions than strikes the superficial reader. And another reason why all this is given so minutely is that the great subject of the teaching of Christianity is the Atonement. That is the heart and the life of Christianity; all else without that is hard and dry; all its precepts pervaded by that are full of life, and not hard. Well, then, these rites and ceremonies were minute in order to impress upon the Jewish mind and upon the mind of humanity itself the great ideas of substitution, atonement, vicarious sacrifice, till this idea became so familiarised to the hearts of mankind that they should be able not only to appreciate, but to hail with gratitude and joy that perfect Atonement of which these were the shadows–that finished sacrifice to which these pointed as John the Baptist pointed to the Saviour. (J. Cumming, D. D.)
Peace-offerings turned to sin
Few ordinances were more blessed than these peace-offerings. Yet, like the Lords Supper with us, often were they turned to sin. The lascivious woman in Pro 7:14 comes forth saying, I have peace-offerings with me; this day have I paid my vows. She had actually gone up among the devoutest class of worshippers to present a thank-offering, and had stood at the altar as one at peace with God. Having now received from the priest those pieces of the sacrifice that were to be feasted upon, lo! she hurries to her dwelling and prepares a banquet of lewdness. She quiets her conscience by constraining herself to spend some of her time and some of her substance in His sanctuary. She deceives her fellow-creatures, too, and maintains a character for religion; and then she rushes back to sin without remorse. Is there nothing of this in our land? What means Christmas mirth after pretended observance of Christs being born? What means the sudden worldliness of so many on the day following their approach to the Lords Table? What means the worldly talk and levity of a Sabbath afternoon or evening after worship is done? Contrast with this the true worshipper, as he appears in Psa 66:1-20. He has received mercies and is truly thankful. He comes Up to the sanctuary with his offerings, singing, I will go into Thy house with burnt-offerings: I will pay Thee my vows, which my lips have uttered, and my mouth hath spoken, when I was in trouble. In the burnt-offering we see his approach to the altar with the common and general sacrifice; and next, in his paying vows we see he has brought his peace-offerings with him. Again, therefore, he says at the altar, I will offer to Thee burnt sacrifices of fatlings. This is the general offering, brought from the best of his flock and herd. Then follow the peace-offerings. With the incense of rams; I will offer bullocks with goats. Having brought his offerings, he is in no haste to depart, notwithstanding; for his heart is full. Ere, therefore, he leaves the sanctuary he utters the language of a soul at peace with God (verses 16-20). (A. A. Bonar.)
Charles Wesleys peace-offering
Although Charles Wesley had been engaged in preaching the gospel with much diligence and earnestness, he did not know what it was to enjoy peace with God until he was in his thirtieth year. Being laid low by an alarming illness, and seeming as if he were going to die, a young Moravian named Peter Bohler, who was undergoing a course of preparation by him to go out as a missionary, asked him, Do you hope to be saved? Charles answered, Yes. For what reason do you hope it? Because I have used my best endeavours to serve God. The Moravian shook his head and said no more. That sad, silent, significant shake of the head shattered all Charles Wesleys false foundation of salvation by endeavours. He was afterwards taught by Peter Bohler the way of the Lord more perfectly, and brought to see that by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ men are justified. And now in his sick-room he was able to write for the first time in his life, I now find myself at peace with God; and it was on this occasion he composed that beautiful hymn, O for a thousand tongues to sing my great Redeemers praise.
Peace proclaimed
When Russia was in one of her great wars the suffering of the soldiers had been long and bitter, and they were waiting for the end of the strife. One day a messenger in great excitement ran among the tents of the army shouting, Peace! peace! The sentinel on guard asked, Who says Peace ? And the sick soldier turned on his hospital mattress and asked, Who says Peace? And all up and down the encampment of the Russians went the question, Who says, Peace? Then the messenger responded, The Czar says Peace. That was enough. That meant going home. That meant the war was over. No more wounds and no more long marches. So to-day, as one of the Lords messengers, I move through this great encampment of souls and cry, Peace between earth and heaven! Peace between God and man! Peace between your repenting soul and a pardoning Lord! It you ask me, Who says Peace? I answer, Christ our King declares it. My peace I give unto you! The peace of God that passeth all understanding. (Christian Age.)
On terms of peace with God
Some one could not understand why an old German Christian scholar used to be always so calm and happy and hopeful when he had so many trials and sicknesses and ailments. A man secreted himself in the house. He said, I mean to watch this old scholar and Christian; and he saw the old Christian man go to his room and sit down on the chair beside the stand and open the Bible and begin to read. He read on and on, chapter after chapter, hour after hour, until his face was all aglow with the tidings from heaven; and when the clock struck twelve he arose, shut his Bible, and said, Blessed Lord, we are on the same old terms yet. Good-night. Good-night.
Praise-offering
A servant girl in great anxiety of soul sought the help of her minister. All his explanations of the gospel and applications of it to her case failed to bring peace. She said she had tried to pray, but dared not speak to God. If you cannot pray, said the minister, perhaps you can praise. He recommended her to go home and sing the 103rd Psalm–O thou, my soul, bless God the Lord. She departed with a light heart, singing as she went. And, said the minister in telling the story, she is singing still, praising and praying and rejoicing with joy unspeakable and full of glory. (S. S. Chronicle.)
Peace through Christ
A young lady went to Rome to study art. Having a great liking for it, she soon became one of the first modellers in the city. While she was busy at work one day a companion called to see her, and began to give a long description of a ball to which she had recently been, and talked of dresses, jewellery, flowers, &c. The young lady turned, and looking at her friend, said, Be done; I am sick and tired of it. I have gone through and experienced it all myself. And then she added, Oh, if you could only tell me where I might get rest! Her companion, a little taken by surprise, hastily left. The young artist sat there wondering where she might find rest. She had secured the praise of man, but that did not satisfy her–she was looking for something higher; and shutting herself in her room that night, she began to think, and as she was thinking a bright thought entered her mind. She rose and brought forth a little Testament which had been lying untouched since a kind friend had given it to her with these words, Now, mind, if ever you are in trouble, or weary, just open this little book and read, and you will find rest. And now she thought, I will see if I can find the rest she promised. After she had looked a little her eyes fell on these words in Rom 5:1 : Therefore, being justified by faith, we have peace with God, through our Lord Jesus Christ. Her eyes rested long on that verse, until at last she found Christ as her Saviour, and obtained rest in Him.
Peace through the Atonement
Professor Shedd has well said, Whoever is granted this clear, crystalline vision of the Atonement will die in peace, avid pass through all the unknown transport and terror of the day of doom with serenity and joy. It ought to be the toil and study of the believer to render his conceptions of the work of Christ more vivid, simple, and vital; for whatever may be the extent of religious knowledge in other directions, whatever may be the worth of his religious experience in other phases, there is no knowledge and no experience that will stand him in such stead in those moments that try the soul as the experience of the sense of guilt quenched by the blood of Christ.
Gospel peace
I saw a picture in London of the battle of Waterloo years after the battle had passed, and the grass had grown all over the sacred places, and the artist–for it was a masterpiece–had represented a dismounted cannon, and then a lamb, which had wandered up from the pasture field, sound asleep in the mouth of the cannon. Oh, what a suggestive picture it was to me I and I thought right away that the war between God and the soul is ended, and right amid the batteries of the law that once quaked with fiery death now you may behold the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world.
I went to Jesus as I was,
Weary and worn and sad;
I found in Him a resting-place,
And He has made me glad.
(T. De Witt Talmage.)
Gratitude offering
A poor widow brought a basket of fine fruit to a rich man, and begged him to accept it as a present. He did so, knowing that he would make her happier by accepting it as a gift than he would by paying her for it liberally. The gift had cost her self-denial. She would not sell her choice fruit, that she might have the privilege of bestowing it upon one who needed nothing at her hands. She counted it a privilege to practise self-denial for the sake of one who was rich and needed nothing that she could give. Why was it? That rich man had saved the life of her son; he had found him, in want and sickness, in a distant city. He watched him till he was able to travel, when he furnished him with the means of returning to his mother. Hence her gratitude. Did that rich man place that widow under obligations to gratitude as God has placed every one of us? Has not God done for us infinitely more than that rich man did for the widows son? Can we count up His favours to us? Can we estimate the value of His unspeakable gift? Do we count it a privilege to practise self-denial for His sake? Depend upon it, we have very little religion unless we can see and feel that it is a great privilege for a sinner to practise self-denial for his Saviours sake. (Great Thoughts.)
The fat.
Fat and blood not to be eaten
You may here observe how they were forbidden to eat either fat or blood. The Lords prohibition of fat might teach them to like and use a meanest, moderate, and fitting diet, which, as it is good for the body, so also hath it profit for the soul. He that loveth wine and oil, saith the wise man, shall not be rich; and Beware of surfeiting and drunkenness, of excess and belly-cheer, often saith the Scripture in regard of the soul. Fasting and prayer are joined together, not feasting and prayer. A ship too much laden sinketh; and a body too much stuffed with fulness of bread perisheth. It is a double conquest to conquer thyself, and it is a double destruction to destroy thyself. Johns meat was locusts and wild honey–a moderate diet. The companion of gluttony is rottenness, and the follower of drunkenness is forgetfulness and sottishness. Gods people are here forbidden to eat their fat, and think ever on the meaning. Blood also was forbidden to them, that so they might learn to take heed of cruelty and to taste of mercy and lovingkindness in all their actions and behaviour. God is merciful, and we must follow Him; Satan and his members are bloody and cruel, we must avoid it. (Bp. Babington.)
If his offering be a goat.—
The goat in sacrifice
The goat stands here in the same relation to the peace-offering from the herd as did the turtledove and pigeon to the bullock of the whole burnt sacrifice. The poorer sort might bring the goat; when he could not bring the blood of bulls he brought the blood of goats. And thus stilt they were prevented from attaching importance to the mere type. The goat represents Jesus, as one taken out of the flock for the salvation of the rest. Let us suppose we saw a flock of goats appearing from Mount Gilead (Son 6:5). The lion from Bashan rushes upon this flock; one is seized, and is soon within the jaws of the lion! This prey is enough; the lion is satisfied and retires; the flock is saved by the death of one. This incidental substitution does not indeed show forth the manner of our Substitutes suffering; but it is an illustration of the fact that one dying saved the whole flock. The goat is one of a class that go in flocks in Palestine, and so are fitted to represent Christ and His people. And perhaps the fact of an animal like the goat being selected to be among the types of Christ was intended to prevent the error of those who would place the value of Christs undertaking in His character alone. They say, Behold His meekness; He is the Lamb of God! Well, all that is true; it is implied in His being without blemish. But that cannot be the true point to which our eye is intended to be directed by the types; for what, then, becomes of the goat? They may tell us of the meekness of the lamb and patience of the bullock, and tenderness of the turtledove; but the goat, what is to be said of it? Surely it is not without a special providence that the goat is inserted where, if the order of chap. 1. had been followed, we would have had a turtledove? The reason is to let us see that the main thing to be noticed in these types is the atonement which they represented. Observe the stroke that falls on the victim, the fire that consumes the victim, the blood that must flow from the victim, whether it be a bullock, a lamb, a turtledove, or a goat. The Socinian view of Christs death is thus contradicted by these various types, and our eye is intently fixed on the atoning character of the animal more than on anything in its nature. (A. A. Bonar.)
.
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
CHAPTER III
The law of the peace-offering in general, 1-5.
That of the peace-offering taken from the flock, 6-11;
and the same when the offering is a goat, 12-17.
NOTES ON CHAP. III
Verse 1. Peace-offering] shelamim, an offering to make peace between God and man; See Clarke on Le 7:38, and Ge 14:18.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Whether it be a male or female; which were allowed here, though not in burnt-offerings, because those principally respected the honour of God, who is to be served with the best; but the peace-offerings did primarily respect the benefit of the offerer, and therefore the choice was left to himself.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
1. if his oblation be a sacrifice ofpeace offering“Peace” being used in Scripture todenote prosperity and happiness generally, a peace offering was avoluntary tribute of gratitude for health or other benefits. In thisview it was eucharistic, being a token of thanksgiving for benefitsalready received, or it was sometimes votive, presented in prayer forbenefits wished for in the future.
of the herdThis kindof offering being of a festive character, either male or female, ifwithout blemish, might be used, as both of them were equally good forfood, and, if the circumstances of the offerer allowed it, it mightbe a calf.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And if his oblation [be] a sacrifice of peace offering,…. The Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan render it, the “sacrifice of holinesses”, or “sanctifications”; so called, not because they were more holy than other sacrifices; for they were what the Jews c call the lighter holy things, in distinction from the most holy things, such as the meat offerings were, Le 2:10 but as Ainsworth suggests, either because none but holy persons might eat of them, Le 7:19 though this also was enjoined in other sacrifices, or because hereby the name of God was sanctified. These offerings were either by way of thanksgiving for favours received, or for free devotion, or as a vow, and in order to obtain for himself that offered and family health and safety, peace and prosperity, see Le 7:11 all which the word used signifies; and these sacrifices are by the Septuagint called “sacrifices of salvation” or “health”, because offered either in gratitude for it, or to enjoy it; or else they were offered to make peace and reconciliation, and therefore are called peace offerings, and that they were for this purpose is certain from Eze 45:15 and Gersom says they had their name from hence, because they bring peace between God and men; they were a kind of a pacific festival between God, the priests, and the owner, and were typical of Christ, who has made peace for us by his blood and sacrifice. There is something very offensive to God in sin, it being a breach of his law, and contrary to his nature and will, provoking to the eyes of his glory, deserving of wrath, and death itself, and so not only sets man at a distance from him, but creates an enmity between them; hence a peace offering became necessary; such an one man could not bring acceptable to God; for neither his repentance nor good works would do; but Christ has offered up himself a sacrifice, and thereby has made reconciliation for sin and sinners, and procured peace with God for them; the consequence of which is spiritual peace here, and eternal peace hereafter; and so is a “sacrifice of peaces”, as the Hebrew phrase here may be literally rendered, and is the proper antitype and full completion of this sort of sacrifice:
if he offer [it] of the herd; that is, a bullock:
whether [it be] a male or female; as it might be either; showing, as some think, that in Christ Jesus, and in the Gospel churches, and under the Gospel dispensation, there is no distinction of male and female, with respect to blessings and privileges, Ga 3:28 or rather as others, denoting both strength and weakness in Christ; strength in his obedience, and weakness in his sufferings; strong he was as the man of God’s right hand made so by him, and yet was crucified through weakness:
he shall offer it without blemish before the Lord: signifying the perfection and purity of Christ’s sacrifice of peace offering in the sight of God: “before the Lord”; this, according to Gersom, was on the west side of the court.
c Misn. Zebachim, c. 5. sect. 7.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
The Peace-Offerings. – The third kind of sacrifice is called , commonly rendered thank-offering, but more correctly a saving-offering ( Heilsopfer: Angl. peace-offering). Besides this fuller form, which is the one most commonly employed in Leviticus, we meet with the abbreviated forms and : e.g., in Lev 7:16-17; Lev 23:37, more especially in combination with , Lev 17:8 cf. Exo 10:25; Exo 18:12; Num 15:3, Num 15:5; Deu 12:27; Jos 22:27; 1Sa 6:15; 1Sa 15:22; 2Ki 5:17; 2Ki 10:24; Isa 56:7; Jer 6:20; Jer 7:21; Jer 17:26, etc., – and in Lev 9:22; Exo 20:24; Exo 32:6; Deu 27:7; Jos 8:31; Jdg 20:26; Jdg 21:4; 1Sa 13:9; 2Sa 6:17-18; 2Sa 24:25; 1Ki 3:15, etc. is derived from , which is not applied to slaughtering generally ( ), but, with the exception of Deu 12:15, where the use of for slaughtering is occasioned by the retrospective reference to Lev 17:3-4, is always used for slaying as a sacrifice, or sacrificing; and even in 1Sa 28:24; Eze 34:3 and Eze 39:17, it is only used in a figurative sense. The real meaning, therefore, is sacrificial slaughtering, or slaughtered sacrifice. It is sometimes used in a wider sense, and applied to every kind of bleeding sacrifice (1Sa 1:21; 1Sa 2:19), especially in connection with minchah (1Sa 2:29; Psa 40:7; Isa 19:21; Dan 9:27, etc.); but it is mostly used in a more restricted sense, and applied to the peace-offerings, or slain offerings, which culminated in a sacrificial meal, as distinguished from the burnt and sin-offerings, in which case it is synonymous with or . The word shelamim , the singular of which ( Shelem ) is only met with in Amo 5:22, is applied exclusively to these sacrifices, and is derived from to be whole, uninjured. It does not mean “compensation or restitution,” for which we find the nouns (Deu 32:35), (Hos 9:7), and (Psa 91:8), formed from the Piel , but integritas completa, pacifica, beata , answering to the Sept. rendering . The plural denotes the entire round of blessings and powers, by which the salvation or integrity of man in his relation to God is established and secured. The object of the shelamim was invariably salvation: sometimes they were offered as an embodiment of thanksgiving for salvation already received, sometimes as a prayer for the salvation desired; so that they embraced both supplicatory offerings and thank-offerings, and were offered even in times of misfortune, or on the day on which supplication was offered for the help of God (Jdg 20:26; Jdg 21:4; 1Sa 13:9; 2Sa 24:25).
(Note: Cf. Hengstenberg, Dissertations. Outram’s explanation is quite correct: Sacrificia salutaria in sacris litteris shelamim dicta, ut quae semper de rebus prosperis fieri solerent, impetratis utique aut impetrandis .)
The law distinguishes three different kinds: praise-offerings, vow-offerings, and freewill-offerings (Lev 7:12, Lev 7:16). They were all restricted to oxen, sheep, and goats, either male or female, pigeons not being allowed, as they were always accompanied with a common sacrificial meal, for which a pair of pigeons did not suffice.
Lev 3:1-2 In the act of sacrificing, the presentation of the animal before Jehovah, the laying on of hands, the slaughtering, and the sprinkling of the blood were the same as in the case of the burnt-offering (Lev 1:3-5). It was in the application of the flesh that the difference first appeared.
Lev 3:3-4 The person presenting the sacrifice was to offer as a firing for Jehovah, first, “the fat which covered the entrails” (Lev 1:9), i.e., the large net which stretches from the stomach over the bowels and completely envelopes the latter, and which is only met with in the case of men and the mammalia generally, and in the ruminant animals abounds with fat; secondly, “all the fat on the entrails,” i.e., the fat attached to the intestines, which could easily be peeled off; thirdly, “the two kidneys, and the fat upon them (and) that upon the loins ( ), i.e., upon the inner muscles of the loins, or in the region of the kidneys; and fourthly, “the net upon the liver.” The net ( ) upon ( Lev 3:4, Lev 3:10, Lev 3:15; Lev 4:9; Lev 7:4; Exo 29:13), or from ( Lev 9:10), or of the liver (Lev 8:16, Lev 8:25; Lev 9:19; Exo 29:22), cannot be the large lobe of the liver, (lxx), because this is part of the liver itself, and does not lie over (upon) the liver; nor is it simply a portion of fat, but the small net (omentum minus), the liver-net, or stomach-net ( recticulum jecoris; Vulg., Luth., De Wette, and Knobel), which commences at the division between the right and left lobes of the liver, and stretches on the one side across the stomach, and on the other to the region of the kidneys. Hence the clause, “on the kidneys (i.e., by them, as far as it reaches) shall he take it away.” This smaller net is delicate, but not so fat as the larger net; though it still forms part of the fat portions. The word , which only occurs in the passages quoted, is to be explained from the Arabic and Ethiopic (to stretch over, to stretch out), whence also the words a cord (Jdg 16:7; Psa 11:2), and the bow-string (Psa 21:13) or extended tent-ropes (Exo 35:18), are derived. The four portions mentioned comprehended all the separable fat in the inside of the sacrificial animal. Hence they were also designated “all the fat” of the sacrifice (Lev 3:16; Lev 4:8, Lev 4:19, Lev 4:26, Lev 4:31, Lev 4:35; Lev 7:3), or briefly “the fat” ( Lev 3:9; Lev 7:33; Lev 16:25; Lev 17:6; Num 18:17), “the fat portions” ( Lev 6:5; Lev 8:26; Lev 9:19-20, Lev 9:24; Lev 10:15).
Lev 3:5 This fat the priests were to burn upon the altar, over the burnt sacrifice, on the pieces of wood upon the fire. does not mean “in the manner or style of the burnt-offering” ( Knobel), but “upon (over) the burnt-offering.” For apart from the fact that cannot be shown to have this meaning, the peace-offering was preceded as a rule by the burnt-offering. At any rate it was always preceded by the daily burnt-offering, which burned, if not all day, at all events the whole of the forenoon, until it was quite consumed; so that the fat portions of the peace-offerings were to be laid upon the burnt-offering which was burning already. That this is the meaning of is placed beyond all doubt, both by Lev 6:5, where the priest is directed to burn wood every morning upon the fire of the altar, and then to place the burnt-offering upon it ( ), and upon that to cause the fat portions of the peace-offerings to evaporate in smoke, and also by Lev 9:14, where Aaron is said first of all to have burned the flesh and head of the burnt-offering upon the altar, then to have washed the entrails and legs of the animal, and burned them on the altar, , i.e., upon (over) the portions of the burnt-offering that were burning already.
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
| Law of the Peace-Offering. | B. C. 1490. |
1 And if his oblation be a sacrifice of peace offering, if he offer it of the herd; whether it be a male or female, he shall offer it without blemish before the LORD. 2 And he shall lay his hand upon the head of his offering, and kill it at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation: and Aaron’s sons the priests shall sprinkle the blood upon the altar round about. 3 And he shall offer of the sacrifice of the peace offering an offering made by fire unto the LORD; the fat that covereth the inwards, and all the fat that is upon the inwards, 4 And the two kidneys, and the fat that is on them, which is by the flanks, and the caul above the liver, with the kidneys, it shall he take away. 5 And Aaron’s sons shall burn it on the altar upon the burnt sacrifice, which is upon the wood that is on the fire: it is an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the LORD.
The burnt-offerings had regard to God as in himself the best of beings, most perfect and excellent; they were purely expressive of adoration, and therefore were wholly burnt. But the peace-offerings had regard to God as a benefactor to his creatures, and the giver of all good things to us; and therefore these were divided between the altar, the priest, and the owner. Peace signifies, 1. Reconciliation, concord, and communion. And so these were called peace-offerings, because in them God and his people did, as it were, feast together, in token of friendship. The priest, who was ordained for men in things pertaining to God, gave part of this peace-offering to God (that part which he required, and it was fit he should be first served), burning it upon God’s altar; part he gave to the offerer, to be eaten by him with his family and friends; and part he took to himself, as the days-man that laid his hand upon them both. They could not thus eat together unless they were agreed; so that it was a symbol of friendship and fellowship between God and man, and a confirmation of the covenant of peace. 2. It signifies prosperity and all happiness: Peace be to you was as much as, All good be to you; and so the peace-offerings were offered either, (1.) By way of supplication or request for some good that was wanted and desired. If a man was in the pursuit or expectation of any mercy, he would back his prayer for it with a peace-offering, and probably put up the prayer when he laid his hand upon the head of his offering. Christ is our peace, our peace-offering; for through him alone it is that we can expect to obtain mercy, and an answer of peace to our prayers; and in him an upright prayer shall be acceptable and successful, though we bring not a peace-offering. The less costly our devotions are the more lively and serious they should be. Or, (2.) By way of thanksgiving for some particular mercy received. It is called a peace-offering of thanksgiving, for so it was sometimes; as in other cases a vow,Lev 7:15; Lev 7:16. And some make the original word to signify retribution. When they had received any special mercy, and were enquiring what they should render, this they were directed to render to the God of their mercies as a grateful acknowledgment for the benefit done to them, Ps. cxvi. 12. And we must offer to God the sacrifice of praise continually, by Christ our peace; and then this shall please the Lord better than an ox or bullock. Observe,
I. As to the matter of the peace-offering, suppose it was of the herd, it must be without blemish; and, if it was so, it was indifferent whether it was male or female, v. 1. In our spiritual offerings, it is not the sex, but the heart, that God looks at, Gal. iii. 28.
II. As to the management of it. 1. The offerer was, by a solemn manumission, to transfer his interest in it to God (v. 2), and, with his hand on the head of the sacrifice, to acknowledge the particular mercies for which he designed this a thank-offering, or, if it was a vow, to make his prayer. 2. It must be killed; and, although this might be done in any part of the court, yet it is said to be at the door of the tabernacle, because the mercies received or expected were acknowledged to come from God, and the prayers or praises were directed to him, and both, as it were, through that door. Our Lord Jesus has said, I am the door, for he is indeed the door of the tabernacle. 3. The priest must sprinkle the blood upon the altar, for it was the blood that made atonement for the soul; and, though this was not a sin-offering, yet we must be taught that in all our offerings we must have an eye to Christ as the propitiation for sin, as those who know that the best of their services cannot be accepted unless through him their sins be pardoned. Penitent confessions must always go along with our thankful acknowledgments; and, whatever mercy we pray for, in order to it we must pray for the removal of guilt, as that which keeps good things from us. First take away all iniquity, and then receive us graciously, or give good, Hos. xiv. 2. 4. All the fat of the inwards, that which we call the tallow and suet, with the caul that encloses it and the kidneys in the midst of it, were to be taken away, and burnt upon the altar, as an offering made by fire, v. 3-5. And this was all that was sacrificed to the Lord out of the peace-offering; how the rest was to be disposed of we shall find, ch. vii. 11, c. It is ordered to be burnt upon the burnt-sacrifice, that is, the daily burnt-offering, the lamb which was offered every morning before any other sacrifice was offered so that the fat of the peace-offerings was an addition to that, and a continuation of it. The great sacrifice of peace, that of the Lamb of God which takes away the sins of the world, prepares the altar for our sacrifices of praise, which are not accepted till we are reconciled. Now the burning of this fat is supposed to signify, (1.) The offering up of our good affections to God in all our prayers and praises. God must have the inwards; for we must pour out our souls, and lift up our hearts, in prayer, and must bless his name with all that is within us. It is required that we be inward with God in every thing wherein we have to do with him. The fat denotes the best and choicest, which must always be devoted to God, who has made for us a feast of fat things. (2.) The mortifying of our corrupt affections and lusts, and the burning up of them by the fire of divine grace, Col. iii. 5. Then we are truly thankful for former mercies, and prepared to receive further mercy, when we part with our sins, and have our minds cleared from all sensuality by the spirit of judgment and the spirit of burning, Isa. iv. 4.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
LEVITICUS- CHAPTER THREE
Verses 1-5:
“Oblation,” qorban, “that which is brought near” (see Le 2:4).
“Sacrifice,” zebach, a slaughtered animal
“Peace offering,” shelem, a variation of shalom, the word commonly denoting “peace.”
The Israelites who offered a “peace offering” must fulfill the following five conditions:
I. He must bring either: (1) a young bull or cow; (2) a sheep, male or female; or (3) a goat, male or female.
2. He must offer the sacrifice in the tabernacle courtyard.
3. He must place his hand upon the head of the sacrifice, as a token of his personal identification with and reliance upon it.
4. He must slay the sacrifice at the door of the tabernacle.
5. He must provide three different kinds of bread similar to that used in the “meat offering,” and leavened bread (see Le 7:11-13).
The priest who officiated at the sacrifice must do six things:
1. Catch the blood in a basin, then place some of the blood on the sides of the altar, as in the burnt sacrifice (Le 1:5).
2. Place upon the smoldering embers of the burnt offering: (1) all the internal fat of the animal; (2) the kidneys; and (3) in the case of sheep, the fat tail, to be consumed by fire.
3. Offer one of each of the various cakes of bread, as a heave offering.
4. Wave the animal’s breast forward and backward, and the leg or haunch upward and downward, symbolizing consecration.
5. Take for himself and his Levite brethren, the bread and haunch which had been offered as a wave or heave offering.
6. Return the remainder of the sacrifice to the offerer, to provide a feast for him and his family. This feast was to be eaten the same day, or the following day, in the tabernacle courtyard.
The Peace Offering is symbolic of the peace and joy of the child of God who is in close communion with Him. It is significant that the regulations for the Peace Offering follow those of the Whole Burnt Offering (symbolizing the sacrifice of Christ), and the Meat Offering (symbolizing partaking of the Bread which comes down from Heaven). There can be no real peace and joy without salvation through Christ, and partaking of Him.
The peace which this offering symbolizes is the peace of God which surpasses all understanding, Php 4:6,7, which He sheds abroad in the heart of one who: (1) maintains a constant attitude of reverence and prayer; (2) who makes known to God his specific supplication for every need of life; and (3) who maintains an “attitude of gratitude.”
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
1. And if his oblation be a sacrifice. He now proceeds to a different class, viz., to the sacrifices, which were testimonies of gratitude in celebration of God’s blessings; part of which was burnt with fire, part was claimed by the priests, and the rest remained to the offerers themselves. As to the word שלמים, shelomim, I have briefly given my opinion elsewhere; (253) the common translation of it is certainly unsuitable, “the sacrifices of peace-offerings:” and the statement of others is far-fetched, that they are called “sacrifices of perfections,” because it was unlawful for the unclean to touch them. Since, however, the Hebrews include in the word “peace,” safety, and all good success, I have thought that its plural number might aptly be translated “prosperities:” on which account, David calls the libation which used to be made in this sacrifice, “the cup of salvations:” (Psa 116:13,) nor do I doubt but that by this outward sign he designates thanksgiving. I admit indeed that this sacrifice was not only offered in acknowledgment of gratitude, but also when they sought of God peace and good success; yet still the epithet will always admirably suit it, because they confessed by it that God was the author of all good things, so as to attribute all their prosperity to Him. First, however, he commands all the sacrifices to be brought to the tabernacle, which is what he means by “the face of God;” (254) else would altars have been everywhere erected in their cities and villages, and by this license God’s service would have been mangled, and religion undermined. Wherefore, in order to keep the people in the unity of the faith, he bids them all be content with a single altar. But He would be worshipped and honored in that place, which He had dedicated to Himself, lest they should be scattered abroad after strange gods; and then He prescribes the mode of offering, whether the victim were of the herd or the flock. That such exact injunctions should be given as to trifles, might seem to be an unnecessary particularity, and even a superfluous repetition, inasmuch as the same thing is often inculcated, in precisely similar words: if it were not that this earnestness reminded the people that something higher was enwrapped in the ceremonies, whilst it restrained them from allowing themselves wantonly to add or change the smallest point. This very scrupulous observance, then, ought to have led them by the hand, as it were, to the things signified; so that under the external image the spiritual truth might meet their eyes; secondly, it ought to have held them bound, as it were, to the word of God, lest they should do anything in sacred matters from the dictates of their own reason. But now, since the use of sacrifices has ceased, we are first taught that God’s blessings are profaned, unless we diligently exercise ourselves in manifesting our religion, as His infinite and constant liberality towards us deserves; secondly, that unless our devotion is unmixed and paid to Him alone, we impiously defraud Him of His right; thirdly, that as we pray in Christ’s name, so our vows are to be paid, and our thanksgivings to be rendered, through His hand; and fourthly, that God’s loving-kindness is not to be celebrated in a negligent or perfunctory manner, but that we must labor to do so, as in a matter of the utmost importance, with no common zeal and attention.
(253) Vide supra , p. 149, and note.
(254) A.V., “before the Lord.”
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
The Peace Offering of Thanksgiving
SUGGESTIVE READINGS
Lev. 3:1.A sacrifice of peace offering. Happy are the truths made evident in this peace sacrifice; delightful to God, blessed for man. Peace is established between God and the soul, reconciliation is realised; and the offerer comes to the altar with festive gladness in his heart. Yes, and God also, and the priests, and the offerers friends, all join in the sacrificial banquet of joy over peace restored. Its completeness was realised in Christ: For He is our Peace, who hath made both one (Eph. 2:14). The angels carol has become translated into Christian experienceOn earth peace, goodwill toward men. He who would enter into and enjoy peace with God, must bring the Redeemers sacrifice of peace offering (Rom. 5:1)
Whether male or female. Unrestricted freedom in choice of the victim; as though God was so desirous of peace with man that every possible opportunity and convenience should be arranged for effecting conciliation. That is the lesson: and in the atonement of Calvary the plan of appeasement and acceptance is ready of access to every one. No difficulty, no embarrassment, is left by God in the way of our obtaining reconciliation and fellowship with Him.
Lev. 3:2.Lay his hand on and kill it. Here is the crowning act of the sinner: act of identification with the very death of the victim. Who slew the Sacrifice? even he who lays his hand on Him in order to be saved; yes, saved by the death the sinner himself inflicted! Jesus claims the victims place; gives His life for man. Each altar sprinkled with blood proclaims the peace thus bought, peace bought by death. The chastisement of our peace was upon Him.
Lev. 3:3.All the fat that is upon the inwards. In the burnt offering it was the fat connected with the limbs and external parts of the victim which God required; but in the peace sacrifice He specifically asks the inward fat which covers the vitals. This denoted inward health; and typified the inmost excellency of Christ. And as this was to be for God, placed and consumed upon His altar, it bespeaks now all the virtue and grace of Jesus in His own essential perfectness and preciousness were necessary to a satisfactory peace between God and man. For what inferior sacrifice could suffice? The enmity and outrage wrought by our sin and sinfulness were such that the most absolute excellence was essential in our propitiatory offering. But Christ offered all His virtue to God for us.
Lev. 3:5.On the altar upon the burnt sacrifice. Peace is not the first thing for man to seek with God, but satisfaction: that having been made in the burnt sacrifice, he may burn his peace offering upon the burnt sacrifice. No basis for peace except the sufferings of Christ. He having been offered in substitution for guilt we may lay our peace offering upon that Sacrifice.
Lev. 3:11.The food of the offering made by fire unto the Lord. God finds foodsatisfaction, gratificationin the altar offering, in the excellencies of Christ devoted in sacrifice to win mans acceptance. Grand truth: the presentation of atonement by Jesus for mans peace yields to God a satisfying food, a substantial joy, which both fills all the Divine desires and answers all the Divine demands. The Saviours sacrifice was very precious to the holy God.
Lev. 3:17.Eat neither fat nor blood. As the fat symbolised the inmost virtue, this law claimed the best as Gods portion: and as the blood represented the life of the victim, this law claimed life as inalienably Gods. You owe Him your inmost affections, the most precious qualities of your being; yea, your whole life. Jesus gave them all to His Father: and we should also yield our noblest, our all.
EXPLANATORY HOMILY
i. The spiritual standing, or sacred qualification of the offerer. Peace offerings could be presented only by persons who had already obtained forgiveness of sins (by the sin and trespass offerings, comp. Lev. 6:7), and had consecrated themselves as on the altar to Jehovah (by the burnt offering, comp. Lev. 7:12), and were thus at peace with God.
This sacrificial regulation indicates an enduring spiritual law: that he who would enter into a state of friendship with God must first have secured expiation of his sins (sin offering), and have consecrated himself (burnt offering) and his substance (meat offering) to the Lord.
ii. Propitiation and self surrender are not absent even in presenting peace offerings. The blood of the victim was sprinkled on the altar, and portions of the carcass were burnt in the fire. Whereas the imposition of hands and slaughter of the substitute by the offerer betokened sense of condemnation and appeal to sovereign grace.
We cannot acceptably offer even sacrifices of peace and praise apart from the meritorious death and substitutionary atonement of Jesus.
iii. Peace offerings were various, both in the victims chosen and in the purpose for which they were offered.
(1) The victims: from the herds or flocks, male or female.
(2) The purpose: thank offerings, votive offerings, free-will offerings. The first expressed gratitude for Gods gracious favours; the second fulfilled a vow made on condition of receiving Gods goodness; the third entreated a mercy, but without conditions, as in a vow, retaining freedom to make return to the Lord as occasion served.
Great variety may mark our thank offerings to God, but the liberty leaves us without excuse if we render nothing to the Lord for all His benefits towards us.
iv. In the distribution of portions of the peace offering a sacrificial feast of fellowship was enacted.
A part to Jehovah, other parts to the priests, and the remainder to the offerer, all meeting in amity and peace, and joyously sharing in the sweet savour offering.
For the reconciliation of man to God, and Divine fellowship with man, occasioned heart gladness to the Divine Father (see parable of Prodigal Son), to the reinstated worshipper, and to the Daysman betwixt them who laid His hand on them boththe mediating Priest.
v. The part of the divided victims were specially apportioned, establishing a law of priority in sacred claims. To God the choicest parts first. These were burned on the altar, and became a sweet savour unto the Lord. To the community of priests (the breast), and to the officiating priest (the right hind leg) next, indicating grateful recognition of Priesthood ministries, specially Christs, and fellowship with the sacred priesthood of believers. The sacrificer retained the rest, but only that he, with his friends, might join the sacred repast, and thus emphasize the truth of the communion of saints; they and Gods household, and God Himself, all partaking of the one offering, as a feast of friendship and communion.
Our first aim should be to offer the worthiest to the Lord; next to own grateful obligations to the mediatorial service of Christ; then to establish festal relationship with the household of God, the household of faith. Self last in fellowship, no man living to himself. Christian life joyously communing with the Father, the Mediator, and the Church.
SECTIONAL HOMILIES
Topic: PEACE-OFFERING SACRIFICES (Lev. 3:1-5)
Consider
I. HISTORIC INSTANCES OF PRESENTING THE PEACE OFFERING.
Scripture records of these occurrences are instructive. Some of the occasions when the offering was presented were Divinely appointed.
(a) At the consecration of priests for their holy office and ministry (Lev. 7:30-34). (b) At the completion of the term of a Nazarites vow (Num. 6:14). (c) At the dedication of the completed tabernacle (Num. 7:17). (d) At the feast of the first-fruits (Lev. 23:19); and (e) At the joyful opening of Solomons temple (1Ki. 8:63).
Others were spontaneous
1. For signal experience of Providential deliverance. Thus (a) David in the hour of victory, when his head was lifted up above his enemies round about him, resolved to sacrifice in Gods tabernacle sacrifices of joy (Psa. 27:6). (b) Amid merciful rescues from peril, enumerated in Psalms 107, as when guided through a lone wilderness (Psa. 107:4), or brought out of sore oppression (Psa. 107:10-14), or upon recovery from wasting sickness (Psa. 107:18), or when the haven is reached after terrible voyage (Psa. 107:30), etc. Then let them sacrifice the sacrifice of thanksgiving (Psa. 107:22).
2. As the fulfilment of vows made in troublous circumstances. Thus Jonah prayed unto the Lord his God out of the fishs belly (Jon. 2:1), and vowed, when salvation came to him of the Lord (Lev. 3:9), that he would sacrifice unto Him with the voice of thanksgiving, and pay that he had vowed (Lev. 3:9). [See also Psa. 116:3; Psa. 116:17-19.]
3. As a seal of fervent and trustful prayer. So did the confederate tribes before going to battle against the victorious Benjamites. They went up and came to the house of God and wept, and sat there before the Lord, and fasted that day until even, and offered burnt offerings and peace offerings before the Lord (Jdg. 20:26). [See Addenda, p. 38, Sacrifices of Peace.] Consider again the
II. SACRED SENTIMENTS PROMPTING TO THE OFFERING OF THE PEACE SACRIFICES
Noting the attitude of thought, the feelings of heart, with which the sacrifices were presented, we shall realise the religious affections which found expression in this form of altar offering.
1. Prominent, as a motive to the peace offering, is thanksgiving. It presented a sacrifice of praise to God; it yielded an offering to Jehovahs glory. This implies a heart of gratitude in man; a reverent sense of the goodness of God; a desire to perform some act to His glory and praise. In Lev. 7:12 it is distinctly marked as intended for a thanksgiving. The worshipper should seek God not alone with requests, and under sense of danger or need, but with the homage of joy. I will sacrifice sacrifices of joy. I will sing, etc. (Psa. 27:6). God hath done great things for us, whereof we are glad. What shall I shall render unto the Lord for all His benefits towards me? Bless the Lord, O my soul, etc. Thanks be unto God for His unspeakable gift. We are to glorify God with praises. Hence the exhortation, By Him, therefore, let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is the fruit of our lips giving thanks to His name (Heb. 13:15). [See Addenda, p. 38, Thanksgiving.]
2. Equally manifest, as a motive to the peace offering, is dedication. Thus it is provided that the sacrifice of his offering [may] be a vow (Lev. 7:16). This means a consecration to some act of service for God. As the sweet savour ascended to God it bore to Heaven a hostage and pledge of practical godliness and grateful obedience which should follow. Praise waiteth for Thee, O God, in Zion, and unto Thee shall the vow be performed (Psa. 65:1). I will go into Thy house with burnt offerings, I will pay Thee my vows which my lips have uttered, etc. I will offer unto Thee burnt sacrifices of fatlings, with the incense of rams, etc. (Psa. 66:13-15). Christian life should assuredly be yielded in devotion to the Lord in return for the grace we have received.
III. GOSPEL REALISATIONS OF THE TYPICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE PEACE OFFERINGS
1. The varieties in the victims symbolise the manifold aspects of Christs gracious offering. As in the burnt offering. [See on Chapter 1]
2. The different motives prompting the offering suggest the various purposes Christs sacrifice effected. His peace offering both was for Gods praise, in sinners reconciled; and for mans dedication, in Christian lives being vowed and devoted to His service. For when made nigh in Christ it is our joy to live unto God in loving, willing obedience. Christs sacrificial life represented both significant aspects of the peace offering: it was an offering to Divine praise and glory, and an enactment of mans grateful consecration to God.
3. The blessed reconciliation of God and man was sealed in the peace offering of Jesus. Having made peace through the blood of His cross, by Him to reconcile all things unto Himself, etc. (Col. 1:20).
IV. PRESENT-DAY OBLIGATIONS IN THE LIGHT OF THE ANCIENT PEACE OFFERINGS.
1. He who would offer praise to God must do so at the altar. That was the place where the offering was made. Nothing, no grateful affection, no dedicatory vow, may go from man to God irrespective of the altar. Nothing can be accepted, nothing is permitted, apart from Christs sacrifice. The peace offering must be on the altar upon the burnt sacrifice (Lev. 3:5); something additional to and following upon Christs atoning merits. Gratitude is beautiful, dedication is right; but God will have neitherfrom sinful manapart from the Saviours grace. These are lovely flowers which can only properly unfold and bloom under the radiance of the Cross.
2. Divine graciousness summons us to the sacrifices of thankful devotion. Not a moment but our hearts and lips should be pouring out streams of praise, the sweet savour of love, the homage of joy, the evidence that we are the Lords: wherefore glorify God in your body and in your spirit, which are Gods.
3. Peace with God in Christ is the basis of a joyful godly life. Praise can only be where peace is realised and enjoyed. All our happiness rests on our being in Christ, partakers of peace with God through Jesus. Then we can also joy in God (Rom. 5:1; Rom. 5:11). And Christian life should show forth the praises of Him who hath called us out of darkness, etc. (1Pe. 2:9). Blessed peace which imparts such joy and inspires such praise!
Topic: THE FEAST OF MANS FELLOWSHIP WITH GOD (Lev. 3:3; Lev. 3:9; Lev. 3:14; Lev. 3:16)
He shall offer of the sacrifice of the peace offering unto the Lord. Not the whole, but a part was to be burnt on the altar fire, and Aarons sons shall burn iti.e., the specified portion which God required (see Lev. 3:4). And this part participation by God is further particularised in Lev. 3:16The priest shall burn them upon the altar; it is the food of the offering made by fire for a sweet savour; all the fat is the Lords.
The remaining parts (chap. 7) were distributed to the priests who ministered and the offerer himself. Thus the peace offering was shared by God with man; they met together in a sacrificial feast, and partook of the same altar oblation. To eat together is a sign of friendship and fellowship.
I. SUCH PRIVILEGED COMMUNION BETWEEN GOD AND MAN IS ESTABLISHED ON SPECIAL CONDITIONS.
Who is the man who thus is admitted to feast with God? May anyone adventure into such privilege? Are there no restrictions or conditions regulating so wondrous an incident?
1. Fellowship between God and man must be at the altar of sacrifice. There, where sin is acknowledged, atoned and purged; where substitution is accepted for the life of sinful man; where no condemnation is attained by penalty having been laid upon the Victim. Only there can God meet man in friendship. Sacrifice must go first.
2. Fellowship proceeds on the recognition that we yield our highest affections and virtues first to God. That victim being offered is in the offerers stead, and represents man. What part of the man does God require? The very choicest part; just as He was to have the inmost vitalities and fat of the sacrifice. It means that before God can have blessed communion with man, man must give God his inmost affections and noblest powers in ready consecration; that, indeed, it is only in the act of such dedication of our highest qualities to Him God comes into fellowship with man at all. God would have refused to partake of the feast if any inferior part had been presented Him. We must bring our first energies, our purest love, if God is to sup with us and we with Him (Rev. 3:20).
3. Fellowship can only be enjoyed in connection with intervening priestly services. Aarons sons, etc. (Lev. 3:2-4). No communion, no acceptance with God apart from the mediation of Jesus.
4. Fellowship with God requires that we associate His priests with us in the feast. [Compare chap Lev. 7:14; Lev. 7:31-35.] The lessons of this enactment are
(1) Generous attention to and support of those who minister to us in holy things. We reap their spiritual things, and should show appreciation.
(2) Communion with the saints who unite with us in temple service. All fellow Christians are priests.
(3) Largeness of heart in sharing with others the blessings we enjoy. Give a better portion to them than that we retain for ourselves. Hospitality one to another without grudging (1Pe. 4:9). In a feast the host gives the best to his guests. The idea is regal. We entertain the King and His courtiers, and place the choicest part of the banquet first before the King; then the best remaining portions we serve to His attendant ministers; for ourselves, happy and honoured that we may sit down at such a banquet and entertain such guests. [See Addenda, p. 38, Blessedness of Peace.]
II SUCH PRIVILEGED COMMUNION POURTRAYS THE JOYOUS EXPERIENCE OPEN TO MAN IN CHRIST
Felicity is the prevalent sentiment in such a feast. Joy with God; joy in Jesus; joy among fellow saints. But all this blessedness is in connection with a sacrificed life. As all our felicity springs from the redemption of Jesus.
1. Gods satisfaction and delight with the choice virtues of Jesus. Christ, as our Representative, is here giving Himself to God for us, and He finds sweet savoury food in the offering (Lev. 3:11; Lev. 3:16). This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. For the inmost affections of Jesus were all supremely consecrated to His Father. Yet there was also another cause of Gods delight in Jesusthat He offered Himself as the sacrifice for mans salvation: therefore doth My Father love Me because I lay down My life. God looked on the altar, saw that to Him were yielded the best affections of His Son, and saw equally that His life was readily offered as a Peace Sacrifice for sinners, that the Father and the family might be again at one.
2. Mans blessedness in the experiences of fellowship in Christ Jesus. Peace is not all we find in Him, but happiness, joy unspeakable and full of glory: a feast of fat things. Christian life is a banquet. Eat, O my friends. And it is a feast, not upon faulty and false diet, which mocks the cravings and hopes of men, but is upon an offering without blemish, the choicest of the flock. Christ Himself is the food of the believer.
Yes. Thou art precious to my soul.
Happy they who are partakers of Christ Jesus, and live upon Him. He satisfies our mouth with good things, and so daintily feasts the hearts longings that His joy remains in us, and our joy is full.
Note: This feast of fellowship was both an expression of love by the offerer of the sacrifice, and in turn nourished that love in him by communion with God and His Church.
3. Christs own happiness in the feast of mans fellowship with God. The priest had a choice part in the sacrifice. He who is Priest over the house of God shares in this glad banquet. Himself the Victim sacrificed, He is also the mediating and partaking Priest. How does this open to view the heart of Christ: He as mediating Priest joins in the gladness of the event of communion reinstated between God and man: feasts with us as the intervening Friend, and is satisfied with the portion which is His. For can our Lord be other than satisfied with His part in the transaction? It is through His mediation that God and men feast together. And in the delighted love of the Father and the grateful happiness of man Jesus finds a rich satisfaction: it is the joy set before Him for which He endured the cross, despising the shame.
(1) Into such a feast He asks to be admitted, as He appeals at the sinners heart: Behold I stand at the door and knock; if any man will hear My voice and open the door, I will come in and sup with him and he with Me.
(2) To such a feast He comes when His saints gather at the sacramental table. With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you. This do in remembrance of Me. There am I in the midst of you.
(3) For such a feast He is preparing in the Fathers house. That supper of the Lamb was often in His thoughts when on earth (Luk. 14:15; Luk. 22:16; Luk. 22:18). He saith unto me, Write, Blessed are they which are called unto the marriage supper of the Lamb (Rev. 19:9). Joy will indeed fill the Saviours heart then; for He shall see of the travail of His soul and shall be satisfied (Isa. 53:11).
Topic: PEACE BY FULFILLING DIVINE CONDITIONS (Lev. 3:2-5, etc.)
Temporal blessings God showers down alike upon the evil and the good. Unsolicited He loads mankind daily with His benefits. But for spiritual blessings He will be inquired of. Specified means must be employed that pardon and peace may be enjoyed. The first part of the peace offering was expiatory; then came the Eucharistic feast.
I. THE OFFERING WAS TO BE CAREFULLY CHOSEN. The strongest, best and purest parts were to be kept exclusively sacred to the Lord. Everything was to be done in order, and according to minute directions.
II. THE OFFERING WAS TO BE PERSONALLY APPROPRIATED. No offering by proxy; each offerer to offer for himself with his own hands. Not enough to purpose in the heart, to have sound views and clear knowledge of what required. The act must promptly, personally be performed.
III. THE OFFERING WAS TO BE CHEERFULLY PRESENTED. (This fully shown in chap. 7.) All not to be consumed as in holocaust; the offered had anticipation of partaking with priests of residue in joyful fellowship.
Our inestimable privilege is to have fellowship with the Father and with His Son Christ Jesus, who has left to the world through His Church the Divine legacy of Peace. He is our peace, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us and God.F. W. B.
Topic: PEACE RESULTING FROM PROPITIATION (Lev. 3:1-17)
Reconciliation and restoration to God bring peace; hence the peace offering, so peculiarly significant of tranquil joy, follows the burnt and meat offerings. In this festival God, the priests, and the people partook together. It signified to complete, to make whole, and was therefore a symbol of fulness, fellowship, and friendship. In it God showed not only that He is to be ministered to by man, but also that He delights to minister to man. The great truth taught is, that reconciliation to God leads to intimate communion with Him.
I. Great freedom was allowed in selection of the Offerings. Any sacrificial animal of either sex, or of any age, might be offered, so long as it was without blemish. The worshipper could suit his own convenience, the demand made was in no way exacting or irksome. The commandments of God are not grievous: we are only expected to offer according to our ability, but what we offer must be the best we have, and offered in a right spirit. Whether we eat or drink, etc.
II. Great freedom was allowed in participation of the Offering. Part was to be presented to the Lord, part eaten by the priests, and part by the people; so that God and man, Heaven and earth, would hold festival together, in one solemn covenant. Such a condition of peace was one of the great moral wants of man, for sin had estranged man from God and thrown discord into the human family. This offering proclaimed peace on earth, goodwill to men. Christ our Peace invites us to His table to hold communion with Him, and feed by faith on the sacrifice He has provided. This life of happy communion with God in Christ is the prelude of, and preparation for, the marriage supper of the Lamb.F. W. B.
OUTLINES ON VERSES
Lev. 3:1.Theme: FAULTLESSNESS IN SACRIFICE. He shall offer it without blemish unto the Lord.
I. AS REPRESENTING THE PURITY OF HIM TO WHOM THE OFFERING WAS PRESENTED.
II. AS PRESHADOWING THE PURITY OF HIM WHOM THE OFFERING TYPIFIED.
III. AS SYMBOLISING THE PURITY DESIDERATED BY THE OFFER OF THE SACRIFICE.
Our offerings to the Lord must be complete and pureby association with the merits of Christs perfect sacrifice, and prompted by motives made pure by the indwelling of the Holy Ghost.F. W. B.
Lev. 3:2.Theme: IDENTIFICATION OF THE OFFERER WITH THE OFFERING. And he shall lay his hand upon the head of the offering, and kill it at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation (Lev. 3:2).
I. ACTUAL CONTACT.
Lay hand on, sig. (a) apprehension, (b) appropriation, (c) identification.
II. ACTUAL COMMITTAL.
And kill it, offerers own act, acknowledging he deserved to die as the victim his substitute, died. This would (a) teach the heinousness of sin that it needed the sacrifice of life, (b) beget hatred for sin upon which Jehovah thus placed Divine displeasure.
By act of faith we must lay our hand upon the sacred head of Christ, and have a personal interest in His life and death.F. W. B.
Lev. 3:3.Theme: GODS POSITIVE COMMANDS. And he shall, &c.
Gods commands to Israel peremptory. How they were to worship, what they were to sacrifice, arbitrarily stated. Though commands are imperious, people are under moral obligations to obey. No room for option or exception when precept associated with unequivocal shall. Such commands
I. EXHIBIT THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE LORD He has right to command without giving reasons or explanations. He has right to do what He pleases with His own.
II. EXERCISE THE FAITH AND PATIENCE OF THE WORSHIPPERS. To obey precepts the reasons for which were hidden would show greater confidence and resignation than were reasons seen.
III. EXALT THE OBEDIENCE OF THE LIFE. The people not required to offer that which cost them nothing, or they would have had mean ideas of worship. God demands large things of us, and blessed are they that do His commandments.F. W. B
Lev. 3:8.Theme: PEACE ASSOCIATED WITH PENITENCE AND PRAYER. He shall lay his hand upon the head of his offering.
Until sin is pardoned there can be no real peace, no real enjoyment of the Divine presence. This truth comes out in all the offerings, for every sacrifice was to be the symbol of the broken and contrite heart of the offerer. God was pleased with the sufferings of the victims slain and the savour of their burning carcasses only as they represented the self-surrender of the worshipper, and the incense of holy prayer ascending from the penitent spirit.
I. In the peace offering the offerer acknowledged his guilt. As he laid his hand upon the head of the victim at the Tabernacle door he owned that he was guilty and deserved to die. It would be a public confession of guilt and the need of atonement for offences.
II. In the peace offering the offerer transferred his guilt. God accepted a substitute for the guilty one who deserved to die. Probable that the Hebrews felt more was included in their offerings than they could then see, that they pointed to a greater sacrifice yet to be offered in Gods good time, upon whom would be laid the iniquity of us all.
The privileges associated with Peace offerings would awaken praise. The offerer would stand in the attitude of prayer, as with eyes lifted to Heaven he presented his oblation; he would be filled with praise, as in the house of the Lord he enjoyed peaceful communion. When we commune with God, let us blend penitence, prayer, and praise, remembering blessings received, anticipating blessings to come. With such sacrifices God is well pleased, and in association with them he imparts his own peace, which passeth all understanding.F W. B.
Lev. 3:5Theme: SUCCESSION IN SACRIFICES. Burn it on the altar upon the burnt sacrifice, which is upon the wood that is on the fire.
There is order established by God in
I. THE SUCCESSIVE SACRIFICIAL OFFERINGS REQUIRED.
1. First on the altar must be laid the burnt offering, which must all be burnt, for God required complete consecration of Christ in death to satisfy the fire of His holiness, the demands of His righteous law.
2. Then follows the meat offering, which signifies the presentation of the best and richest life in substitution for man. It asserted His requirement of the first and finest qualities of humanity. Christ must offer His perfect manhood in living form as an obedience offering. Which means, that when Gods holiness finds satisfaction in Christs death, Jehovah still demands the full offering of the redeemed mans living obedience.
3. The peace sacrifice then may be presented, and the man who has satisfied Justice in the death of Christ, and yielded obedience in the life of Christ, may enter into fellowship and peace through Christ. [See Addenda, p. 38, Terms of Peace.]
II. THE SUCCESSIVE SPIRITUAL ATTAINMENTS REACHED.
1. Whole surrender to God. The burnt offering required and enforced that attainment. The redeemed soul lays itself wholly on the altar, is wholly consumed in dedication to God.
2. Perfectness of character; the excellencies of obedience, pure uncorruptness of heart; the submissiveness of will. These are reached in succession, and are suggested in the meat offering.
3. Fellowship with God. Feasting in the blessedness of peace and acceptance with Him in and through Christ Jesus. O God I will praise Thee, for though Thou wast angry with me, Thine anger is turned away, and Thou comfortest me.
III. THE SUCCESSIVE REALISATIONS OF CHRISTIAN PRIVILEGE.
1. Acceptance. That is assured as the fruit of the burnt offering. It is offered for acceptance (see on Lev. 1:5), and God does accept the entire sacrifice for atonement.
2. Spiritual graces. The beauties of Christ become ours; the charms of the anointing Spirit rest on us. The frankincense, oil, salt, etc.
3. Joyous communion with God. Raised into blissful privilege, feasting with the Lord and His priests. Truly our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ.
IV. THE SUCCESSIVE RELIGIOUS OBLIGATIONS URGED.
Not fellowship and privilege first, but first entire dedication.
Then cultivation of spiritual excellencies.
Following these comes glad fellowship with heaven.
Lev. 3:16.Theme: GOD DESERVES AND DEMANDS THE BEST. All the fat is the Lords.
I. Not the mere bones of rigid formalism.
II. Not the mere sinews of strenuous observances.
III. Not the mere skin of outward profession.
IV. Not the mere blood of ardent enthusiasm, but the
V. Fatthe richest, fullest, best that we can offer: not lean, shrivelled work or worship, but the fat for the Lord, the most prime and precious we can procure. Let us give our youth and strength, our richest love and fullest fervour to Him who is worthy of all.F. W. B.
Lev. 3:17.Theme: OBEDIENCE THE TEST OF FAITH. It shall be a perpetual statute.
It would require faith to constantly obey, for the offerings would seem to be
I. AN INFLICTION OF NEEDLESS PAIN.
II. A WASTE OF VALUABLE LIFE.
III. UNEQUAL TO THE END DESIGNED:that there should be any correspondence between the physical suffering of brutes and atonement for moral guilt of man.
We cannot formulate a rationale of the great Peace offering presented in the Gospel. It is beset with formidable difficulties Faith, not reason, must lead us to the Cross, the hand of simple trust must appropriate the blessings of salvation.
Note: The CULPABILITY OF DISOBEDIENCE.
To omit obedience to the statutes of Jehovah was sin, because of transgression of His law.
Omission would spring from
(1) indifference,
(2) independence,
(3) disloyalty,
(4) rebellion. So now to invitations and commands of Gospel. Christ taught that sins of omission were culpable and condemnatory. The rich man in the parable omitted to care for Lazarus. The man who did not use his talent was punished. The wicked in the day of judgment are represented as being punished for omissions (Mat. 25:31-46).F. W. B.
ILLUSTRATIVE ADDENDA TO CHAPTER 3
SACRIFICES OF PEACE. They were either intended to testify thankfulness for blessings already received, in which view they are called thank offerings in Coverdales translation; or were else votive, being offered with prayer for future blessings. No doubt they were sometimes both in one Only the fat parts were consumed on the altar. A small portion was appropriated to the priest the rest being allowed to the offerer and his guests as an offering feast. Whence Dr. Boothroyd, following Michaelis, prefers to translate Shelamim by feast sacrifice rather than peace offering.Kitto.
PEACE OF THE GOSPEL. It is a great mercy to have the Gospel of peace, but it is far greater to have the peace of the Gospel.
BLESSEDNESS OF PEACE. If joy be love exulting, peace is joy reposing. It is love in the green pastures and beside the still waters.Dr. James Hamilton.
Father of life and light! Thou good Supreme!
Save me from folly, vanity and vice,
From every low pursuit; and feed my soul
With knowledge, conscious peace, and virtue pure,
Sacred, substantial, never-fading bliss!
THOMSONS Seasons.
ON EARTH PEACE. People are always expecting to get peace in heaven; but you know whatever peace they get there will be ready made. Whatever, of making peace they can be blest for, must be on the earth here.RUSKIN, Eagles Nest.
TERMS OF PEACE
The consciousness of faith of sins forgiven,
Of wrath appeased, of heavy guilt thrown off,
Sheds on my breast its long-forgotten peace.
L. J. HALL, Miriam.
THANKSGIVING. Praise is the rent we owe to God, and the larger the farm the larger the rent. The Lord has many fine farms from which He receives little rent. Thanksgiving is a good thing; thanks-living is better.P. HENRY.
Life work. Let not thy praises be transienta fit of music, and then the instrument hung by the wall till another gaudy day of some remarkable providence make thee take it down. God comes not guest wise to His saints house, but to dwell with them. David took this up for a life work: As long as I live I will praise thee.Gurnall.
Constant. There was a beautiful tradition among the Jews which Lancisius quotes from Philo. It is to this effect: When God had created the world, He asked the angels what they thought of the work of His hands. One of them replied that it was so vast and perfect that only one thing was wanting to it, namely that there should be created a clear, mighty and harmonious voice, which should fill all the quarters of the world incessantly with its sweet sound, thus day and night to offer thanksgiving to its Maker.F. W. FABER.
And touched their golden harps, and hymning praised
God and His works.
MILTON, Paradise Lost.
Now God be praised, that to believing souls
Gives light in darkness, comfort in despair.
Henry VI. ii. 3, 1.
Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell
d. THE PEACE OFFERING 3:117
(1) ITS VARIETIES AND RITUAL 3:117
TEXT 3:117
1
And if his oblation be a sacrifice of peace-offerings; if he offer of the herd, whether male or female, he shall offer it without blemish before Jehovah.
2
And he shall lay his hand upon the head of his oblation, and kill it at the door of the tent of meeting: and Aarons sons the priests shall sprinkle the blood upon the altar round about.
3
And he shall offer of the sacrifice of peace-offerings an offering made by fire unto Jehovah; the fat that covereth the inwards, and all the fat that is upon the inwards,
4
and the two kidneys, and the fat that is on them, which is by the loins, and the caul upon the liver, with the kidneys, shall he take away.
5
And Aarons sons shall burn it on the altar upon the burnt-offering, which is upon the wood that is on the fire: it is an offering made by fire, of a sweet savor unto Jehovah.
6
And if his oblation for a sacrifice of peace-offerings unto Jehovah be of the flock; male or female, he shall offer it without blemish.
7
If he offer a lamb for his oblation, then shall he offer it before Jehovah;
8
and he shall lay his hand upon the head of his oblation, and kill it before the tent of meeting: and Aarons sons shall sprinkle the blood thereof upon the altar round about,
9
And he shall offer of the sacrifice of peace-offerings an offering made by fire unto Jehovah; the fat thereof, the fat tail entire, he shall take away hard by the backbone; and the fat that covereth the inwards, and all the fat that is upon the inwards,
10
and the two kidneys, and the fat that is upon them, which is by the loins, and the caul upon the liver, with the kidneys, shall he take away.
11
And the priest shall burn it upon the altar: it is the food of the offering made by fire unto Jehovah.
12
And if his oblation be a goat, then he shall offer it before Jehovah:
13
And he shall lay his hand upon the head of it, and kill it before the tent of meeting; and the sons of Aaron shall sprinkle the blood thereof upon the altar round about.
14
And he shall offer thereof his oblation, even an offering made by fire unto Jehovah; the fat that covereth the inwards, and all the fat that is upon the inwards,
15
and the two kidneys, and the fat that is upon them, which is by the loins, and the caul upon the liver, with the kidneys, shall he take away.
16
And the priest shall burn them upon the altar: it is the food of the offering made by fire, for a sweet savor; all the fat is Jehovahs.
17
It shall be a perpetual statute throughout your generations in all your dwellings, that ye shall eat neither fat nor blood.
THOUGHT QUESTIONS 3:117
39.
Who decides for the worshipper what type of offering he shall bring? How is such a decision reached?
40.
Please notice at least two differences in the offerings here and those of the burnt offering, What was meant by laying hands upon the head of the animal?
41.
Who was responsible for the death of the animal? Why?
42.
What was the purpose of sprinkling the blood?
43.
Specify just what parts were to be burned. Why give these parts to God?
44.
The senses of taste, touch, smell are all of interest to God. Why?
45.
What specifically is meant by the expression without blemish?
46.
How are we to understand the expression, before Jehovah in Lev. 3:7?
47.
More fat is removed to be offered to Jehovah. Cf. Num. 18:29-32 and notice how important or valuable such is to God. Why?
48.
Why not eat fat or blood? Does it apply today? Cf. Act. 15:29.
PARAPHRASE 3:117
When anyone wants to give an offering of thanksgiving to the Lord, he may use either a bull or a cow, but the animal must be entirely without defect if it is to be offered to the Lord! The man who brings the animal shall lay his hand upon its head and kill it at the door of the Tabernacle. Then Aarons sons shall throw the blood against the sides of the altar, and shall burn before the Lord the fat that covers the inward parts, the two kidneys and the loin-fat on them, and the gall bladder. And it will give the Lord much pleasure. If a goat or sheep is used as a thank-offering to the Lord, it must have no defect and may be either a male or a femaleram or ewe, billy goat or nanny goat. If it is a lamb, the man who brings it shall lay his hand upon its head and kill it at the entrance of the Tabernacle; the priests shall throw the blood against the sides of the altar, and shall offer upon the altar the fat, the tail removed close to the backbone, the fat covering the internal organs, the two kidneys with the loin-fat on them, brings a goat as his offering to the Lord, he shall lay his hand upon its head and kill it at the entrance of the Tabernacle. The priest shall throw its blood against the sides of the altar, and shall offer upon the altar, as a burnt offering to the Lord, the fat which covers the insides, the two kidneys and the loin-fat on them, and the gall bladder. This burnt offering is very pleasing to the Lord. All the fat is Jehovahs. This is a permanent law throughout your land, that you shall eat neither fat nor blood.
THE PEACE OFFERING
3:117
The Varieties Of Peace Offerings,
The Ritual Of The Peace Offering
The Work Of The Priest
Purpose: Assurance of acceptance with God. Atonement and acceptance.
11. Lampstand, or candlestick, showing its lamps, cups, knops, and flowers.
12. Altar of incense
13. Table of showbread with its double crown and loaves.
14. The Ark of the Covenant and the mercy-seat with cherubim
COMMENT 3:117
The more closely we contemplate the offerings, the more fully do we see how that no one offering furnishes a complete view of Christ. It is only by putting all together that anything like a just idea can be formed. Each offering, as might be expected, has features peculiar to itself. The peace offering differs from the burnt offering in many points, and a clear understanding of the points in which one type differs from the others will be found to help much in the apprehension of its special import. (C. H. Macintosh) We shall be concerned about these distinctions. Let us first understand the content of each verse:
Lev. 3:1 The word oblation needs clarification. It means approach offering. All offerings were an approach to God. This then is a generic term applied to all offerings. If the approach to God had the intentions or purpose of being a peace offering a certain ritual was to be followed. If the oblation was to be a burnt offering or a sin offering another ritual was to be followed.
In the peace or thank offering both male or female from either the herd or flock and from either sheep or goats could be used. The offerer must be careful that it is without blemish.
In chapter one the question was one of acceptance; here it is peace. There can be no peace with God until we are first accepted by Him. It is of interest to notice that the word peace is plural in the Hebrew text. Since our Saviour is also our peace with God perhaps we could find various applications of His peace: (1) peace of mind; (2) peace with our neighbor; (3) peace of conscience. He has come to proclaim peace, peace, peaceperfect peace.
What shall we say of the fact that these animals could be either male or female? The purpose of the sacrifice decides the type of offering. This offering was going to be a food for the priests and the worshipper. This sacrifice was not primarily for acceptance (only a male, without blemish could provide our acceptance before God) but for the enjoyment of such acceptance. For these same reasons fowls were not used. Such would hardly be adequate for food (at least in these circumstances).
Can we see our Lord in His active obedience (male) and passive obedience (female) as our peace offering before Jehovah? Jesus walked the path of active fulfillment of the Divine will and at the same time He was submissive even when it cost Him the blood-sweat of Gethsemane.
The seventh chapter of Leviticus discusses this sacrifice again, as well as the twenty-second chapter. Lev. 22:21 emphasizes the need of physical perfectness. He who was without sin was made sin for us, that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him. Cf. Num. 18:29-32.
Lev. 3:2 The chastisement of my peace was laid on Him (Isa. 53:5). In the placing of hands upon the head of the victim we see once again the transference of sin and the making of peace; not only between Jew and Gentile, but between God and man. Hands upon the head is full of meaningbut hands are not enoughfor He made peace through the blood of His cross Col. 1:20. We do indeed have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. We have found Him and personally identified with Him and died with Him. We have found peace with God through Him.
At the door of the tabernacle the victim is slain by the offerer. He declares in this act that he is responsible. This is a confession of his own sinfulness that caused the death of this innocent sufferer. We can indeed identify ourselves, our sin and our Saviour in this action.
The blood must be applied to be efficacious. It is in the washing of our bodies that we have the promise of the sprinkling of blood (Heb. 10:22).
Lev. 3:3-4 The instructions concerning the removal of the fat to be offered to God by fire are very specific: (1) the fat which covered the entrails or the fat in the area from the stomach down to the bowels; (2) all the fat on the entrails, i.e. all the fat attached to the entrails; (3) the two kidneys, and the fat upon them, and the fat in the region of the kidneys or any and all fat in the loins; (4) the fat upon the liver. All fat in the animal is contained in a net or film-like substance. All nets of fat were to be removed, along with the kidneys. These were offered to Jehovah. How strange all this sounds to Christians several thousand years removed from the action. Upon a closer examination of these verses some of the strangeness will turn to beauty. The fat is designated by Moses as the best portion of the animal. The fat with the kidneys are offered to God. The word kidneys is perfection. The word for flanks or loins is confidences. The fat upon the liver is also translated the super-abundance of the glory. It is with these internal or hidden portions of man that God has a special interest and on which He places a special value. It has always been so, i.e. God looketh not on the outward appearance or as man looketh. God wants our thoughts, feelings, purposes, desires. We could surely say that all the fat was offered by our Saviour to God on the cross, i.e. all his inward being was given to God to make peace for us. At the same time we cannot ignore our response to His mercies. Our reasonable service is the presenting of our total inward being to Him. It does seem significant that the only organs presented to God are the kidneys. Perhaps it could be true that if He truly has them He will have claimed all the rest.
Lev. 3:5 The instructions for burning the fat of the peace offering is a little confusing because it is associated with the burnt offering. There is no need for confusion. The explanation is that the daily burnt offering was made before any peace offering, and by the nature of the burnt offering it must remain on the altar all day. The fire was continually burning upon the altarthe carcass of the burnt offering would be slow in being consumed. While the remaining portion of the victim was still burning, the priests were to burn upon the altar the fat of the peace offering. The highly inflammable nature of fat would hasten the burning,
While we yet are contemplating the acceptance offering of the lamb of God, we remember He is also our peace offering. The overlapping qualities and values of our Lords sacrifice on our behalf is a wonder to behold!
Lev. 3:6-7 There was room for a large gradation in the animals used in the sacrifice. It could be of the flock male or female, of the herd male or female, and even a lamb could be offered. The one static quality was that each offering be without blemish or perfect. Who will decide as to its perfectness? Was there certain standards of perfection for such animals? Sharp-eyed and well experienced priests no doubt were able to examine each victim as he was brought through the gate of the outer court. (See exceptions to this in Lev. 5:12-13).
Our peace offering was examined by both men and God and He was found to be without fault. I find no fault in Him has been the verdict of 2,000 years of examination.
Conscious as we must be of our imperfections in character, active and passive, in our spirit, temper, and disposition, it is well for us that we can present and plead for our acceptance the name of Him who was altogether perfectthe Lamb of God without blemish and without spot. (Newberry)
Lev. 3:8-11 The additional information in these verses has reference to a certain specie of sheep used in the East at the time of Moses. Indeed such species are still in use today. Information given by Keil and Delitzsch is of real interest here:
The fat tails which the sheep have in Northern Africa and Egypt, also in Arabia, especially Southern Arabia, and Syria, often weigh 15 lbs. or more, and small carriages on wheels are sometimes placed under them to bear their weight (Sonnini, R. ii. p. 358; Bochart, Hieroz. i. pp. 556 sqq.). It consists of something between marrow and fat. Ordinary sheep are also found in Arabia and Syria; but in modern Palestine all the sheep are of the broad-tailed species. The broad part of the tail is an excrescence of fat, from which the true tail hangs down (Robinson, Pal. II. 166). Near the rump-bone shall he (the offerer) take it (the fat tail) away, i.e. separate it from the body. We find nothing in these verses upon which we have not already commented.
Lev. 3:12-16 These verses discuss the goat as a victim for the peace offering. The instructions are identical for: (1) the presentation; (2) the laying on of the hands; (3) the killing of the victim; (4) the sprinkling of the blood; (5) the burning of the fat; and (6) the meal (although the last is not mentioned in this chapter) to the previous instructions for other victims of the peace offerings. Perhaps it is here that we should call attention to Lev. 7:11-34; Lev. 19:5-8; Lev. 22:21-25, where further instructions are given concerning the peace offering. Since we are studying the text verse by verse we shall consider these verses when we have progressed to such in order of our study. Suffice it to say here that the culmination of the peace offering was the festive-sacred meal the worshippers and the priests held together before and with the Lord. We appreciate so very much the words of S. H. Kellogg on the beautiful symbolism of the peace offering:
We can now perceive the teaching of the peace-offering for Israel. In Israel, as among all the nations, was the inborn craving after fellowship and friendship with God. The ritual of the peace-offering taught him how it was to be obtained, and how communion might be realized. The first thing was for him to bring and present a divinely-appointed victim; and then the laying of the hand upon his head with confession of sin; then, the slaying of the victim, the sprinkling of its blood, and the offering of its choicest parts to God in the altar fire. Till all this was done, till in symbol expiation had been thus made for the Israelites sin, there could be no feast which would speak of the friendship and fellowship with God. But this being first done, God now, in token of His free forgiveness and restoration to favour, invites the Israelite to a joyful feast in His own house.
What a beautiful symbol! Who can fail to appreciate its meaning when once pointed out? Let us imagine that through some fault of ours a dear friend has become estranged; we used to eat and drink at his house, but there has been none of that now for a long time. We are troubled, and perhaps seek out the one who is our friends friend and also our friend, to whose kindly interest we entrust our case, to reconcile to us the one we have offended. He has gone to mediate; we anxiously await his return; but before ever he has come back again, comes an invitation from him who was estranged, just in the old loving way, asking that we will eat with him at his house. Any one of us would understand this; we should be sure at once that the mediator had healed the breach, and that we were forgiven, and were welcome as of old to all that our friends friendship had to give.
But God is the good Friend whom we have estranged; and the Lord Jesus, His beloved Son, and our own Friend as well, is the Mediator; and He has healed the breach; having made expiation for our sin in offering His own body as a sacrifice; He has ascended into heaven, there to appear in the presence of God for us; He has not yet returned. But meantime the message comes down from Him to all who are hungering after peace with God: The feast is made; and ye all are invited; come! all things are now ready! And this is the message of the Gospel. It is the peace-offering translated into words. Can we hesitate to accept the invitation? Or, if we have sent in our acceptance, do we need to be told, as in Deuteronomy, that we are to eat with rejoicing.
Lev. 3:17 Mention is here made of prohibitions concerning fat and blood. Because of the oft discussion of this subject as related to the New Testament text of Act. 15:28-29 we offer S. H. Kelloggs discussion of this subject:
The chapter concerning the peace-offering ends (Lev. 3:16-17) with these words: All the fat is the Lords. It shall be a perpetual statute for you throughout your generations, that ye shall eat neither fat nor blood.
To this prohibition so much importance was attached that in the supplemental law of the peace-offering (Lev. 7:22-27) it is repeated with added explanation and solemn warning, thus: And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, Ye shall eat no manner of fat, of ox, or of sheep, or of goat. And the fat of the beast that dieth of itself, and the fat of that which is torn with beasts may be used for any other service: but ye shall in no wise eat of it. For whosoever eateth the fat of the beast, of which men offer an offering made by fire unto the Lord, even the soul that eateth it shall be cut off from his people. And ye shall eat no manner of blood, whether it be of fowl or of beast, in any of your dwellings. Whosoever it be that eateth any blood, that soul shall be cut off from his people.
From which it appears that this prohibition of the eating of fat referred only to the fat of such beasts as were used for sacrifice. With these, however, the law was absolute, whether the animal was presented for sacrifice, or only slain for food. It held good with regard to these animals, even when, because of the manner of their death, they could not be used for sacrifice. In such cases, though the fat might be used for other purposes, still it must not be used for food.
The prohibition of the blood as food appears from Lev. 17:10 to have been absolutely universal; it is said, Whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among them, that eateth any manner of blood, I will set My face against that soul that eateth blood, and will cut him off from among his people.
The reason for the prohibition of the eating of blood, whether in the case of the sacrificial feasts of the peace-offerings or on other occasions, is given (Lev. 17:11-12), in these words: For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh atonement by reason of the life. Therefore I said unto the children of Israel, No soul of you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger that sojourneth among you eat blood.
And the prohibition is then extended to include not only the blood of animals which were used upon the altar, but also such as were taken in hunting, thus (Lev. 3:13): And whatsoever man there be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among them, which taketh in hunting any beast or fowl that may be eaten, he shall pour out the blood thereof, and cover it with dust, as something of peculiar sanctity; and then the reason previously given is repeated with emphasis (Lev. 3:14): For as to the life of all flesh, the blood thereof is all one with the life thereof: therefore I said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh: for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof; whosoever eateth it shall be cut off.
And since, when an animal died from natural causes, or through being torn of a beast, the blood would be drawn from the flesh either not at all or but imperfectly; as further guarding against the possibility of eating blood, it is ordered (Lev. 3:15-16) that he who does this shall be held unclean: Every soul that eateth that which dieth of itself, or that which is torn of beasts, whether he be home-born or a stranger, he shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even. But if he wash them not nor bathe his flesh, then he shall bear his iniquity.
These passages explicitly state the reason for the prohibition by God of the use of blood for food to be the fact that, as the vehicle of the life, it has been appointed by Him as the means of expiation for sin upon the altar. And the reason for the prohibition of the fat is similar; namely, its appropriation for God upon the altar, as in the peace-offerings, the sin-offerings, and the guilt-offerings; all the fat is the Lords.
Thus the Israelite, by these two prohibitions, was to be continually reminded, so often as he partook of his daily food, of two things: by the one, of atonement by the blood as the only ground of acceptance; and by the other, of Gods claim on the man redeemed by the blood, for the consecration of his best. Not only so, but by the frequent repetition, and still more by the heavy penalty attached to the violation of these laws, he was reminded of the exceeding importance that these two things had in the mind of God. If he eat the blood of any animal claimed by God for the altar, he should be cut off from his people; that is, outlawed, and cut off from all covenant privilege as a citizen of the kingdom of God in Israel. And even though the blood were that of the beast taken in the chase, still ceremonial purification was required as the condition of resuming his covenant position.
Nothing, doubtless, seems to most Christians of our day more remote from practical religion than these regulations touching the fat and the blood which are brought before us with such fullness in the law of the peace-offering and elsewhere. And yet nothing is of more present-day importance in this law than the principles which underlie these regulations. For as with type, so with antitype. No less essential to the admission of the sinful man into that blessed fellowship with a reconciled God, which the peace-offering typified, is the recognition of the supreme sanctity of the precious sacrificial blood of the Lamb of God; no less essential to the life of happy communion with God, is the ready consecration of the best fruit of our life to Him.
Surely, both of these, and especially the first, are truths for our time. For no observing man can fail to recognize the very ominous fact that a constantly increasing number, even of professed preachers of the Gospel, in so many words refuse to recognize the place which propitiatory blood has in the Gospel of Christ, and to admit its pre-eminent sanctity as consisting in this, that it was given on the altar to make atonement for our souls. Nor has the present generation out-grown the need of the other reminder touching the consecration of the best to the Lord. How many there are, comfortable, easy-going Christians, whose principleif one might speak in the idiom of the Mosaic lawwould rather seem to be, ever to give the lean to God, and keep the fat, the best fruit of their life and activity, for themselves! Such need to be most urgently and solemnly reminded that in spirit the warning against the eating of the blood and the fat is in full force. It was written of such as should break this law, that soul shall be cut off from his people. And so in the Epistle to the Hebrews (Heb. 10:26-29) we find one of its solemn warnings directed to those who count this blood of the covenant, the blood of Christ, an unholy (i.e. common) thing, as exposed by this, their undervaluation of the sanctity of the blood, to a sorer punishment than overtook him that set at naught Moses law, even the retribution of Him who said, Vengeance is Mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.
And so in this law of the peace-offerings, which ordains the conditions of the holy feast of fellowship with a reconciled God, we find these two things made fundamental in the symbolism: full recognition of the sanctity of the blood as that which atones for the soul; and the full consecration of the redeemed and pardoned soul to the Lord. So was it in the symbol; and so shall it be when the sacrificial feast shall at last receive its most complete fulfillment in the communion of the redeemed with Christ in glory. There will be no difference of opinion then and there, either as to the transcendent value of that precious blood which made atonement, or as to the full consecration which such a redemption requires from the redeemed.
FACT QUESTIONS 3:117
51.
The more fully or closely we contemplate the offerings, the more fully do we see what?
52.
What does the word oblation mean?
53.
What is another designation for the peace offering?
54.
Name three animals that could be used in the peace offering.
55.
The major emphasis or meaning of the burnt offering was one of _____; in this offering the emphasis is one of _____.
56.
What meaning can we give to the fact that the Hebrew word for peace is in the plural form?
57.
What significance is there in the offering of either a male or female?
58.
Name the six steps in the total ritual of the peace offering.
59.
Discuss the beautiful symbolism in the laying on of hands and the shedding of blood.
60.
Show how Heb. 10:22 relates to this chapter in Leviticus.
61.
Name the four areas where fat was to be found and removed.
62.
What words or designations indicate the value of the fat and the kidneys? Explain.
63.
What is meant in Lev. 3:5 in the reference to the burnt offering?
64.
The one static quality to be found in all the varieties of sacrifices was what?
65.
The particular breed of sheep had a meaning in this sacrifice. What was it?
66.
Can we learn anything typical from the offering of a goat as a peace offering?
67.
Describe the symbolism of the meal eaten in connection with the peace offering.
68.
Is it all right to eat blood or fat today?
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
III.
(1) A sacrifice of peace offering.The peace offering of which this chapter treats, consisted of two kinds, the peace offering from the herd (Lev. 3:1-5), and the peace offering from the flock (Lev. 3:6-15). As in the case of the burnt offering (Lev. 1:3), the ox is mentioned first, because it is most costly and more important.
Whether it be a male.Whilst in the case of the burnt offering (Lev. 1:3; Lev. 1:10) the male only was legal, there is no distinction of sex here, nor is there any limitation of age. All that was required was that it should be without any organic defect.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
THE PEACE OFFERING.
1. Sacrifice of peace offering Although this is not spoken of till after the giving of the decalogue, Exo 20:24, the manner of the mention then made implies that it was a customary offering. Hence we have styled it traditional. It is chiefly eucharistic, with the subordinate notion of propitiation, as will be seen in the laying of the hand upon the victim and in the sprinkling of the blood. Hence the Seventy render it , “a sacrifice of salvation,” implying that it restores peace. But since no distinct reference is made to sin or to its priestly atonement, as in the sin offering, (Lev 4:20,) we have called it a thanksgiving offering of one in the enjoyment of the peace afforded by a clear conscience. This is corroborated by the fact that it was to be eaten by the offerer and his friends in a festive banquet. It was the vehicle of communion with Jehovah and with those who feared his name.
Of the herd See note on Lev 1:2.
Male or female The whole burnt offering, the type of Christ, was a male victim.
Without blemish See note on Lev 1:3.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
The Peace Sacrifice From The Herd ( Lev 3:1-5 ).
Lev 3:1
‘And if his oblation be a sacrifice of peace-offerings; if he offer of the herd, whether male or female, he shall offer it without blemish before Yahweh.’
A sacrifice of peace offerings could be either male or female, but it was to be without blemish. Later it will be accepted that a voluntary free-will offering could have a slight ‘natural’ deformity, but not any other kind of imperfection (Lev 22:23). This did not apply to an offering made in connection with a vow. However even such a slightly imperfect sacrifice must still be generally without blemish. Here the sacrifice is of oxen.
The relaxing of the restriction about males was clearly practical, otherwise the large feasts would have mopped up the males and left a huge surplus of females which could not be eaten. The females, however, were required in larger numbers for they provided milk, and replacements. The males provided life, the females nurtured it.
And we should note that while Israel were living ‘in the camp’ and therefore within easy reach of the tabernacle, no ox, sheep or goat, apart from those offered as offerings, could be killed either in or out of the camp without it being brought to the door of the tabernacle and dealt with as a peace sacrifice (Lev 17:1-7). It was therefore necessary that peace sacrifices could be of either sex. This principle of bringing all within the camp was in order to prevent the danger of surreptitious sacrifices in the wilderness to demons (Lev 17:7). It kept everything above board.
Lev 3:2
‘And he shall lay his hand on the head of his oblation, and kill it at the door of the tent of meeting, and Aaron’s sons the priests shall sprinkle the blood on the altar round about.’
The same general procedures follow as for the whole burnt offering. The laying on of the hand, the killing at the door of the tent of meeting (in the court of the tabernacle), and the sprinkling of the blood on the altar round about, as with the whole burnt offering where it was for atonement. Here we have identification with the sacrifice, the shedding of the blood, and its application for atonement. In this lay the atoning aspect. For the fact of recognised atonement in the peace sacrifice see Exo 29:33 with Exo 29:28. (It will be noted throughout that it is apparent that certain things are assumed in each differing offering and sacrifice, the details being carried over from other offerings and not stated in all cases. To get the whole picture we have to combine the differing descriptions, while noting the explicit differences and positively stated exceptions. Note how the detail here concentrates on only one aspect of the peace sacrifice, its Godward element. The partaking of the sacrifice by the laity will be dealt with later under ‘the law of the sacrifice of the peace offering’ (Lev 7:11-21)
Lev 3:3-4
‘And he shall offer of the sacrifice of peace-offerings an offering made by fire to Yahweh, the fat that covers the innards, and all the fat that is on the innards, and the two kidneys, and the fat that is on them, which is by the loins, and the covering of fat (or covering membrane) on the liver, with the kidneys, shall he take away.’
Note the details of what is to be burned on the altar. Instead of all the sacrifice being cut up and placed on the altar it is the fat that covers the vital parts, together with those vital parts; the fat surrounding the innards, the fat that covers the innards, the two kidneys with the fat that surrounds them, and the covering of the liver. The kidneys and the liver represented, in their eyes, the seat of the emotions and the will. They represented how it lived, and moved and thought. They were thus not to partake of the beasts essential living being, nor of its protecting fat. The life in the blood, the fat and the vital sources of being were all therefore forbidden. There must be no thought of man drawing on the beast’s essential life and strength. The meat of the animal was not a part of the offering, for it was not seen as part of the animal’s essential life. It could therefore be eaten by participants.
Lev 3:5
‘And Aaron’s sons shall burn it on the altar on the whole burnt-offering, which is on the wood that is on the fire. It is an offering made by fire, of a pleasing odour to Yahweh.’
What has been selected out is now to be burned on the altar ‘on the whole burnt offering’. The assumption is made in this example that the sacrifice is made after a whole burnt offering. In that case the whole burnt offering is offered first and the peace sacrifice placed on top. Possibly when an ox was being offered as a peace sacrifice it was recognised that it would be part of such a combination of offerings, or possibly this is like the north side of the altar in Lev 1:11, mentioned once but intended to be seen as having wider application.
Others see the reference as to the morning whole burnt offering which would already have been offered on the altar, so that the peace sacrifice is laid on top of it. It does not require new preparation. It is a subsidiary sacrifice.
Again the offering is a fire-offering and a pleasing odour to Yahweh, as with the whole burnt offering and the grain offering, (but not so much with the sin and guilt offering). They deal with sin generally but not specifically, for their central purpose is dedication, tribute, gratitude and the demonstration of love, and in the case of this sacrifice the making of peace with God and men. The only point being that even with these atonement is necessary for their acceptance. In this case the meat is man’s (shared with the priests and their families) but the vital life of the animal is God’s.
While this was the least of the offerings, to those who are in Christ it speaks of the most glorious of experiences, a side which no other offering speaks of. For Ephesians tells us that He is our peace (Eph 2:14). He has made His people one with each other by reconciling us to Himself in one body on the cross having slain both the enmity between God and man, and the enmity between all men when they come to Him, whether Jew or Gentile. All are made one in Christ.
And as men came to the tabernacle with joyous hearts to offer their peace offerings, together with their other offerings, (all of which point us to Christ), and to rejoice together in fellowship both with God and with one another, partaking of the meat of their peace sacrifices with joy, so can we find peace through Him and through His death on the cross for us, rejoicing together with all who come to partake of Him and feasting on Christ, looking to Him as the bread of life (Joh 6:35), feasting on Him by coming to Him daily in faith and eating and drinking of Him through His word, and receiving of His life and His fullness as we allow Him to live His life through us (Joh 4:10; Joh 4:13-14, see also Gal 2:20; Eph 3:17-20).
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Of the Herd
v. 1. And if his oblation be a sacrifice of peace-offering, if he offer it of the herd, whether it be a male or female, he shall offer it without blemish before the Lord. v. 2. And he shall lay his hand upon the head of his offering, v. 3. And he shall offer of the sacrifice of the peace-offering an offering made by fire unto the Lord, v. 4. and the two kidneys, and the fat that is on them, which is by the flanks, v. 5. And Aaron’s sons shall burn it,
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
EXPOSITION
THE PEACE OFFERING. The peace offering, though the instructions here given respecting it precede those relating to the sin offering (for a reason to be stated hereafter), is the last in order of the sacrifices when they were all presented together. First, the sin offering taught the need of, and symbolically wrought, propitiation and atonement; next the burnt offering represented the absolute surrender of man’s will to God’s will; then the meat offering, by its gift of homage, declared the loyal submission of the offerer; and then followed the peace offering, symbolizing the festive joy which pervades the souls of those who are in communion with God. the essential characteristic of the peace offering is the feast upon the sacrifice, participated in symbolically by God (by means of the part consumed on the altar, and the part eaten by his ministers) and actually by the offerer and his companions. It served as a memorial to the Israelites of the institution of the covenant between God and themselves (a covenant in the East being ordinarily ratified by the parties to it eating together), and reminded them of the blessings thence derived, which naturally called forth feelings of joyous thankfulness; while it prefigured the peace wrought for man by the adoption in Christ, through which he has communion with God.
Lev 3:1
Peace offering, Zebach shelamim, “sacrifice of peace offerings.” The singular, shelem, occurs once (Amo 5:22). The conditions to be fulfilled by a Jew who offered a peace offering were the following:
1. He must bring either
(1) a young bull or cow, or
(2) a young sheep of either sex, or
(3) a young he-goat or she-goat.
2. He must offer it in the court of the tabernacle.
3. In offering it he must place, or lean, his hand upon its head.
4. He must kill it at the door of the tabernacle.
5. He must provide three kinds of cakes similar to those offered in the meat offering, trod leavened bread (Lev 7:11-13).
The priest had:
1. To catch the blood, and strike the sides of the altar with it, as in the burnt sacrifices.
2. To place upon the burnt offering, smoldering upon the altar, all the internal fat of the animal’s body, together with the kidneys enveloped in it, and, in the case of the sheep, the fat tails, for consumption by the fire.
3. To offer one of each of the three different kinds of unleavened cakes, and one loaf of the leavened bread, as a heave offering.
4. To wave the breast of the animal backwards and forwards, and to heave the leg or haunch upwards and downwards, in token of consecration (see notes on Le Lev 7:14, Lev 7:30, Lev 7:31).
5. To take for his own eating, and that of his brethren the priests, the three cakes and loaf and haunch that had been heaved and waved.
6. To return the rest of the animal, and the remaining cakes and loaves, to the offerer, to serve as a feast for him and his, to be eaten the same or the next clay, in the court of the tabernacle. The lesson taught by the peace off, ring was the blessedness of being in union with God as his covenant people, and the duty and happiness of exhibiting a joyous sense of this relation by celebrating a festival meal, eaten reverently and thankfully in the house of God, a part of which was given to God’s priests, and a part consumed symbolically by God himself. The burnt offering had typified self-surrender; the meat offering, loyal submission; the peace offering typified the joyous cheerfulness of those who, having in a spirit of perfect loyalty surrendered themselves to God, had become his children, and were fed at the very board at which he deigned symbolically to partake. The most essential part of the meat offering was the presentation; of the burnt offering, the consumption of the victim on the altar; of the peace offering the festive meal upon the sacrifice. The combined burnt and meat offering was the sacrifice of one giving himself up to God; the peace offering, that of one who, having given himself up to God, is realizing his communion with him. In this respect the peace offering of the old dispensation foreshadows the Lord’s Supper in the new dispensation. Several other names have been proposed for the peace offering, such as thank offering, salvation offering, etc. No name is more suitable than peace offering, but the word must be understood not in the sense of an offering to bring shout peace, but an offering of those who arc in a state of peace, answering to the Greek word , rather than to the Latin word pacifica. “A state of peace anti friendship with God was the basis and sine qua non to the presentation of a shelem, and the design of that presentation, from which its name was derived, was the realization, establishment, verification, and enjoyment of the existing relations of peace, friendship, fellowship, and blessedness” (Kurtz, ‘Sacrificial Worship’).
Lev 3:3, Lev 3:4
“There were four parts to be burned upon the altar:
(1) the fat that covereth the inwards, i.e; the large net, omentum, , caul, or adipose membrane found in mammals, attached to the stomach and spreading over the bowels, and which in the ruminants abounds with fat;
(2) all the fat which is upon the inwards, i.e; the fat attached to the intestines, and which could be peeled off;
(3) the two kidneys, and the fat that is on them, which is by the flanks, or loins, i.e; the kidneys and all the fat connected with them; the kidneys are the only thing to be burnt except the fat;
(4) the smaller net, omentum minus, or caul above the liver, which stretches on one side to the region of the kidneys, hence on the kidneys; = by them, not with them’ (Gardiner).
Lev 3:5
Upon the burnt sacrifice. The peace offering is to be placed upon the burnt offering previously laid upon the fire. Symbolically and actually the burnt offering serves as the foundation of the peace offering. Self-surrender leads to peace; and the self-sacrifice of Christ is the cause of the peace subsisting between God and man.
Lev 3:9
The whole rump should no doubt be the whole tail, consisting chiefly of fat, and always regarded as a great delicacy in the East (see Herod; 3:113; Thompson, ‘Land and the Book,’ page 97). The burning of the fat tail upon the altar, together with the internal fat, is the only point in which the ritual to be used when offering a sheep (Lev 3:6-11) differs from that used in offering a bull or cow (Lev 3:1-5), or a goat (Lev 3:12-16).
Lev 3:11
It is the food of the offering made by fire unto the Lord; literally, It is the bread of the offering by fire to the Lord. The idea of the peace offering being that of a meal at God’s board, the part of the animal presented to God upon the altar is regarded as his share of the feast, and is called his food or bread. Cf. Rev 3:20, “I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.”
Lev 3:17
Eat neither fat nor blood. These are forbidden to be eaten, as belonging to God. The fat, that is, the internal fat, is his portion in the common feast of the peace offering, and the blood is presented to him in all the animal sacrifices, as the material vehicle of life (see Le Lev 7:22-27). The remaining regulations as to the various sorts of the peace offerings, the priests’ portions of them, and the festive meal on the sacrifices, are given in Le Lev 7:11-34.
HOMILETICS
Lev 3:1-17
The peace offering
was not a sacrifice denoting self-devotion like the burnt-offering, nor a tender of homage like the meat offering, but a feast upon a sacrifice, which God and man symbolically joined in partaking of. The offering consisted of an animal and unleavened cakes and (generally) leavened bread, of which a share was given to God’s altar and priests on the one hand, and to the offerer and his friends on the other. It represented the blessedness and joyousness of communion between God and man. “The character of these feasts cannot be mistaken. It was that of joyfulness tempered by solemnity, of solemnity tempered by joyfulness. The worshipper had submitted to God an offering from his property; he now received back from him a part of the dedicated gift, and thus experienced anew the same gracious beneficence which had enabled him to appear with his wealth before the altar. He therefore consumed that portion with feelings of humility and thankfulness; but he was bidden at once to manifest those blissful sentiments by sharing the meat, not only with his household, which thereby was reminded of the Divine protection and mercy, but also with his needy fellow-beings, whether laymen or servants of the temple. Thus these beautiful repasts were stamped both with religious emotion and human virtue. The relation of friendship between God and the offerer which the sacrifice exhibited, was expressed and sealed by the feast, which intensified that relation into one of an actual covenant; the momentary harmony was extended to a permanent union. And these notions could not be expressed more intelligibly, at least to an Eastern people, than by a common meal, which to them is the familiar image of friendship and communion, of cheerfulness and joy” (Kalisch).
I. IT WAS A FEDERAL FEAST, REMINDING THE ISRAELITES OF THE INSTITUTION OF the COVENANT. In early times the method of making a covenant was dividing animals in halves and passing between them (see Gen 15:9, Gen 15:10; Jer 34:18, Jer 34:19), or otherwise offering them in sacrifice (Gen 8:20; Gen 15:9; Psa 1:5), and then feasting together.
When Abraham’s servant; asked for Rebekah for his master, he refused to eat and drink until he had made his agreement (Gen 24:33); but after it was completed, “they did eat and drink, he and the men that were with him” (Gen 24:54). Jacob held a solemn feast after he and Laban had made a covenant together (Gen 31:54). The feast upon the peace offerings, whether offered by the whole congregation or by individuals, served as a memorial of the covenant made between God and their fathers (see Exo 24:5, where the name peace offering is first used), and it made rejoice in being God’s peculiar people in union and communion with him.
II. IT LOOKED FORWARD AS WELL AS BACKWARDS. Like the Passover, it at once commemorated an historical event and prefigured a blessing to come. The Passover looked backwards to the deliverance from Egypt, and forward to “Christ our passover sacrificed for us;” and in like manner the peace offering feast commemorated the making of the covenant, and prefigured the blessed state of communion to be brought about by the sacrifice of the cross. Communion is typified and proved in the New Testament as well as the Old by eating and drinking together (Luk 14:15; Act 10:41; Rev 19:9).
III. SACRIFICE IN RELATION TO CHRISTIANS. We have no sin offering to offer. The full, perfect, and sufficient Sacrifice for sins was made once for all upon the cross; we have only to appropriate the merits of that one offering by faith. Nor have we a burnt offering to offer. The full surrender of himself by a perfect Man was once for all made in the Garden of Gethsemane and on Calvary; we can but follow the great Example. But we may still offer the meat offering, in a spiritual sense, by giving the service which declares us to he faithful subjects of God; and we may spiritually offer the peace offering, whenever with grateful hearts we offer praise and thanksgiving to God for having brought us into union and communion with himself.
IV. THE HOLY COMMUNION IS the SPECIAL MEANS OF OUR EXHIBITING THE JOYOUS SENSE OF BEING THE CHILDREN OF GOD. It is not a sin offering, being neither a repetition nor a continuation, but a commemoration, of the great Sin Offering of the cross; it is not, therefore, propitiatory. Neither is it a burnt offering, for Christ’s self-surrender cannot be reiterated or renewed, but only commemorated. But it answers to the meat offering, inasmuch as in it we offer our alms and “the creatures of bread and wine” as tokens of our loyalty, and receive back in requital” the strengthening and refreshing of our souls by the Body and Blood of Christ.” And it is a peace offering, for therein we feast at God’s board, exhibiting our joyful thankfulness for having been admitted into covenant with him, offering “our sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving,” and rejoicing in the assurance thus given us “that we are very members incorporate in the mystical body of” Christ our Lord.
V. THE BLESSEDNESS OF A SENSE OF PEACE WITH GOD. First, we must feel the need of reconciliation, and a desire to rid ourselves of the obstacles in the way of it. Then we must go to Christ to have our sins nailed to his cross; and thus, “being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ” (Rom 5:1), “and the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall keep our hearts and minds through Christ Jesus” (Php 4:7), “and the God of peace shall be with us” (Php 4:9).
HOMILIES BY R.M. EDGAR
Lev 3:1-17
Fellowship with God and man as illustrated in the peace offering
also Lev 7:11-21, Lev 7:28-34; Lev 19:6-8; Lev 22:29, Lev 22:30; of 1Jn 1:6, 1Jn 1:7; Joh 6:33. We have found in the burnt offering the principle of entire personal consecration, and in the meat offering that of consecrated life-work. We have seen how these have their perfect fulfillment only in the case of Jesus Christ, while in other cases they are preceded by an acknowledgment of sin and shortcoming, and of acceptance as coming through another. In the peace offering we have a further stage of religious experience. Part of the sacrifice, whatever it may be, is binned on the altar, part is assigned to the priests, and part is returned to the offerer, to constitute the staple of a social feast. Moreover, the portion laid upon the altar is expressly called “the bread of God” ( ), Joh 6:11. Hence the idea of the offering is that God and his mediating priests and his sacrificing servants are all partaking of the one animal, the one food; that is to say, are all in fellowship. This is the crown of religious experienceconscious fellowship with God and with one another. It is what John refers to when he says, “If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth: but if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin” (1Jn 1:6, 1Jn 1:7).
I. IN HOLDING FELLOWSHIP WITH GOD AND MAN LARGE LIBERTY OF SELECTION IS ALLOWED. The animal presented might be a female or a male, and even, in the case of a free-will offering, an animal might be presented which had something superfluous (Lev 22:23). For, if fellowship is to be expressed, then, provided God is presented with what is perfect, what remains to represent man’s share in the fellowship might fairly enough be imperfect. This wider range of selection emphasizes surely the fact that we may hold fellowship with God through any legitimate thing. We shall presently indicate the subject-matter of fellowship with God; meanwhile it is well to notice the large selection allowed.
II. IT IS A PRELIMINARY OF FELLOWSHIP WITH GOD TO ACKNOWLEDGE SIN AND RECEIVE ACCEPTANCE THROUGH A SUBSTITUTE. God’s rights are thus respected and acknowledged as our Moral Governor. To venture into the charmed circle of fellowship without the benefit of the bloodshedding is to presume before God. Hence the peace offering was done to death, and its blood sprinkled on the altar before the feast began. The fellowship with God, which has not been preceded on the part of sinners like ourselves by confession of sin and acceptance, is sure to be hollow at the best.
III. IN ANY FELLOWSHIP WITH GOD WE MUST RECOGNIZE HIS RIGHT TO THE BEST PORTION OF THE FEAST. The priest was directed to take the fat that covereth the inwards, and all the fat that is upon the inwards, with the kidneys and the lobe of the liver, and, in case of a sheep, the tail of fat, and he was to burn all these upon the altar of burnt offering, in the ashes of the burnt offering. This was recognizing God’s right to the best portionto the flos carnis, the “tit-bits,” as we would call them. Now, it is only natural to suppose that, whatever be the subject-matter of our fellowship with God he will enter more fully into the fellowship and make more of it than we can do. This will be more apparent when we notice in the sequel the different legitimate subjects of fellowship.
IV. IN FELLOWSHIP WITH ONE ANOTHER, MOREOVER, WE MUST RECOGNIZE THE POSSIBILITY OF OTHERS ENTERING INTO the SUBJECT MORE FULLY THAN OURSELVES. The priestly class had the wave breast and heave leg assigned to them as their share. Next to God’s portion, these were the best portions of the beast. It indicated plainly the liberal scale of “ministerial support” which God would foster, and it prompted the self-denial of true fellowship. For a feast is a poor thing in which the host retains the best things for himself. His pleasure should be to confer the best on others. For the time being he literally “esteems others better than himself.”
V. LET US NOW INDICATE THE LEGITIMATE SUBJECT–MATTERS FOR FELLOWSHIP WHICH ARE TYPIFIED IN the PEACE OFFERINGS. Here, then, we have three sets of individuals partaking of the one organic wholeGod on his altar, his mediating priests at the tabernacle, and the offerer and his friends. What does the organic whole represent? And the only answer is, what God and man can have fellowship about. This evidently includes a very wide range indeed.
1. Jesus Christ. He is the great subject-matter of fellowship as between God and man, and between man and man. Hence he is called “the bread of God” which came down from heaven, the bread on which, so to speak, God feeds, as well as the bread he gives to nourish the world. If we think for a moment of the supreme delight which God the Father takes in his well-beloved Son, it is only faintly imaged by the portions placed upon the altar. What fellowship must God have in looking down upon his Son dedicated to life and death to redeem and sustain a sinful race! Indeed, we cannot enter into such an unparalleled experience; no wonder it should be said, “All the fat is the Lord’s.” Yet this does not prevent us on our part from feasting joyfully and by faith upon Jesus. He becomes the subject-matter of our fellowship and joy.
2. God’s Word. This is another subject-matter of fellowship. How often does God use it in communicating with our souls! and is it not the choicest phraseology we can find in returning his fellowship through prayer? How much more, besides, does God see in the Word, and get out of it, than we do! If the crucible of criticism is only revealing the splendours of the Word, how much more must God see in it! “Thy word is very pure, therefore thy servants love it.”
3. Ourselves. For fellowship is having something in common with another. If, then, we are altogether consecrated to God, if we say from the heart, “Lord, we are thine; undertake for us,” we become, so to speak, the medium of fellowship as between God and us. God’s delight in us is beyond conception. “The Lord taketh pleasure in them that fear him, in them that hope in his mercy.” And, as we realize God’s right and delight in us, life becomes a joyful feast to us. The exercise of all our powers becomes a conscious joy, a feast of love, and all around us are the better for our being.
4. Every legitimate subject or engagement. For all may be made subject-matter of fellowship with God. Nothing worth living for but may be made the medium of communion with him. All learning will prove more delightful if undertaken with God. All social engagements will prove more enjoyable if spent with God. Every occupation, in fact, becomes increasingly blissful in proportion to our fellowship with God in it. It is the feast of life: he sups with us, and enables us to sup with him (Rev 3:20).
5. Every blessing received and vow registered. For this peace offering was either the expression of praise for some mercy received or the covenant-sign of some fresh resolution. It corresponded very largely to our Eucharistic celebrations. Just as in feasting upon the symbols of our Saviour’s dying love we hold fellowship with God and with each other in thinking of all we have received and all we now resolve, so was it in the older feast. The offerer, as he entertained his friends, rejoiced in the goodness he had got from God, and pledged himself in gratitude. The peace offering thus expresses the truth regarding the fellowship possible between God and man, and between the brotherhood.R.M.E.
HOMILIES BY S.R. ALDRIDGE
Lev 3:1-5
A general view offerings.
A supplementary account of the manner in which the peace offerings are to be presented unto the Lord is contained in Lev 7:1-38. Reserving fuller distinct consideration of them till our arrival there, it may be instructive now to derive some general lessons from a comparison between this present chapter and the preceding chapters, which tell us of the burnt and meat offerings.
I. EACH SEASON AND CIRCUMSTANCE HAS ITS APPROPRIATE OFFERING. Different names are bestowed upon the offerings. A general name for all is corban, a gift, a means of approach. It may be “a burnt offering” (Lev 1:3), significant of entire dedication; or “an offering of an oblation” (Lev 2:1), a present of flour or grains, an acknowledgment of God’s goodness, and an expression of desire to obtain his good will; or “a sacrifice of peace” (Lev 3:1), denoting a wish to live in concord with Jehovah, recognizing his will and enjoying his favour. Thus the devout Israelite could never be without a fitting means of approach, whatever his state of mind or whatever the crisis in his life. So we may always have something to offer our heavenly Father, whether in suffering or health, in adversity or prosperity, in age or youth, desiring increased sanctification, or blessing, or usefulness, whether thankful for the past or requesting grace for the future. Even the one atonement of Jesus Christ, like a prism that exhibits different colours according to our position, may appear a diversified offering, according as the pressing need of the moment may seem to be deliverance from wrath, peace, happiness, self-dedication, temporal prosperity, or the light of God’s countenance.
II. BY THE DIFFERENCE IN OFFERINGS GOD SEEMS TO DESIRE TO AWAKEN AND DEVELOP DIFFERENT MORAL SENTIMENTS. Our chequered experience has its part to fulfill in calling into play every faculty of the mind and spirit. God likes a good “all-round” character, strong at all points, and only exercise can secure this. He would have his people attend to all the requirements of the Christian life, to manifest all the virtues, knowledge and faith, gratitude and hope, patience and vigour. We must not deem any voyage or journey superfluous; no accident but may benefit us; the holiness meeting, the evangelistic service, the workers’ conference,each may be profitable in turn.
III. ONE OFFERING DOES NOT INTERFERE WITH THE PRESENTATION OF ANOTHER OF A DIFFERENT KIND. In Lev 7:5 we read that the fat of the peace offering is placed upon the burnt offering, probably upon the remains of the morning sacrifice. So that the one becomes a foundation for the other, and clashing is obviated. The sacrifice of the congregation does not prevent the sacrifice of the individual, nor does the general offering prove a hindrance to the special. Family prayer is no obstacle to private supplication, nor does the stated worship of the sanctuary exclude extraordinary gatherings. The fear of some good people lest regular meditation and service should grow formal and check any outburst of enthusiasm, or any sudden prompting to special effort, is seen to be groundless.
IV. CERTAIN REGULATIONS ARE COMMON TO ALL OFFERINGS. Burning on the altar belongs to bloody and unbloody sacrifices, death and sprinkling of blood of necessity only to the former. In every case the offering must be of the best of its kind, if an animal “without blemish,” if of grain “fine flour.” What we say or do for God should be with our might; in whatever service for him we engage, it must be with full affection and earnest zeal. And every sacrifice required the mediation of a priest. Christ must be the inspiration of our acts, the way of acceptance consecrating all our gifts of money, strength, and time. By him we die (as did the sentient victim) to the world, by him we live to the glory of God.S.R.A.
Lev 3:16, Lev 3:17
Jehovah’s portion.
As the Author of life and the Giver of all bounty, God might have claimed the whole of every sacrifice. But he discriminated between the parts of the victim, sometimes reserving for himself the greater share, at other times only a small proportion of that presented to him. In the peace offering there was selected for the altar, as God’s perquisite, the “fat” of the animal, and the remainder went to the priests and the offerer.
I. LEARN THAT NOT THE MEANEST BUT THE CHOICEST PORTIONS MUST BE RESERVED FOR GOD‘S SERVICE. Low conceptions of his majesty and perfection lead to such religious observance as is an insult rather than an honour. To defer reading the Scriptures or prayer till the mind and body are fatigued, is an infraction of this rule. Let our freshest moments, our sweetest morsels of thought and power, be set apart for the Lord! And similarly, ask not, How near can I walk to the dividing line between the Church and the world? or, Which of my amusements can I with least self-denial renounce in order to do his will? May we not behold the same lesson inculcated in the distinction indicated in this chapter, between a peace and a burnt offering? The latter, being wholly devoted to the Lord, must consist of a male victim; the former, intended principally for the participation of the offerers, may be male or female (Lev 3:1). It cannot be right, then, to imagine that any qualifications will suffice for entire consecration to God’s work. Ministers and missionaries should be numbered amongst men of highest intellect and intensest spirituality.
II. SEE HOW GOD ACCEPTS THE OFFERINGS OF HIS CREATURES AS THE MATERIALS FOR HIS DELIGHT AND GLORY. The burnt fat is “food” for the fire offering, and is termed in another place, the “bread of God.” It becomes “a sweet savour” that is, eminently pleasing to the Holy One. In the word “food” we discern the purport of the peace offering as a sacrificial meal, in which, by returning to God what he had previously bestowed, the worshipper:
1. Acknowledged his indebtedness and thanks.
2. Was made a guest at the table of the Lord, inasmuch as he ate part of the animal that was “food for the fire offering;” and
3. Had all his other provisions sanctified for the sustenance of life, being allowed to consume the entire portions of animals not fit for sacrifice.
III. RECOLLECT THE OBLIGATORINESS OF DIVINE STATUTES.
1. They prohibit as well as command. “Thou shalt not” occupies as prominent a position in the Decalogue as “Thou shalt.” Not only does man need both to try him (as with our first parents) and direct him, but one really involves the other. Observe that what man might not consume himself might be properly consumed on the altar; so the adoration and. unquestioning fidelity that are out of place in reference to any finite beings, are becoming in relation to God.
2. They are equally binding on all generations. They respect us as well as our fathers, and herein the laws of God differ from the mutable proclamations of human lawgivers. The precepts of God only change with a new dispensation. This is the meaning of the word “perpetual.” There is a sense, indeed, in which no Divine statute alters, being continued in spirit though the letter may have varied.
3. They enter into all phases of life. The prohibition was to be acted upon in “the dwellings” as well as at the tabernacle. Let us not make too great a distinction between the homage of the house of God and the home or the workshop and the factory! It is the characteristic of the gospel times to have the Law written on the heart, so that we carry it with us wherever we go. Thus are we prevented from sinning against God.S.R.A.
HOMILIES BY J.A. MACDONALD
Lev 3:1-5
The peace offering.
We may get a clear conception of the peace offering by noticing the points of difference between it and the burnt offering described in the first chapter of this book.
I. IT DIFFERS IN ITS TITLE.
1. The burnt offering is in the Hebrew called () olah.
(1) This term comes from () alah, to ascend. The reason is that the whole animal was converted, by the action of the fire of the altar, into flame and sparks, vapour and smoke, in which forms it rose from the altar, and as it were ascended to God.
(2) It described the completeness in which Christ offered himself to God in the flames of the “spirit of burning” (Heb 9:14).
(3) It also sets forth how completely we should devote ourselves as living sacrifices to God (Rom 12:1), and how constantly our thoughts and affections should rise into the heavens (Php 3:20; Col 3:1-3).
2. This is called () shelamin.
(1) The verb from which this noun is derived is () shalem, to complete or make whole; and the noun is well rendered peace offering.
(2) It was, therefore, considered as making up that which was lacking in the sinner, in order to reconcile him to God. In cases of distress, peace offerings as well as burnt offerings were offered up (Jdg 20:26). So are we “reconciled to God by the death of his Son.”
(3) In making covenants, or entering into the covenant, peace offerings were associated with burnt offerings in like manner (Exo 24:5). Paul manifestly alludes to the peace offering in Eph 2:14-19. “He is our peace” is equivalent to saying, “He is our peace offering.”
II. IT DIFFERS IN ITS VICTIMS.
1. In respect to the kinds.
(1) Three classes of animal were specified as proper for the holocaust: there were those of the herd; there were those of the flock; and there were those of the fowls.
(2) In the peace offering there are only two. Animals from the herd and from the flock are specified, but there is no mention of turtle-doves or young pigeons here. The reason of this is that it would be difficult to treat fowls as peace offerings were treated in relation to the fat; and the animals are so small that if divided as peace offerings the portions would be small. There is thoughtful consideration for the welfare of his people in all the laws of God.
2. In respect to the sexes.
(1) The animals devoted as burnt offerings were males. This is specified in relation to the burnt offering of the herd. Also to that of the flock. Masculine pronouns are used in relation to that of the fowls. The neuter, “it,” Eph 2:15, should have been rendered” him” (see Hebrew text).
(2) In respect to the peace offering, the matter of sex is optional.
(3) The reason may be this. The burnt offering appears to have been partly an expression of adoration, in which it is proper to give to God all our strength and excellence. The peace offering was divided between God, the priests, and the offerer. Here, then, was a feast of friendship, and the sexes are helpful to our friendships.
III. IT DIFFERS IN THE TREATMENT OF ITS VICTIMS.
1. There were points of agreement here.
(1) The offering must be without blemish. Acceptable service must be without blemish, and this can only be rendered to God through Christ (Jud 1:24, 25).
(2) The hand of the offerer must be laid on the head of the offering. This was intended as a solemn transfer of sin, and acknowledgment that the suffering is vicarious. How graphically expressive of the faith of the sinner in the great Saviour!
(3) The sacrifice must be killed at the door of the tabernacle. Christ is the door. There is no other entrance into the holy place of his Church on earth but by him. The holy led to the holiest. If we do not belong to his spiritual Church on earth, we cannot belong to his glorious Church in heaven. There was a visible Church near, but still, in the bulk of its members, outside the door! Still there are multitudes only in the outer courts.
(4) The blood must be sprinkled upon the altar round about. It is by the blood of Jesus that we enter the “new and living way.”
2. But there were points of difference.
(1) Instead of the holocaust the fat only was offered here (Eph 2:3-5). The fat in the peace offering appears to correspond to the oil in the meat offering.
(2) In this view it will represent those graces of the mind which are the fruits of the Spirit.
(3) Burnt offerings and peace offerings were consumed together (Eph 2:5). The great sacrifice of Christ prepares the altar for sacrifices of praise. These were not accepted till we were reconciled through him.J.A.M.
Lev 3:6-17
The peace offering of the flock.
The ceremony in relation to this is almost identical with that of the herd already described. Nevertheless, there are a few expressions in the course of the description which are not found in the former paragraph. We call attention to
1. THE DESCRIPTION OF THE FAT OF THE LAMB. Lev 3:8-10.
1. Note the expression, “The fat thereof, and the whole rump.” The “and” here is expletive rather than copulative, thus, “The fat thereof, even the whole rump.” But the “rump,” as vulgarly understood among us, is muscle, not fat. The part here indicated is the tail. This is evident from what follows, viz.” It shall be taken off hard by the back-bone.” The tail of the sheep even in our climate is fat, but in the East it is remarkably so, some of them weighing from twelve to forty pounds.
2. The portions burnt were very inflammable.
(1) Here, in addition to the fat of the tail, was all the fat of the inwards, which in a sheep might weigh eight or ten pounds. This, when ignited, would be consumed, whatever else may have been laid upon the altar.
(2) These parts were considered to be the seat of the animal passions. In this view the lesson of their consumption upon the altar would be that our passions should be in complete subjection to God. Also to impress upon us that, if not consumed in the milder fires of his love, how obnoxious they are to the fierce fires of his wrath!
(3) The rapid consumption of the fat of lambs upon the altar is therefore appropriately used to describe the extermination of the wicked. “But the wicked shall perish, and the enemies of the Lord shall be as the fat of lambs: they shall consume; into smoke shall they consume away” (Psa 37:20). Fire, it would seem, will be the chief instrument which Providence will summon for the destruction of the threes of Antichrist (Rev 17:16; Rev 18:9; Rev 19:8, Rev 19:20; Rev 20:9, Rev 20:14).
II. THE EXPRESSION, “FOOD OF THE OFFERING MADE BY FIRE UNTO THE LORD” (Lev 3:11).
1. Thus, what was consumed by fire is called God’s food.
(1) Some construe this to mean that what is consumed is food for the fire. But this is to give no information. Nor would this be a sufficient reason for the prohibition of the fat as food for an Israelite (see Lev 3:16, Lev 3:17). Note, the fat intermingled with the flesh was not forbidden, but those portions only which were prescribed to be offered upon the altar (see Neh 8:10).
(2) But how could God be said to feast upon such food? Not literally, certainly (see Psa 1:1-6 :13). But figuratively. Thus his attributes of justice and mercy are, so to speak, hungry for satisfaction; and this satisfaction they find in that sacrifice of Christ, in virtue of which he is not only merciful, but just in justifying the ungodly (Rom 3:24-26).
(3) To avail ourselves of this mercy of God, we must justify him, viz. by hearty repentance and true faith. While God magnifies his justice in his mercy, we, too, must magnify his justice in his mercy.
2. The portions of the peace offering not consumed upon the altar were eaten by men.
(1) Here, then, was the expression of a fellowship between God and men, which is established through sacrifice. This glorious privilege is set forth also in the Christian Eucharist. We feast with the Lord at his table (1Co 10:21).
(2) Here also was fellowship between religious men. The priest had his portion, and the offerer his. That the offerer should feast with a Gentile would have been profanity. So the fellowship of Christians is with the holy universe (Heb 12:22-24).
III. THE NOTE PROHIBITING THE EATING OF BLOOD. Lev 3:17.
1. What are the reasons for this?
(1) The first is that the blood is the life of the flesh. The prohibition of blood as food is a Noachian precept, and this reason is given there. The object is to set a store upon life (see Gen 9:4-6).
(2) The second is that blood is given upon the altar to make atonement for the soul, viz. life for the life (Lev 17:10-14). The atoning blood of Christ must not be treated as a common thing (Heb 10:29).
2. We may here refer to a circumstance in connection with the bleeding of the sacrifice.
(1) The Jews tell us that the animal, after the slaughtering, was suspended on hooks near the place of rings for the removing of the skin. How suggestive of the hanging of Jesus upon the tree of his cross!
(2) The next thing was the opening of the heart, to let the remaining blood escape. That this should happen to Christ was a special subject of prophecy (Zec 12:10; Joh 19:34).
(3) To human appearance this prophecy seems to have been fulfilled as by accident. The same remark may be applied to the fulfillment of many prophecies. There are no mere accidents. The careful hand of an all-wise Providence is in everything.J.A.M.
HOMILIES BY W. CLARKSON
Lev 3:1-16
The foundation of fellowship with God.
The “sacrifice of peace offering” was one of fellowship. Its distinctive features are brought out in chapter
7. (see Homily there). The sacrifice enjoined in this (third) chapter is preliminary to the sacred feast which was to follow. Its significance is found in the fact that the act of communion with God could only come after the oblation had been presented. We learn, therefore
I. THAT SACRED JOY BEFORE GOD CAN ONLY FOLLOW RECONCILIATION WITH HIM. the Hebrew people might not come to the tabernacle and have a solemn feast near the sacred Presence until the animal had been slain and its blood sprinkled on the altar (Lev 3:1, Lev 3:2, Lev 3:8, Lev 3:13). Conscious unworthiness must first be taken away by the shed blood of bull or lamb, and then priest and people might rejoice together before the Lord. First purity, then peace (Jas 3:17). We may aspire
(1) to sit down with the people of God at the table here, or
(2) to mingle with those who shall partake of the marriage supper of the Lamb hereafter; but there is no welcome from lips Divine until sin has been confessed and forgiven. First, penitence at the cross of the Redeemer and trust in his atoning sacrifice; then fellowship with God and his people.
II. THAT A FULL SELF–SURRENDER MUST PRECEDE THE ACT OF COMMUNION. When the animal had been slain, the priest was to present to God the fat, the kidneys, etc. (Lev 3:3, Lev 3:4, Lev 3:9, Lev 3:10, Lev 3:14, Lev 3:15), special stress being laid on “the inwards;” the best and richest parts, those which had been the life of the animal, were offered to the Lord, as representing the animal itself, and so the offerer himself. He symbolically offered himself to God through these vital parts of the victim. When we draw near to a service of sacred fellowship and joy, or when we anticipate the communion of the skies, we should act on the truth that “our God has commanded our strength” (Psa 68:28), that the appeal for his mercy through Christ should be accompanied with a free, full surrender of our whole selves, the consecration of our very best, the “inward parts”the understanding, the affections, the willto him and his service.
III. THAT FAITH IN CHRIST AND THE CONSECRATION OF OURSELVES RESULT IN HIS PERFECT PLEASURE WITH US: “It is an offering of a sweet savour unto the Lord” (Lev 3:5, Lev 3:16). When the oblation was complete, then the offerer stood in the position of one who might rejoice in the Divine Presence and feast with the holy people and with God. Accepted in Christ, and having “yielded ourselves unto God” in unreserved consecration, we may feel that God’s good pleasure, his full Divine complacency, rests upon us; we may walk in the light of his reconciled countenance all the day long. Two supplementary truths offer themselves to our thought in these verses.
1. That every soul must personally and spiritually engage in acceptable service. The offerer was “to lay his hand on the head of the offering,”striking and significant act, by which he clearly intimated his consciousness of sin, and his desire that the victim might represent him in the sight of Godits blood his life, its organs his capacities. We may not trust to our mere bodily presence while God is being approached and besought, or while Christ’s redeeming work is being pleaded, or while words of dedication are being uttered in prayer. There must be the positive, sympathetic, personal participation, or we stand outside the service and the blessing.
2. That we must intelligently discriminate between the obligatory and the optional in the service of God. Certain things were imperative in the act of worship, other things were left to the choice of the individual. In the gospel of Christ and the worship of God there are things essential that none may depart from, e.g. the humble heart, the act of faith and self-surrender, the spirit of obedience toward God and of love toward man; there are other things which are left to personal discretion, e.g. times and methods of devotion, scale of contribution, sphere of usefulness. Yet in these optional matters we are not to act inconsiderately or irrationally, but according to the direction of wisdom and the teachings of experience.C.
Lev 3:17
The guardian of sacred feeling.
No little stress is laid on the prohibition of two thingsthe fat and the blood of slain animals: it was to be “a perpetual statute for your generations throughout all your dwellings.” The fat thus interdicted was that which was offered in sacrifice (Lev 3:3, Lev 3:4, Lev 3:9, Lev 3:10), not that which was interlined with the lean (Neh 8:10). We may look at
I. THE MEANING OF THIS PROHIBITION IN THEIR CASE. Evidently both the fat and the blood were disallowed as food because they were offered in sacrifice to Jehovah. On this account they were to be preserved sacred. They were not to be treated as ordinary things, vulgarized, lowered in public estimation; a feeling of their sacredness was to be cherished and carefully preserved by daily habit. To be continually using these parts as meat and drink at table would have the effect which was to be deprecated. It was, therefore, an act of religious duty to abstain from them. By such abstinence their feelings of reverence and piety would be guarded and preserved. Was it not for a similar reason, viz. that no violation should be done to the sacred sentiment of maternity, that the law was thrice repeated, “Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother’s milk” (Exo 23:19, etc.)? The influence of daily habit on the finer sentiments of the soul is very gradual and imperceptible, but in the end it is very great: it is often decisive for good or evil.
II. ITS BEARING ON OUR OWN RELIGIOUS LIFE. We are to guard most sedulously our sacred feelings; to “keep our heart above all keeping” (Pro 4:23). Among other perils to be avoided is that of allowing sacred things to be vulgarized by too frequent use, to lose their force and virtue by reason of over-familiarity. With this end in view, there will be, on the part of the prudent, a certain measure of:
1. Wise limitation. This will apply to
(1) the use of the Divine name (the avoidance of profanity);
(2) the employment of pious phraseology in ordinary speech (the avoidance of offensive and injurious cant);
(3) the repetition of sacred formulae (the avoidance of a Pharisaic formalism);
(4) the multiplication of holy days (Rom 14:6).
(5) These matters, and such as these, are questions of expediency, to be determined by practical Christian wisdom. Both extremes are to be avoidedthe neglect of good things and so the loss of spiritual help, and their excessive use resulting in the loss of the sense of sacredness. The latter is a subtle and strong evil, for when sacred things have lost their sanctity to us, there is little left to elevate and restore. “If the salt have lost its savour,” etc. But beside wise limitation, there must be:
2. Positive spiritual endeavour. It will by no means suffice to conform to good rules of speech and behaviour: such abstinences will not preserve a reverent and loving spirit; we must think seriously and pray earnestly.
(1) By serious thought we must be frequently realizing how great is our indebtedness to the heavenly Father; how real is our need, as sinners, of the Divine Saviour; how urgent is our want, as weak and struggling souls, of the influence of the Holy Spirit!
(2) By earnest prayer we must be drawing down from on high that spiritual replenishment which God is willing to bestow on all seeking souls, and without which all life will languish, all means and methods prove fruitless and vain.C.
HOMILIES BY R.A. REDFORD
Lev 3:1-17
The peace offerings,
also called thank offerings or salvation offerings. The twofold objectto acknowledge salvation received, to supplicate salvation desired. Three kindspraise offerings, vow offerings, free-will offerings. Considerable freedom permitted in them, though still restrictions observed. Male and female victims, of the herd and flock, but only those without blemish. No pigeons permitted, because a pair of pigeons insufficient for the sacrificial meal, which was so important a constituent of the service. Combination of the burnt sacrifice with the peace offering in the consumption by fire of the suet or fat of the internal organs, and of the fat tail of the sheep. The fat and the blood offered to the Lord in a special manner, by fire and sprinkling “on the altar round about.”
Lev 3:1
The offering distinguished. Oblation denotes its voluntary character; sacrifice its intimate connection with the altar, that is, its participation in the atoning significance of all the bloody sacrifices which carried in them the idea of reconciliation with God through the blood of the covenant. Peace offering, the specific distinction, recognizing the fact that, whether the prominent feeling expressed was praise or prayer, still the offerer was standing on the ground of covenant fellowship with God. We may take these offerings generally to symbolize salvation as a realized fact. We find under this general fact these three constituent spiritual realities included:
I. Intercourse re-established between God and man, and expressed in grateful praise and willing dependence.
II. Salvation as a fact resting on continued faith; the three parts of the sacrifice being the offerer’s part, the priest’s part, and Jehovah’s part,all essential and harmonized in one offering.
III. Joy of salvation, both individual and social, typified in the sacrificial meal, God, as it were, giving back the victim to be the source of delight both to the priest and the offerer.
On each of these points the details of the sacrifice have their significance.
I. RECONCILIATION. Re-established intercourse between God and man, grateful praise, willing dependence. Here we may notice the two sides of the sacrifice: that turned towards manit is willingly brought, it is a valuable gift, it is brought as a peace offering to give praise or to accompany vows and prayers; that turned towards God, it is a confession of sin, an obedience rendered to the Law, a renewal of the covenant, a confirmation of the promises, a seal of grace. Intercourse between man and God.
1. Distinguish between the truth as set forth in Scripture, and man’s self-derived ideas.
(1) Consider the non-scriptural views: the notions of the mystic or of the transcendentalistman’s lifting himself to God, or being lifted up by ecstasy; the rationalistic conception that God and man meet in nature, or in human consciousness, and that such intercourse in the mere laws of fact or thought is sufficient. All such reconciliation ignores the fallen state of man, can supply no gospel of peace, is contradicted by the plain development of righteousness in the course of the world; and therefore the necessity made evident that man, as going on to meet the future, should be prepared to meet his God in judgment, in the great adjustment of right and wrong. The mere moralist falls into a similar error when he teaches that the partial obedience of human life to Divine Law, the recognition practically of an ideal moral standard, is a reconciliation between the highest moral Being and his creature.
(2) Place opposite to these defective and erroneous views the teaching of Scripture. Out of the original source of all, the will of God, that is, his infinite nature or character, in actual relation to his universe, comes forth the reconciliation. Revelation from the beginning an invitation of God to man to intercourse. The Mosaic Law was the development of the preceding covenant, which, under patriarchal ministry, was a gospel of peace. The reconciliation was placed on the foundation of sacrifice, that is, man’s surrender, blending with God’s promise of forgiveness and life, the preservation of righteousness in the acceptance of man’s homage to the Divine character, the assurance of peace in a covenant of friendship and interchange of love.
2. This intercourse between God and man being thus established, it is expressed in grateful praise and willing dependence on man’s part, in the bestowment of peace and sanctification on God’s part. The peace offering typified the life of man as a continual reciprocation of covenant intercourse: the presentation of gifts to God, the acceptance in return of Divine grace. Thus was religion set forth. It is not separated from the earthly life, but it is its consecration. It is not a meritorious purchase of Divine favour, or turning away of wrath, or covering of the reality of transgression with sacrifice, but a thankful dedication of saved life, a subjection of all to the will of the Father, an appropriation of heavenly gifts. Perhaps the fact that no poor man’s offering is prescribed may indicate that the truth was already implied, though not so distinctly expressed as afterwards in the Psalms and Prophets, that God would have mercy and not sacrifice, that he laid no stress upon the actual presentation of a peace offering so long as the man himself and his life were offered in devout obedience and thankful spirit. “Whoso offereth praise glorifieth me: and to him that ordereth his conversation aright will I show the salvation of God” (Psa 1:1-6 :23).
II. SALVATION AS A FACT RESTS ON CONTINUED FAITH. In every peace offering there were three partsthe offerer’s, the priest’s, Jehovah’s. On each occasion, therefore, the main elements of salvation were recognized, which were these:
1. Free grace.
2. Mediation.
3. Self-surrender.
In each the offerer’s faith makes salvation a fact.
1. In bringing a peace offering to Jehovah, the worshipper cast himself by faith on the free grace which opened the way for him to reconciliation and peace. “We love him because he first loved us.” The Jew failed to see this freedom of Divine love, and hence became a bond slave under the power of his ritual The gospel has exalted the Divine element so high above the human in the advent of the Son of God, that it is no longer possible to hide it. “God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself.” “The Lord hath visited his people.” We build all on the foundation stone which God himself hath laid. We begin with the person of Christ, divinely glorious. Our faith lays hold of eternal life in him who was the Life and the Light of men.
2. The offerer brought the victim, but the priestly mediation, was a necessary part of the ceremony. Salvation as a fact rests not only upon the free and infinite love of God, but upon the manifested righteousness and ceaseless intercession of the Saviour. “Aaron’s sons sprinkle the blood; Aaron’s sons burn the fat on the altar on the burnt sacrifice; a sweet savour unto the Lord.” Our life as a saved life is a continual application to ourselves by faith of the merit and efficacy of the Saviour’s atonement and ministry as our great High Priest. The “truth as it is in Jesus” is the food of our thoughts, the joy of our hearts, the strength of our obedience. Salvation as a fact is realized forgiveness, progressive holiness in communion with Christ, victory through his grace over the world and all enemies, and at last participation in the glorification of the Divine Man, and admission into his eternal kingdom.
3. Self-surrender was both in the presentation of the offering and in the position of the offerer, laying his hand on the head of the victim, killing it, and giving up the assigned portions to the altar and fire; all was confession, consecration, obedience. Our faith is essentially a yielding of ourselves to God. We find oar salvation a fact, just as we “put off the old man and put on the new man;” just as we “count all things loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus our Lord.” Our offering is a peace offering, both of the past and for the future. We are no longer our own. Christ is all to us, and so we are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s.
III. JOY OF SALVATION, typified in the sacrificial meal, in which the representatives of God and man, in the priests and offerer, met together in social festivity. This was anticipation of the sacred meal, the Supper of the Lord, in which sacrificial joy was celebrated in the new society, in the kingdom of God. The Christian’s joy is preeminently joy of salvation. He builds all happiness on the fact of reconciliation with God. He lives his new life not unto himself, but unto Christ and to Christ’s people. The social gladness, which was an element in the peace offering, points to the fact that the redemption of Christ effects a deliverance of society from its bondage and misery, as well as the individual soul from its sin and ruin. Such a message is specially wanted in these times, when the world groans under its burdens, and strives in vain after a true liberty and peace. What offerings are laid on the altar of war! Yet they are consumed in vain. There is no happy banquet of fellowship and brotherhood coming out of such sacrifices. God invites us to the joy of a new-made world. He bids us proclaim the way of peace to be through the obedience of Christ. How sweet the savour to the Lord when the whole human family shall offer up its peace offering, acceptable, because identified with the offering of Calvary, uniting all together in a sacred festivity of gladness!R.
Lev 3:3, Lev 3:4
The fat that covereth the inwards;
“the caul above the liver, with the kidneys;” “all the fat is the Lord’s” (Lev 3:16). The sweet fat, or suet, was burned as a sweet savour to the Lord. This might be either because fat of this kind was a sign of perfection in the animal life, or because the offering in the fire would be increased by the oily matter, and would make the burnt offering more imposing. Any way the dedication to the Lord is the main idea.
I. RELIGIOUS SERVICE SHOULD TAKE UP INTO ITSELF THE HIGHEST FACULTIES AND NOBLEST AFFECTIONS. The worship of the sanctuary; the active efforts of Christians in the spread of the gospel; charity;in all such sacrifices let “the fat be the Lord’s.”
II, THE PROSPERITY OF HUMAN LIFE IS ONLY SAFE AND BLESSED WHEN THE SUBSTANCE OF IT IS CONSECRATED ON THE ALTAR. Men become victims of their own success because they withhold the fat from the Lord, and it becomes a curse to them.R.
Lev 3:5
And Aaron’s sons shall burn it
on the altar upon the burnt sacrifice, which is upon the wood that is on the fire: it is an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the Lord.” Notice the preparation thus made for the acceptance of man’s offering. There is the altar, the fire, the wood, the burnt sacrifice, the offering of the consecrated fat. Thus Le Lev 6:12, it is said, “the priest shall burn wood every morning at the altar, and lay the burnt offering in order upon it; and he shall burn thereon the fat of the peace offerings.” The abiding sacrifice, on the abiding altar, with the abiding fire, receives the occasional offering of the individual worshipper. Here is the great truth of an abiding merit, an ever-living intercession set forth.
I. God, by his grace, has provided for us THE TRUE METHOD OF RIGHTEOUSNESS AND ACCEPTANCE.
1. The superiority of Christ’s sacrifice to all otherbecause of his person, his active and passive obedience, his declared acceptance by his baptism, transfiguration, resurrection, ascension.
2. The simple work of faith, in laying the offering on the ashes of the burnt sacrifice, in attaching the imperfect obedience of man to the infinite merit of Christ. A peace offering in the highest sense when we thus lay all upon the altar of the true mediation. The fire consuming denoted acceptance. God, in Christ, declares himself not only well pleased in his beloved Son, but in all who spiritually are identified with him. The lesser burnt offering is absorbed into the greater and abiding burnt offering, our obedience in Christ’s.
II. Thus is set forth THE TRUE ORDER OF THE ETHICAL LIFE. The lesser sacrifice upon the greater. The peace offering on the burnt offering.
1. Common mistake to attempt to reverse this order. Man supposes himself capable of building up merit by moral acts. God teaches him that all ethical worth must rest upon religious completeness. The relation between God and man must be true and perfect, otherwise morality is not real, but only disguised selfishness.
2. The offering up of human life in activity, in suffering, cannot be peace offering unless it be religious. We want the greatest motive to actuate and sustain. We seem to waste our offering unless we can see it in its relation with God’s work, with a redeemed and renewed world.
3. The sweetness of life is a return into our own hearts of what the Lord hath found delightful. The “sweet savour” of a consecrated obedience pervades the whole existence, and makes it fragrant both to ourselves and others. Wonderful transmuting power of religion in giving value to the apparently worthless in human character, and beauty to the commonest, and nobleness to the humblest; the whole garment of sanctity covering the native imperfections. Yet no sweet savour without fire. There must be the reality of a spiritual lifethe power of God, not the mere form and appearance of the offering.R.
Lev 3:6-16
Varieties in the offerings-unity in the sacrifice.
Whether from the herd or from the flock, an offering of larger or smaller value, the same principle appliesthe unblemished gift, the separation of the fat and of the blood, the observance of all prescribed order and detail
I. Here is the TRUE RELIGIOUS LIBERTY. Obedience according to ability, “doing the will of God from the heart.” The variety which is necessitated in God’s children by their different capabilities and circumstances is not displeasing to him. If we cannot bring an offering from the herd, then from the flock; if not a sheep, then a lamb; if neither, then the will for the deed. Yet all can do something. “Unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ” (Eph 4:1-32, and 1Co 12:1-31).
II. Here is the secret of SOCIAL PEACE AND STRENGTHthe only true equality; God’s altar bringing together rich and poor, high and low. All, offering what they can to him, find out each other’s nearness and worth. In the house of God the poor man may be a higher servant of the sanctuary than the rich. Society rests on religion as its basis. Mistake of philosophy, which gives us not brotherhood but altruismnot family life but mere expediency. The true conception of a State is every one having a place, and every one in his place. None but the religious view, which makes the altar of God the center, really effects this union of the individual interest with that of the community. The true mother does not despise the sickly child. Philosophy exalts the great and depresses the little. Religion humbles the great and exalts the low. The revelation is to babes. The offering is accepted from the weakest hands. All are one in Christ. The perfect Sacrifice blends all together.R.
Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary
Lev 3:1. A sacrifice of peace-offering shelamim; so called, as eminently typifying the peace and reconciliation of God with man, through the death of Him who is our Peace: for it should be particularly observed, that of these sacrifices both priest and people, and, therefore, in some sense, both God and man, were to partake; see ch. Lev 7:11, and following verses. Rom 5:10. 2Co 5:18-19. Dr. Beaumont observes, that the original signifies a sacrifice of payments or pacifications, whereby men returned to God confession, and thanks for peace and prosperity, and for his performing of mercies and pacifications; and paid their vows: Compare Psa 56:13 and Pro 7:14. This peace-offering figured both Christ’s oblation of himself, whereby he became our Peace and Salvation; (Eph 2:14-16. Act 13:47. Heb 5:9; Heb 9:28.) and also our oblation, of praise, thanksgiving, and prayer unto God: and the ministry of this sacrifice is opened in Hos 14:2. Take away [Lord] all iniquity, and receive us graciously: so will we render the calves of our lips; which the apostle, Heb 13:15 translates, the fruit of our lips, giving thanks to his name.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
C.PEACE-OFFERINGS
Lev 3:1-17
1And if his oblation [offering1] be a sacrifice of peace-offering, if he offer it of the herd; whether it be a male or female, he shall offer it without blemish before the Lord. 2And he shall lay his hand upon the head of his offering, and kill it at the door of the tabernacle of the [om. the2] congregation: and Aarons sons the priests shall sprinkle the blood upon the altar round about. 3And he shall offer of the sacrifice of the peace-offering an offering made by fire unto the Lord; the fat that covereth the inwards, and all the fat that is upon the inwards, 4and the two kidneys, and the fat that is on them, which is by the flanks, and the caul above the liver, with [on3] the kidneys, it shall he take away. 5And Aarons sons4 shall burn it on the altar upon the burnt-sacrifice, which is upon the wood that is on the fire: it is an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the Lord.
6And if his offering for a sacrifice of peace-offering unto the Lord be of the flock; male or female, he shall offer it without blemish. 7If he offer a lamb [sheep5] for his offering, then shall he offer it before the Lord. 8And he shall lay his hand upon the head of his offering, and kill it before6 the tabernacle of the [om. the2] congregation: and Aarons sons shall sprinkle the blood thereof round about upon the altar. 9And he shall offer of the sacrifice of the peace-offering an offering made by fire unto the Lord; the fat thereof, and the whole rump [fat tail7], it shall he take off hard by the back-bone: and the fat that covereth the inwards, and all the fat that is upon the inwards, 10and the two kidneys, and the fat that is upon them, which is by the flanks, and the caul above the liver, with [on3] the kidneys, it shall he take away. 11And the priest shall burn it upon the altar: it is the food of the offering made by fire8 unto the Lord.
12, And if his offering be a goat, then he shall offer it before the Lord. 13And he shall lay his hand upon the head of it, and kill it before the tabernacle of the [om. the2] congregation: and the sons of Aaron shall sprinkle the blood thereof upon the altar round about. 14And he shall offer thereof his offering, even an offering made by fire unto the Lord; the fat that covereth the inwards, and all the fat that is upon the inwards, 15and the two kidneys, and the fat that is upon them, which is by the flanks, and the caul above the liver, with [on3] the kidneys, it shall he take away. 16And the priest shall burn them upon the altar: it is the food of the offering made by fire for a sweet savour: all the fat is the Lords [as food of an offering made by fire for a sweet savour, shall all the fat be the Lords9]. 17It shall be a perpetual statute for your generations throughout all your dwellings, that ye eat neither fat nor blood.
TEXTUAL AND GRAMMATICAL
Lev 3:1. =offering, as in Leviticus 2.
Lev 3:2. See on Lev 1:3, Text. Note 3.
Lev 3:4. must here be translated on, not with, since the kidneys have just been mentioned.
Lev 3:5. The Sam., LXX. and one MS. add the priests. So also the LXX. and one MS. in Lev 3:8, and the Sam. and LXX. in Lev 3:13.
Lev 3:7. =, according to Bochart (Hieroz. I. 33), a sheep of intermediate age between the =lamb and the of three years old. It is, however, often applied to the sheep of one year in which case the age is mentioned, as Lev 14:10; Num 7:15; Num 7:17; Num 7:21, etc. In Pro 27:26 it is described as yielding wool. In the A. V. the form is uniformly rendered lamb, except in Exo 12:5, while the other form is translated sheep nine times, and lamb four times. There is no ground for this distinction.
Lev 3:8. The locality for killing the victim is made more definite by the insertion in one MS. and in the Syr.: before the Lord at the door of. The LXX. makes the same insertion in Lev 3:13.
Lev 3:9. , according to all interpreters the fat tail of the ovis laticaudata, a variety common in Arabia and Syria, but in modern Palestine said to be the only variety. The tail is described as of rich marrowy fat, of the width of the hind quarters, and often trailing on the ground. The word occurs only in this connection (Exo 29:22; Lev 7:3; Lev 8:25; Lev 9:19), and is rendered by all the ancient versions, except the LXX. (), tail. So also Jos. Ant. iii. 9, 2.
Lev 3:11. The sense is expressed by the addition in 2 MSS. and in the LXX. of the words from Lev 1:9; Lev 1:13; Lev 1:17, (=a sweet-smelling savor.)
Lev 3:16. The A. V. seems unnecessarily complicated, as there are but two clauses in this verse. After savour the Sam., LXX., and some MSS. add to the Lord.
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
The peace-offering, like the offerings of the preceding chapters, is spoken of as already in common use, and the law is given for its proper regulation. The offerings of this, as of the previous chapters, were voluntary. The peace-offering differed from the oblation in being animal, and from the burnt-offering in not being wholly consumed, but after a small portion had been burned, and a portion given to the priest, the remainder reverted to the offerer for a sacrificial meal (Lev 7:11-21); a further difference is in that the burnt-offerings were only male, the peace-offerings either male or female; and still further, doves were not allowed in the peace-offerings, because they were too small for the necessary division, and for the sacrificial feast.
The full form used here, is nearly always employed in Leviticus; but the peace-offering is probably intended by the simple of Lev 23:37 (Lev 7:16-17 does not, and Lev 17:8 may not mean peace-offering), and it certainly is by in Lev 9:22. The latter, as the determining word, is frequently used elsewhere alone, as Exo 20:24; Exo 32:6; Deu 27:7; Jos 8:31, etc. The word is variously derived, and has various shades of signification attached to it: (1) Thank-offering, Gesenius, Frst, Luther, Rosenmller, Winer, Bhr, etc., , Jos. Ant. iii. 9, 2; (2) Meat-offering, Zunz; (3) Salvation-offering,, LXX. most frequently (i.e. in the Pent., Josh., Judges, Chron., Ezra, Amos), Philo; (4) Peace-offering,size:24pt”>, LXX. (in Samuel, Kings, Prov.), Aq., Sym., Theod., Vulg., A. V. The last two senses are very similar; the first seems less appropriate, partly because the strictly thank-offering appears as a special variety of this more general class (Lev 7:11-12); partly because the were offered not only in thanks for benefits received, but also in times of distress and in supplication for the divine help (Jdg 20:26; Jdg 21:4; 1Sa 13:9; 2Sa 24:25). Outram says: Sacrificia salutaria in sacris literis shelamim dicta, ut qu semper de rebus prosperis fieri solerent, impetratis utique aut impetrandis. Lange brings together the several meanings in the name Heilsopfer, salvation or saving offering in the common sense of blessing or prosperity-offering. In English the already accepted peace-offering seems to express sufficiently the same sense, and is therefore retained. The law (Lev 7:12-16) distinguishes three kinds of peace-offeringsthanksgiving, vow and free-will offerings; the only difference in their ritual being in the length of time during which their flesh might be eaten.
The peace-offerings are not called most holy like the oblation, but only holy, and the priests portion might be eaten by their families in any clean place (Lev 7:31 with Lev 10:14; Lev 23:20). The portion which reverted to the offerer to be eaten as a sacrificial feast might be partaken of only by those who were legally clean (Lev 7:20-21). The peace-offerings were prescribed on a variety of occasions, and as they were the necessary offerings of sacrificial feasts, and hence of all solemn national rejoicings, they were the most common of all sacrifices. From Numbers 15 it appears that, like the burnt-offering, they were always accompanied by the meat and the drink-offering.Lange: The peace-offering refers to prosperity as Jehovahs free gift in past, present, and future. As regards the past, it is a simple praise and thank-offering (an Eben Ezer, Amo 5:22). In reference to a happy present, it is a contentment, joy, or feast-offering. As it relates to a future to be realized, to an experience of salvation yet to come, to a deliverance or an exhibition of mercy that is prayed for with a vow, it is a votive offering. The prescriptions in regard to the various kinds are different. Here it is said, that the animal to be slain may be either male or female, only it must be without blemish. In Lev 7:15 sq. nothing of the praise-offering might be left over until the next day, whereas the vow, or free-will offering might be eaten also on the next day, but not on the third day. Lange then points out that in the case of those vow, or free-will offerings which were to be burnt-offerings, a male was required, Lev 22:19, without blemish. Even an abnormal formation of the victim, too long or too short legs of the animal [Lev 7:22-23] was enough to make it unsuitable for the vow-offering, but still not for the free-will offering. So every kind of prosperity was to be hallowed to the Lord.10
Sacrificial feasts were at least as old as the time of Jacob (Gen 31:54), and became common among all nations; but the distinctive name of peace-offering first appears when Moses came down with the law from Mt. Sinai (Exo 24:5). The thing signified, however, must have been already familiar to the people, for the word recurs in connection with the idolatrous sacrifice of Aaron when Moses had again gone up into the Mount (Exo 32:6).
Two kinds of victims were allowable: of the herd, or of the flock.
Lev 3:1-5. The peace-offering of the herd, i.e. a bullock or a cow.
Lev 3:1. The victim both in this and in the other kind (Lev 3:6) might be of either sex. According to Herodotus, this was directly contrary to the Egyptian law, which forbade offering the female in sacrifice: (Lev 2:41). As in the case of other offerings, the victim must be without blemish. There was ordinarily no restriction of age, although in some special cases yearling lambs are mentioned (Lev 23:19; Num 7:17).
Lev 3:2. The laying on of the offerers hand and the sprinkling of the blood by the priest are the same as in the case of the burnt-offering; hence no signification can be attached to these acts in the one case which will not apply in the other also, except of course in so far as an act of essentially the same meaning might be somewhat modified by its connections.
Lev 3:3-4. There were four parts to be burned upon the altar: (1) the fat that covereth the inwards,i.e. the large net, omentum,Jos 3:9; Jos 3:2, , caul, or adipose membrane found in mammals attached to the stomach and spreading over the bowels, and which in the ruminants abounds with fat; (2) all the fat which is upon the inwards,i.e. the fat attached to the intestines, and which could be peeled off; (3) the two kidneys, and the fat that is on them, which is by the flanks, or loins, i.e. the kidneys and all the fat connected with them; the kidneys are the only thing to be burned except the fat; (4) the smaller net, omentum minus, or caul above the liver, which stretches on one side to the region of the kidneys, hence on the kidneys, = by them, not with them, they having been just before mentioned. The word occurs only in Ex. (twice) and Lev. (nine times) always in connection with =the liver; it is described as above or upon the liver, and hence is not to be understood, as has often been done, of the liver itself, or of a part of it. These four include all the separable fat in the inside of the animal (and in addition to these was the fat tail in the case of the sheep), so that, Lev 3:16, they are called all the fat, so also Lev 4:8; Lev 4:19; Lev 4:26; Lev 4:31; Lev 4:35; Lev 7:3.
Lev 3:5. Aarons sons shall burn.The burning on the altar, and the sprinkling of the blood (Lev 3:2), being the acts by which the sacrifice was especially offered to God, were always and in all sacrifices the priestly function.
Upon the burnt sacrifice.This rendering is quite correct, and is in accordance with the ancient versions. The sense given by Knobel according to or in the manner of the burnt-offering is inadmissible. may sometimes bear this sense (Exo 12:51; Psa 110:4); but it is rare, and not likely to be the meaning here. As a matter of fact, peace-offerings ordinarily followed especial burnt-offerings, and always the daily burnt-offering, which would so seldom have been entirely consumed when the peace-offering was offered, that the fat might naturally be described as placed upon it.
Lev 3:6-16. The peace-offerings of sheep or goats.
The ritual for the second kind of peace-offering is the same as for the first; it is repeated in case the victim should be a sheep (Lev 3:6-11), and in case it should be a goat (Lev 3:12-16). Only in the case of the sheep, on the principle of burning all the separable fat, the tail (see Textual, Lev 3:9) must also be laid upon the altar.
Lev 3:11. (Comp. Lev 3:16.) The food of the offering made by fire unto the Lord.This is a common expression applied to sacrifices generally (my bread, Num 28:2; Bread of God, ch.Lev 21:6; Lev 21:8; Lev 21:17; Lev 21:21-22; Lev 22:25); yet especially mentioned only in connection with the peace-offerings. It is used only of the portions of the victim burned upon the altar, and is expressly distinguished from the portion eaten by the priests (Lev 21:22). By a natural figure, the whole victim being food, the part of it given to Jehovah by burning upon the altar is called the food of Jehovah, and shows the communion between Him and the worshipper brought about by the sacrifice. It is not necessary, however, to realize this figure by attributing to the Hebrews the thoughtbelonging to the later heathenthat God actually required food; such a notion was foreign to their whole theology.
Lev 3:16. All the fati.e., all that has been enumeratedall the separable fat of the victim.
Lev 3:17. Throughout all your dwellings.This applies to the life in the wilderness when all sacrificial animals slain for food were required to be offered as peace-offerings before the Lord (Lev 17:3-7); whether it applies also to the subsequent life in the land of promise, when this restriction was to be removed (Deu 12:15; Deu 14:22-23; Deu 15:22-23), has been much debated. In the passages removing that restriction, mention is made only of the blood which must be poured out, and in the Song of Moses (Deu 32:14), the fat of lambs is especially mentioned among the blessings to be enjoyed.
Ye shall eat neither fat nor blood.The prohibition of the separable fat ( in contradistinction to the or the fat mixed with the flesh which might be eaten, Neh 8:10) for food springs immediately from the fact that it was especially consecrated to God, and therefore not to be used by man. If we seek the reason of this consecration it is not to be sought on hygienic grounds (Rosenmller), but rather in its connection with the animal economy. As blood is described as the life of the animal, so is the fat a stored-up source of life, drawn upon for sustaining life whenever, in deficiency of food or other exigency, it is required. It thus stands more nearly related in function to the blood, and became naturally the appropriate portion for the altar. Its proper development was also a mark of perfection in the animal. It is further to be borne in mind that the fat was considered the choice portion, and hence the word was figuratively used of excellence (Gen 27:28; Gen 45:18, etc.) and thus the fat, as the best, was reserved for Gods portion. The prohibition is repeated with still stronger emphasis, Lev 7:23-25. but with the exception that the fat of animals dying of themselves may be applied to other uses (Lev 3:24). It has always been understood by the Jews that the prohibition respects only the fat of animals that might be offered in sacrifice. Comp. Lev 7:23.
Nothing is here said of the disposal of the flesh of the victim, the law of this being given in detail, Lev 7:11-36.
DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL
I. As all vegetable food was sanctified by the oblation, so all animal food was by the peace offering. In the wilderness this was literally carried out by the presenting of all animals fit for sacrifice as offerings, sprinkling their blood and burning their fat upon the altar; later, when in Palestine this became impossible on account of the distances, the idea was kept up in the prohibition of the blood for food. The general principle thus expressed for all time is that Gods gifts to man are to be acknowledged as from Him, and due return made to Him, or otherwise they are profaned.
II. In the expression Food of the Lord, although figurative, we recognize the idea of communion between God and man, expressed by a part of the sacrifice burned on the altar, and called by this name, while another part was eaten by the offerer at the sacrificial feast. Similarly the Eucharist is spoken of in 1Co 10:21 as the Lords table. In this respect the peace-offering under the old dispensation signified the same thing as the Eucharist under the newthe communion of the devout worshipper with God. It was eminently a feast of love towards God and man; the worshipper communicated with God by feasting on the sacrifice offered to Him, and by the portion eaten by the priests as His representatives, and with man by feasting with his friends on the remainder. It is happily described by Wordsworth as an Eucharist coupled with an offertory.
III. All sacrifices were necessarily typical of Christ, and each of them had in this respect its peculiar significance; with the peace-offering He is especially connected by the prophecy of Isaiah (Isa 53:5) the chastisement of our peace was upon Him, and by the frequent application of this word to Him and to His sacrifice in the New Testament, (Rom 5:1; Eph 2:14-16; Col 1:20, etc.).
HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL
The Peace-offering is the expression of the feeling that man might receive or ask only a pure prosperity from God, and might offer it to Him again. Lange. In this offering God, the Master and Judge, was merged in God, the Benefactor and Rescuer Kalisch. In the feasting of the offerer with his friends upon the flesh of the sacrifice was expressed clearly the idea of communion with God; yet even in this offering, the blood must be sprinkled upon the altar;in the nearest approach of sinful man to God, there must still be propitiation.
In the peace-offering any sacrificial animal, of either sex, and of any age was allowable; God gives man the largest latitude of choice in the ways of expressing his gratitude. He also sanctifies as a means of communion with Him whatever He has appointed as the means of approaching Him in any way. The Christian may commune with God in work, in prayer, in sacraments, in study of His word.
In this sacrifice the fat was burnt upon the altar, and certain choice parts given to the priests to be eaten with their families; so in our thanksgivings, first let the Giver of all good be recognized, and the best of all be given back to Him; and then let a portion be given also to those who maintain His service, that the main part which remains may be enjoyed by us with a holy joy.
The sacrifice for sin (see Leviticus 4) was limited to that which was prescribed, nothing more was allowed; the peace-offerings might be unlimited in number and in value: so man now may seek forgiveness only in the way God has provided,he can add nothing to its efficacy; but to the expression of his thankfulness, and to his desire for communion with God, no bounds are set. He may go as far as he can, and his offerings will be looked upon with approbation as a sweet savor unto the Lord.
The feast upon the sacrifice of peace-offerings might include all the members of the offerers family. Thus was the joyous family feast, like every other human relation and condition, brought by the Levitical law into relation with duties to God, and sanctified by His blessing and by symbolical communion with Him.
A true sacrifice of praise is offered by those who glorify God in their lives. This constitutes the Christian peace-offering of communion with God in its highest formthat of thanksgiving for His inestimable benefits showed forth in a sincere obedience to His commands. Origen.
Footnotes:
[1]Lev 3:1. =offering, as in Leviticus 2.
[2]Lev 3:2. See on Lev 1:3, Text. Note 3.
[3]Lev 3:4. must here be translated on, not with, since the kidneys have just been mentioned.
[4]Lev 3:5. The Sam., LXX. and one MS. add the priests. So also the LXX. and one MS. in Lev 3:8, and the Sam. and LXX. in Lev 3:13.
[5]Lev 3:7. =, according to Bochart (Hieroz. I. 33), a sheep of intermediate age between the =lamb and the of three years old. It is, however, often applied to the sheep of one year in which case the age is mentioned, as Lev 14:10; Num 7:15; Num 7:17; Num 7:21, etc. In Pro 27:26 it is described as yielding wool. In the A. V. the form is uniformly rendered lamb, except in Exo 12:5, while the other form is translated sheep nine times, and lamb four times. There is no ground for this distinction.
[6]Lev 3:8. The locality for killing the victim is made more definite by the insertion in one MS. and in the Syr.: before the Lord at the door of. The LXX. makes the same insertion in Lev 3:13.
[7]Lev 3:9. , according to all interpreters the fat tail of the ovis laticaudata, a variety common in Arabia and Syria, but in modern Palestine said to be the only variety. The tail is described as of rich marrowy fat, of the width of the hind quarters, and often trailing on the ground. The word occurs only in this connection (Exo 29:22; Lev 7:3; Lev 8:25; Lev 9:19), and is rendered by all the ancient versions, except the LXX. (), tail. So also Jos. Ant. iii. 9, 2.
[8]Lev 3:11. The sense is expressed by the addition in 2 MSS. and in the LXX. of the words from Lev 1:9; Lev 1:13; Lev 1:17, (=a sweet-smelling savor.)
[9]Lev 3:16. The A. V. seems unnecessarily complicated, as there are but two clauses in this verse. After savour the Sam., LXX., and some MSS. add to the Lord.
[10]In regard to the question whether the peace-offering embraces also the supplicatory offering, Lange says: It is understood that the vows themselves were supplications, from which the accompanying offering might also be called a supplicatory offering; but a peculiar supplicatory offering to strengthen the supplication would have been prejudicial to the freedom of the divine hearing. It shows a fine distinction that the free praise and thank-offerings (Thoda), which were preceded by no vows, were exalted above the vow-offerings and free-will offerings, inasmuch as these latter might be accompanied by a selfish feeling.
Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange
CONTENTS
In pursuing the order of appointments, under the Levitical dispensation, this Chapter contains the account of the institution of peace-offerings; which are to be taken from the herd, a bullock or an heifer; or from the flock, either a lamb, or a goat.
Lev 3:1
Is not the peace, which the LORD JESUS hath made for his people, in the blood of his cross, intended by this shadowy representation? Observe, this peace offering was to be without blemish. Was not this evidently alluding to CHRIST? Compare Exo 12:5 with 1Pe 1:19 .
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
“Handfuls of Purpose”
For All Gleaners
“Without blemish.” Lev 3:1
This qualification occurs again and again in the designation of sacrifices, and is therefore of supreme importance. This call for the ideally pure is itself an instrument of discipline. Where can we find that which is absolutely without blemish? Even where we cannot find the ideally perfect we are bound to look for it, for the very act of looking for it trains the attention to true criticism and the conscience to moral exactness. The sacrifice was not to be almost blameless; or as nearly perfect as possible; it was to be without blemish. God has always been calling for this description of sacrifice. Can we find it in ourselves? Experience emphatically says No. The more we know ourselves the more conscious we are of blemishes, not always visible, indeed, but not the less blemishes that they are invisible to public eyes, and sometimes almost invisible to ourselves. Let a man examine himself. All this inquiry for the ideally perfect points to a certain issue. Not until Jesus Christ himself appeared was it possible to secure a perfectly blameless sacrifice. He was without sin. He knew no sin. He was the just sacrificed for the unjust. Sometimes we have to wait long for the explanation of profoundly spiritual terms. An ideally perfect lamb of the flock or bullock of the herd was simply impossible, if only for the reason that the sentence of death was in every one of them. The blemished can never give birth to the unblemished. There is an hereditary taint in all living things; not, of course, a moral taint in all cases, not the less, however, a taint or a fault. The blemished offered for the blemished is a mere mockery of law and divine claim. The whole merit of the work of Christ turns upon his absolute pureness, according to Apostolic theology. There are times when we hardly see the full pith of such a doctrine or feel its necessity; there are other times in the soul’s experience when we feel that the purity of Christ was the chief element of his sacrifice.
We must have a theology that covers all the moods and phases of spiritual experience; that grows with the day; that expands with the summer; and that fills even the winter with light and enriches the night with stars. We do not want a theology that is adapted to one set of circumstances only. That theology could be easily invented, and could be as easily perverted. We must have a theology so lofty as not to permit of the handiwork of man, and yet so genial and condescending as to elicit the confidence and the love of the poorest and weakest of mankind. Our judgment is not without blemish; our giving is not without blemish; our affections are not without blemish. Possibly there may be a line of selfish calculation running through all our most religious arrangements. The object of Christ’s priesthood is to make the Church “without spot or wrinkle or any such thing a glorious Church.” When we would consider what the Church is to be we must fix our attention upon the blamelessness of Christ. He is the pattern. He is the consummation.
Fuente: The People’s Bible by Joseph Parker
Minor Offerings
Lev 3
In addition to the great offerings of the Jewish ritual, there were certain minor offerings for which special provision was made. If we take this chapter and view it in the light of the Christian dispensation we shall see more clearly what has been gained by the Christian covenant. These offerings, in themselves considered, the Gentile mind will never be able fully to appreciate. The oblations were not intended for Gentiles, and therefore can only be understood in some of their broadest suggestions by the contrasts which are afforded by the Christian religion. We cannot but be struck by the fact that the penalties of worship, as expressed by all these offerings, are abolished. That the Jewish worship was a system of penalties is evident upon the face of the arrangements. The gifts were really substantial and costly; whatever there might be about them of mere sentiment and spiritual aspiration it is certain that the gifts themselves necessitated very heavy expenditure, and constituted in fact a species of personal taxation. The meaning of this is that sin wherever it is found necessitates punishment. The punishment of sin is in no wise suspended or abrogated by the Christian dispensation, but the sting of penalty is wholly abstracted from Christian worship by the very spirit of Christ. What is now given, even of a costly character, ceases to affect the mind with a sense of its burdensomeness and becomes rather a delight than an imposition, a response of the heart rather than a heavy toil of the reluctant hand. Throughout the Biblical revelation we are never allowed to lose sight of the fact that sin means suffering, and that in some way or other sin must be paid for not in equivalents but in punishments, which are continually showing themselves unequal to the disastrous occasion. Payment on account of sin is the law of nature. We must not lose sight of this idea simply because there is no money in the transaction, ailment, decrepitude, incapacity to enjoy and inability to respond to the claims of life, all manner of restlessness, fear and shame, these are among the heavy payments which sin exacts at the hands of the sinner. It is difficult, too, to rid the mind of the idea that something like payment is involved in the act of worship; by payment in this sense must be understood the idea of compensation or doing something for the sake of blotting something else out, and thus, as it were, balancing accounts with Heaven. The Christian spirit delivers the soul from all this sense of mechanism and burdensomeness; though the worship is due and though the homage is paid, and thus words are imported into the exercise which savour of a commercial kind, yet what is due is rather an expression of spontaneous love, and what is paid is rather the inspiration of a grateful heart than any action that can be brought under the name of imposition or taxation.
It is impossible to compare this chapter with the law of Christian worship without observing how all narrow conceptions of God and of his requirements of the human soul are utterly abolished. The Jewish system was really a small one in all its conceptions of God. Jehovah was a task-master, a king who had prizes to give away and appointments to make in his celestial kingdom. He was an image of terror and of continual apprehension; his anger was to be appeased by suffering on the part of those who had offended, or by the offering of symbolic sacrifices. The day’s account could be settled within the day itself. The service was the labour of a hireling and not the sacred answer of the heart to the claim of divine love. All this is done away in the Christian dispensation. The idea of master, despot, ruler, in the low and base senses of these terms, has no place in Christian thinking. God is Father, pitiful and kind; Lord, as gracious as he is mighty; the Eternal who is continually incarnating himself in the separate moments of time. Worship is no longer confined to definite places as if it would be unacceptable unless offered under localising and narrowing conditions. Not in any mountain, nor in any metropolis exclusively is worship to be offered; the whole earth is now a church and every man is related to the priesthood of the Son of God. With those narrow conceptions all degrading thoughts of God are abolished. God is degraded to human thought when he is conceived of as a tyrant or as one who comes to claim mere suffering at the hands of the sinner. We are led to see that suffering is only intended as a means towards spiritual education, and is only used because through it alone can some parts of our nature be vitally and redeemingly touched. The suffering thus acquires a new character because it is invested with a new purpose. It is not suffering only, or suffering without moral suggestion and comfort; it is suffering as an educator, as a severity edged with mercy, as a mere point in a long and tedious process by which the soul is delivered from evil servitude and brought into sacred and holy liberty. Along with narrow conceptions and degrading thoughts of God all merely bodily exercises are done away. “Bodily exercise profiteth little.” Long education was required to expel from the human mind the sophism that bodily exercise is needful to spiritual enlargement. Being in the body we use to a larger extent than is often supposed, the creatures of the flesh. It pleases us to think that we are able to do something or to suffer something which must of necessity have an effect upon the obligation created by our daily guilt. The ministrations which we offer to our vanity are often of the subtlest kind. Even in our Christian worship there is a tendency of the mind towards all that is meant by “bodily exercise”: it may be by much speaking, it may be by overstraining the mind in an effort to be mechanically correct, it may be some superstitious idea of what is due to the majesty of God, it may be many things which cannot be named in words; but in the last analysis it will be found that the offering of bodily exercise conceals itself oftentimes within our most sacred spiritual abstractions and services. That Christianity seeks to deliver the soul from all such bondage, is one of its highest titles to the trust and veneration of men. Christianity risks itself upon its absolute spirituality. It is willing to part with all its externals in order that it may establish itself in the simple and unadulterated confidence of the heart. It has gone so far as to be willing to lay aside miracles, and prophecies, and tongues, and all signs and wonders considering these but as so many bodily exercises in order that it might set up a kingdom of spiritual truth and establish a service of spiritual consecration. Christianity has even gone so far as to say in the person of its greatest expounder, the Apostle Paul, that henceforth even Christ himself is not known after the flesh. What has become of the body of Christ is now a small question compared with what is the meaning of the rule of the Spirit of Christ in every province of human thought and life. Great Lessons follow from this train of reflection. We must put a stop to all those inferior teachers who would enclose the kingdom of heaven within certain questions of simply a fleshly kind, though those questions may never be defined under such broad conditions. We may debase even the question of inspiration into a merely carnal one; that is to say, we may be so anxious about the inspiration of certain particular individuals, as to where that inspiration began and ended and how it operated, as utterly to overlook the true nature and function of the ministry of the Holy Spirit in the human heart. It is possible to be so anxious to prove the actual rising of the body of Christ from the grave as to forget the higher resurrection, the nobler and grander ascension, the direct personal lordship of Christ over all things in heaven and in earth. There is no occasion so to pervert these suggestions as to deduce the mischievous inference that things introductory, accessory and explanatory, have been denied. Nothing of the kind. Our one object is to define the limit of such externals and illustrations, and to show that they all point towards an inner and inexpressible mystery: the kingdom of heaven in the heart often without defined boundaries, but embracing all inspiration, conviction, service and hope; involving, in fact, the whole being in the very mystery of immortality and heaven. These reflections have a distinct bearing upon persons who would offer sacrifice or homage with the mere letter of Scripture. It cannot be too persistently re-affirmed that it is possible to know the letter and yet not to know anything of the meaning of the spirit; to be learned in chapter and verse and to be completely qualified for cross-examination in the concordance, and yet never to have come within the sacred enclosure of spiritual revelation and ministry. The letter is true; the letter must be vindicated; but the letter itself is dishonoured when it is considered as final; it is a magnificent portal to a magnificent palace or temple.
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 3:1 And if his oblation [be] a sacrifice of peace offering, if he offer [it] of the herd; whether [it be] a male or female, he shall offer it without blemish before the LORD.
Ver. 1. Whether it be a male or female. ] In Christ there is neither male nor female, but all one. Gal 3:28 Souls have no sexes. In thank offerings, the female also might pass: to teach that God looks not so much to the worth of the gift as the honesty of the heart that offers it. Leavened bread also in this case was accepted. Lev 7:13
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Leviticus Chapter 3
THE SACRIFICES OF PEACE.
GENERAL TRAITS.
This is the last of the freewill offerings. Like the Burnt offering it was the sacrifice of animals; like the Meal offering or Minchah it was in part to be eaten. As with the former, the offerer laid his hand on the head of his offering, and slaughtered it at the entrance of the tent of meeting; and Aaron’s sons the priests scattered rather than sprinkled the blood on the altar round about. It was, of course presented like the Burnt offering before Jehovah but no more than the fat that covers the inwards and also the fat that is on the inwards, and the two kidneys, and the fat that is on them which is by the flanks, and the net or caul upon the liver was to be taken away as far as the kidneys and burnt on the altar. The special feature of this offering, the Shelem, was to complete, as the cognate verb means. The aim was to express communion; and this it did with fulness indeed if we knew not Who He is that inspired these communications through His servant Moses.
In the law of the sacrifice of Peace offerings (Lev 7:11-21 ) we find this distinction in point of character or motive. They might be offered for a thanksgiving with their appropriate unleavened cakes mingled with oil, and unleavened wafers anointed with oil, and cakes mingled with oil, of fine flour soaked, but not without cakes of leavened bread also; for man’s taint is in his rendering of thanks. In this case the flesh of the sacrifice had to be eaten on the day of the offering, and none of it was to be left until the morning. But if the sacrifice of this offering were a vow or a voluntary offering, not only the flesh might be eaten on the day that it was presented, but the remainder of it on the morrow also, though the rest, if any, must be burnt on the third day. For if eaten then, so far from being accepted, it should be imputed an abomination to the offerer, and he that ate of it should bear his iniquity, just as uncleanness upon the eater would bring on him cutting off from his people. Thanksgiving is simple, and looked for from the simplest believer; but it has no such sustaining power as that devotedness of heart which Christ and His sacrifice more deeply known create in some that know God’s grace better. There is no real communion apart from faith in Christ’s sacrifice and the thanksgiving it calls forth. Separate from Him and the faith that owns His work, it is fleshly, abominable to God, and ruinous to man; but the energy of the Spirit which fills the heart with Christ and forms devotedness has greater permanence; and it produces greater vigilance against all that defiles, though this in principle is true of those born of God, however feeble they may be.
It is in the appendix of the same chapter (Lev. 28-34) that we find the distinctive communion that belonged to the Peace offering. The offerer’s own hands were to bring the first offering to Jehovah. The breast, for Aaron and his sons, was to be waved before Jehovah, as the fat was to be burnt upon the altar. The right shoulder was to be as a Peace offering to the offering priest. The rest was for the offerer, his family or friends. Thus Jehovah had His portion, Christ as signified by the priest that presented the blood and the fat, He and :His house (“whose house are we”), and the believers one with another, all entering into and enjoying the fellowship of Christ’s work. But all uncleanness is peremptorily treated as incompatible with the feast on that sacrifice. If man’s communion be prominent, the more care is taken that he forget not what is due to God and His holiness.
THE PEACE OFFERING OF THE HERD.
The Peace offering emphatically, and among the sacrifices distinctively, expressed fellowship. Here, however, it is the highest aspect which is put forward. It is only in “the law” of these offerings that we find the larger communion set out. Meet it is that God should be honoured in the first place; and this is carefully done throughout the chapter.
“And if his oblation [be] a sacrifice of peace offerings, if he present of the herd whether male or female, be shall present it without blemish before Jehovah. And he shall lay his hand upon the head of his oblation, and slaughter it at the entrance of the tent of meeting; and Aaron’s sons the priests shall sprinkle of the blood round about on the altar. And he shall present of the sacrifice of peace offerings a fire offering unto Jehovah: the fat that covereth the inwards and all the fat that [is] on the inwards, and the two kidneys and the fat that [is] on them, which [is] by the flanks, and the net above the liver which he shall take away as far as the kidneys; and Aaron’s sons shall burn it on the altar upon the burnt offering which [is] on the wood that [is] upon the fire: a fire offering of sweet odour to Jehovah” (vers. 1-5).
As usual, the most abundant offering occupies the first place. It represents Christ entered fully into according to God’s mind, not for atonement as in Lev 1 , still less for sin or trespass as in chaps. 4, 5, yet slain and the blood sprinkled or dashed round about upon the altar, and so distinguished from every form of the Meal offering. Simple faith is ever strong and intelligent; subject to the written word, it rests through grace on divine righteousness; it owns according to the Spirit’s testimony man wholly evil as well as guilty and lost, but it no less owns the believer forgiven and saved according to God’s estimate of Christ’s work, so that doubt henceforth is treated as sin, and the gospel is received in full assurance of faith. Christ therefore is apprehended in the richest form of this fresh presentation of God’s grace, where His enjoyment of the Saviour’s death in its positive excellency as the deepest ground of communion is set forth for the joy of faith. We may see a beautiful answer to it, as well as to the Holocaust, in our Lord’s expression of His death in Joh 10:17 , Joh 10:18 . “Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life (soul) that I may take it again. No one taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have authority to lay it down, and have authority to take it again: this commandment I received of my Father.” In this point of view, the objects of compassion and their clearance by atonement vanish to leave the absolute devotedness of Christ to the divine glory alone; so as to furnish the highest motive for the Father’s love, independently of evil to be judged and benefits to be conferred righteously. How wondrous that once guilty and selfish creatures, and such as we, can be let in to share such divine delight, finding in it even now the spring of our deep worship!
Latitude ordinarily was left, as compared with the Burnt offering; male or female might be presented; for man was to share as well as God. But it must be “without blemish,” for it typified Christ. And in both oases the offerer laid his hand upon the head of his oblation, the witness of identity with the victim’s efficacy; as indeed though for another end in the sacrifices for sin. Burnt, Meal, and Peace offerings, were alike Fire offerings and an odour of rest to Jehovah. But here it was the fat: all the inward fat, expressive of the sound state and intrinsic energy of the victim, no less than the blood, was for Jehovah only. Abel we see led thus by faith to honour God in his acceptable sacrifice, when Cain in unbelief sinned against Him.
It was exactly in place, and in due homage, that God should be shown thus honoured. Even though fellowship of others, yea, of all that are His, should be afterwards taught with careful minuteness, His part alone appears here in the type. The blood was for Him alone; the fat exclusively His. What excellency He found in that which was the meaning and substance and end of these shadows! To every other, the blood, the forfeited life, was prohibited utterly; and the fat elsewhere, the proud rebellious self-complacency that kicked against God’s will and His glory. In Jesus, for both cases, what savour of holy and gracious devotedness to His name, inwardly and outwardly up to death, yea, death of the cross! What a new and mighty -motive for infinite love, which there found its adequate object and its constant delight in “the Lord’s death!” What an unfailing source and everlasting sustainer of worship to His own who in faith taste of His joy – joy in God!
We may observe (Lev 17 ) that in the wilderness, whenever one of the house of Israel killed an ox, lamb, or goat within the camp, or killed it without the camp, he was bound to bring it unto the door of the tent of the meeting and present it as an oblation to Jehovah, Who was entitled to the blood upon His altar and to the fat also. All such flesh, before being eaten, must be thus sacrificed as Peace offerings to Jehovah. So were Israel to walk, even in their daily food testifying their communion with Him Who gave them it and all things. Are we, Christians, to fall short of Israel? Have we not the “better thing?”
THE PEACE OFFERING OF A SHEEP.
There was a certain latitude allowed as to the Peace offering as compared with the Burnt offering. In the latter a male was required, in the former the animal presented might be either a male or a female. Where the entire victim was consumed on the altar save the skin which went to the offering priest, the highest form of the animal was demanded, whether of herd or of flock. It was to make atonement, for the offerer was a sinful man, though not occupied then with particular offences for which a Sin or Trespass offering was needed. But the peculiarity of the Peace offering lay in its being not only offered up to God but participated in by man also. It was meet accordingly that a lower standard should be prescribed than where He exclusively was in view.
“And if his oblation for a sacrifice of peace offerings to Jehovah [be] of the flock, male or female, he shall present it without blemish. If he present a sheep for his oblation, then shall he present it before Jehovah, and he shall lay his hand on the head of his oblation, and slaughter it before the tent of meeting; and Aaron’s sons shall sprinkle the blood thereof upon the altar round about. And he shall present of the sacrifice of peace offerings a fire offering to Jehovah: the fat thereof, the whole fat tail, which he shall take off close by the back bone, and the fat that covereth the inwards, and all the fat that [is] on the inwards, and the two kidneys and the fat that [is] on them, which [is] by the flanks, and the net [or, caul] above the liver which he shall take away as far as the kidneys. And the priest shall burn it on the altar: the food of the fire offering to Jehovah” (vers. 6-11).
Hence also, though the hand was laid on the head of the offering, and it was offered like the Burnt offering at the entrance of the tent of meeting, not a word is said of its being accepted for him, still less to make atonement for him, though it was alike slaughtered there, and Aaron’s sons the priests alike dashed the blood on the altar round about. Nothing is here said about flaying it. as with the Burnt offering, nothing about cutting it up in its pieces as in that case for the convenient and complete burning it up on the altar. The sacrifice of the Peace offering was to be presented no less truly as a fire offering to Jehovah. Whatever the privilege enjoyed, it is inseparable from sacrifice, and God has His honour in the first place. How could it be a type of Christ without such homage as this? And assuredly it is here expressly and carefully enjoined.
But it is on the fat that unusual stress is laid. In the Burnt offering a term is employed which does not appear otherwise. Here it is the more general expression, but pressed with emphasis and descriptive care, “and the fat that covereth the inwards and all the fat that [is] on the inwards, and the two kidneys and the fat that [is] on them, which [is] by the flanks, and the net [or, caul] above the liver which he shall take away as far as the kidneys.” Indeed where a sheep was offered, the whole fat and tail also was specified besides, which was to be taken off close by the back bone, and burnt on the altar. The fat represents, not the life as in the blood of the animal given up to God, but its inward energy. The richest part is here claimed sacrificially for the altar.
In the offering from the herd the fat or other inward appurtenances was formally declared to be burnt on the altar upon the Burnt offering which was on the wood upon the fire. This was the fullest pledge of divine acceptance. In the offering from the flock the word is more brief; but a new and blessed phrase is added; it is “the food” or “bread” of the fire offering to Jehovah. How wondrous for Him and us to enjoy the same offering! Here again what a falling away from the truth of Christ to find, in this burning of the fat, “the offering up of our good affections to God in all our prayers and praises,” or, far worse even, “the mortifying of our corrupt affections and lusts, and the burning up of them by the fire of divine grace.” Yet I am citing, not Augustine nor Chrysostom, not Bossuet nor Pusey, but Matthew Henry; and Scott is no better. Think of either alternative being “the food of the fire offering to Jehovah for a savour of rest!” No; it was neither our good offered up, nor our bad mortified, but the inward energy of Christ Himself, as the ground perfect and abiding of communion for God and His family. For God’s grace would have His children to enjoy a common portion with Himself; and it in the special aim of the Peace offering to show how the sacrifice of Christ secures this blessed fellowship to us. Christ offered up to God could alone furnish it in Himself. Quite another thing is what He produces in us, and yet more what He delivers us from.
We can perceive even in Lev 3 that comparatively little of this sacrifice was burnt on the altar. What was burnt there was the choicest and most intimate; but besides this we shall see from Lev 7 that part was given to Aaron and his sons in general, part to the offering priest in particular, and that the larger portion remained for the offerer, his family and his friends. In the same victim this remarkable fellowship of Jehovah, of the priestly body, of the true Priest, and of the faithful at large, is the distinctive property of the Peace offering. It is urged forcibly by the apostle in 1Co 10 when insisting on the communion of Christ to guard from all inconsistent with it. “Behold Israel according to flesh: are not they that eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?” By eating of these they had fellowship with the altar. This was their communion, which made it morally impossible to be in communion with the heathen and their idols behind which were demons. How much more hatefully incongruous for us who drink of the Lord’s cup and partake of His table! For the Lord’s Supper is the standing and solemn act of communion for the church of God. It is the communion of Christ’s blood and of Christ’s body; and as we therein remember Him in death and in deeper than death for us, so He would the more strengthen us in self-judgment and abhorrence of all that offends God or sanctions the enemy.
No doubt whether we eat or drink or whatsoever we do day by day, we are called to obedience and to holiness, doing all to God’s glory. But we have one special act in the breaking of the bread, constantly before us on each “first” of the week, the Lord’s day. This agrees in spirit with the eating of the Peace offering, though the Lord’s Supper becomes deeper, as Christianity exceeds the Law, and Christ Himself the victim which typified Him in certain respects.
THE PEACE OFFERING OF A GOAT.
This sacrifice did not admit of such latitude as the Burnt offering, nor yet as the Meal offering. It allowed nothing less than a goat, which now claims our attention as a third alternative.
“And if his oblation [be] a goat, then he shall present it before Jehovah; and he shall lay his hand on the head of it, and slaughter it before the tent of meeting. And the sons of Aaron shall sprinkle the blood of it on the altar round about. And he shall present thereof his offering, a fire offering to Jehovah the fat that covereth the inwards and all the fat that [is] on the inwards, and the two kidneys and the fat that [is] on them which [is] by the flanks, and the net above the liver, he shall take away as far as the kidneys. And the priest shall burn them on the altar, the food of the fire offering for a sweet odour. All the fat [is] Jehovah’s. [It is] an everlasting statute for your generations throughout all your dwellings: no fat and no blood shall ye eat” (vers. 12- 17).
Though the goat could not be compared with the worth of the bullock or even with the harmless sheep, so suited to represent the patient blameless Sufferer, Jehovah comforted the Jew who could not bring either, yet desired to pay his thanks or his vow. A goat was perfectly valid and assuredly acceptable. He was to present it before Jehovah, lay his hand on its head, and slay it before the tent of meeting; nor did Aaron’s sons sprinkle its blood with less zeal or care on the altar round about. He was directed to present thereof his offering, a Fire offering to Jehovah: all the inward fat, etc., precisely as he that offered the internal fat of a bullock.
One thing was expressly asked indeed, when a sheep was offered, which was peculiar necessarily to that form of the offering; “the whole fat tail, he shall take it away close by the backbone.” In the sheep of Syria no portion was more prized or valuable, not only for its size but for its quality as fat with the delicacy of marrow. This was therefore claimed for Jehovah, and ungrudgingly given, “hard by the backbone.” So surely had the Antitype devoted all His energies to His Father, not His life only. No wonder that such a type in the sheep’s case drew out the beautiful recognition, “It is the food [or, bread] of the fire offering to Jehovah. “
It is all the more striking in the case of the goat, which had no such fat tail; and consequently no such demand held in this respect. Yet here sovereign grace consoled the offerer of the goat, “It is the food of the fire offering for a sweet odour.” It also was His bread, and an odour of rest to Him.
How much more may we not rejoice in His joy, Who knows the infinite reality that we have correspondingly found in the sacrifice of Jesus, His blood and death, and His inward energies without stint offered up to His glory! What delight to the Father in Him Who gave Himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for an odour of a sweet smell! If all the fat, the inward richness of the victim, was Jehovah’s, if no such fat was to be eaten by the Israelites any more than the blood, how blessedly Christ has made it all good for us, as the basis of our communion with our God and Father! The law of the offering says more of the deepest worth; but we need say no more now.
Fuente: William Kelly Major Works (New Testament)
oblation. Hebrew. korban. See on Lev 2:4 and App-43.
sacrifice. Hebrew. zebach. See App-43.
peace offering. Hebrew. shelem. App-43.
offer it = bring near. Hebrew. karab. App-43.
female. The burnt offering must be a Mal 1:3, Mal 1:10.
the LORD. Hebrew. Jehovah. App-4.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
In the peace offering new elements are manifest Here one part was to be burned with fire and thus offered directly to God, while another part was returned from the altar to the worshiper for his own sustenance. In this offering, then, the great fact of acceptance and communion established on the basis of sacrifice and dedication is portrayed. It is indeed the peace offering forevermore speaking of peace established between the worshiper and God.
The basis of this peace is found in the offering through the death of the guiltless for the guilty, and the complete dedication of the worshiper to God. It is therefore the offering suggesting fellowship between God and the worshiper when all the reasons for disagreement have been banished and peace naturally ensues. To the sinner no such place of communion is possible, but in the offerings substitution is revealed as the way of dedication, which, in turn, admits into such communion with God sacrifice characterized by peace
In these three offerings the sinner has been dealt with as such by nature. In each case the offering has been voluntary. The facts of specific and personal sins have not been dealt with.
Fuente: An Exposition on the Whole Bible
Peace-Offerings from the Herd and the Flocks
Lev 3:1-17
The Lord Jesus has been set forth in Lev 1:1-17 as the burned-offering in relation to God; and in Lev 2:1-16, as the meal-offering in relation to man. We are now to regard Him as the peace-offering, to rectify the disturbed relations between God and man. It supplied food for God in the fat devoured by the sacred fire upon the altar, it fed the priests in those parts specially reserved for them, Lev 7:33-34; but the worshiper also might participate, Lev 7:15. Thus it was a feast that brought into close relations God, priest and people, and it furnished a beautiful typical picture of the truth taught in 1Jn 1:3, Our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ.
Before sitting at the sacrificial feast the offerer laid his hand on the victims head, as though to transfer his sins; and we are reminded that we cannot feast on Christ as our Passover unless we have been first pardoned and justified through His death.
Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary
Lecture III The Peace Offering
Read Leviticus, chaps. 3; 7: 11-34; Ps. 85.
The peace offering has a peculiar preciousness because of its unique character as an expression of fellowship with God based upon the work of the Lord Jesus Christ upon the cross. As already intimated, there can be no true communion with God if we ignore that finished work. The Unitarian may talk of enjoying fellowship with God, but he is simply mistaking religious emotions for spiritual communion, for the latter cannot exist apart from faith in the Lord Jesus as the eternal Son of the Father, and the souls rest upon the work He accomplished upon the Tree.
The very fact that a peace offering is needed implies that something is wrong in regard to the relations between God and man. Man by nature since the fall is unfit for fellowship with God. He comes into this world a sinner, a sinner by nature; from the beginning his bent is toward that which is unholy rather than to that which is holy. It is very much easier for him to sin than it is to do that which is just and righteous; very much easier for him to go down than to rise up. I know it is fashionable nowadays to deny all this, and to teach that man has been on the up- grade throughout the centuries; but this is not so. Apart from the Word of God even, our actual experience teaches us that it is easier for man to do evil than to do good, and this is because of the corruption of his nature. David exclaimed in Psa 51:5, Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me. By nature man understands not the things of God; he cannot commune with Him; he loves what God hates, and hates what God loves. God is infinitely holy; loving good and doing only good. Between man and God there is really nothing in common. Men are not only sinners by nature, but they have become transgressors by practice, deliberately, wilfully, violating the law, breaking the commandments, and acting in self-will. As the Word tells us, All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all (Isa 53:6). For God desires us to be at peace with Him, He longs to bring us into fellowship with Him. But this at once raises the questions, How it is possible for sinful, polluted man ever to be at peace with God? Can we ourselves make our peace with Him? We often hear very well-meaning people urge Christless souls to make their peace with God. Now I dont want to be factious, I dont want to be hypercritical, I dont want to make a man an offender for a word, but I am convinced that this expression is thoroughly misleading. What they mean is quite right. They mean that men should repent of their sins, ac- knowledge their lost condition, and own their need of a Saviour. But no man can ever make his own peace with God. It is Christ who has made peace for us.
Could my tears forever flow,
Could my zeal no languor know,
These for sin could not atone,
Thou must save, and Thou alone.
In my hand no price I bring,
Simply to Thy cross I cling.
It is the glory of the gospel that it reveals the heart of God going out after men in their sins, and it tells what He has done in order that man may obtain peace with God. It tells of Christ come from the bosom of the Father, from the glory that He had with the Father before the worlds were made, become in grace a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, and going to the cross, that dreadful cross, where He was made a curse for us in order that God and man might be brought together in perfect harmony, and we might be reconciled to God by His death. God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them. And yet that wondrous life could not in itself settle the sin question or recover man to God. In order to do this He must die, and having died He has manifested the fact that there is no enmity on Gods part toward man; all the enmity is on our side; and now He is beseeching us to be reconciled to God.
We stand toward Him as debtors, debtors who owe an enormous sum, debtors whose credit is utterly gone, and who are therefore absolutely unable to meet their obligations. But we read of two men who were in just such circumstances, and we are told: When they had nothing to pay He frankly forgave them both. And He does this on the basis of the peace offering: Christ has given Himself to meet our obligations. Col 1:19, 20 states: For it pleased the Father that in Him should all fulness dwell; and having made peace through the blood of His cross, by Him to reconcile all things unto Himself; by Him, I say, whether they be things in earth or things in heaven. This is the peace offering. He has made peace by the blood of His cross. In Eph 2:13, 14 we read: But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For He is our peace who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us. This is what is so beautifully illustrated in the peace offering of old. Christ Himself is our peace. As another has put it:
Peace with God is Christ in glory,
God is Light and God is Love;
Jesus died to tell the story,
Foes to bring to God above.
Peace with God is not simply a happy, restful feeling in the soul, though he who enjoys peace with God cannot but be happy, for it is written that being justified by faith we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God. Peace with God was made on the cross, and we enter into the good of it when we trust that blessed Saviour who died for us. God has found His satisfaction in that work, we find ours there, and so we enjoy Christ together. His delight is Christ and our delight is Christ; He enjoys Christ and we enjoy Christ; He feeds upon Christ and we feed upon Christ, and so we have communion, blessed happy fellowship, on the basis of that sweet savor offering.
In Leviticus 3 there are three different victims mentioned, any one of which might be brought to the altar as a peace offering. First we read, If his oblation be a sacrifice of peace offering, if he offer it of the herd, whether it be male or female, he shall offer it without blemish before the Lord (ver. 1). Then in verse 6 we are told, And if his offering for a sacrifice of peace offering unto the Lord, be of the flock, male or female, he shall offer it without blemish. If he offer a lamb for his offering, then shall he offer it before the Lord. Then again in verse 12, If his offering be a goat, then he shall offer it before the Lord. When looking at the burnt offering, we have already seen something of what these various creatures suggest in a typical way. The sacrifice of the herd speaks of Christ as the devoted Servant of God and man, and whether we think of Him as the rightfully independent One, as suggested by the male, or the subject One, as suggested by the female, we can have communion with God from either standpoint. Then the lamb speaks of Him as the One who was consecrated even unto death; and the goat, of the One who took the sinners place.
We may not all have exactly the same apprehension of the value and the preciousness of Christ and His work, but if we really trust in Him, and come to God confessing Him, we are on the ground of peace, and may have fellowship with God to the full extent of our apprehension, and as we go on learning more and more of who Christ really is, and what He is to God, our communion will be deepened and intensified.
The offerer was to lay his hand upon the head of his offering, and kill it himself at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. This again speaks of the identification of the offerer with his offering. It brings out most vividly the truth of substitution, and should impress upon every one of us the fact that we ourselves need a Substitute, a sinless Saviour who could suffer in our stead. Christ is that Substitute, and we are directly responsible for His death.
Unlike the burnt offering, the entire peace offering was not placed upon the altar; only a very small part of it, namely, the fat that covereth the inwards, and all the fat that is upon the inwards, and the two kidneys, and the fat that is on them, which is by the flanks, and the caul which is above the liver with the kidneys -these were the parts that were to be burned upon the altar as a sweet savor unto the Lord. And observe, these parts could only be reached by death. This speaks surely of the deepest inward emotions and sensibilities of the Lord leading Him out of love to the Father to devote Himself to death in order that men might be reconciled to God. Who can fathom the meaning of those words, He poured out His soul unto death?
When we turn to the law of the offering in chap. 7, beginning with verse 8, we see more clearly why this particular sacrifice is called the peace offering. We find God and His people enjoying it together. When the appointed portions were placed upon the altar for thanksgiving (ver. 12), there were offered with it various meal offerings, all speaking as we have seen of Christs Person. Of these a small portion was burned upon the altar, and the rest was eaten by the priests. Then the breast of the offering, speaking of the affections of Christ, was given to Aaron and his sons, the priestly house; all of the priests feed upon that which speaks of the love of Christ, for this is what the breast typifies. The right shoulder speaking of the strength of the Lord, His omnipotent power, was the special portion of the offering priest himself. The rest of the sacrifice was taken away by the offerer, and he and his family and friends ate it together before the Lord, rejoicing in the fact that, typically, mercy and truth had met together, righteousness and peace had kissed each other. This is indeed a vivid and graphic picture of communion; God Himself, His anointed priests, the offerer and his friends, all feasting together upon the same victim, the sacrifice of peace offering.
But now, if I am really going to enjoy fellowship with God, I must be in a right state of soul. There can be no communion with unforgiven sin upon the conscience. In verse 20 we read: But the soul that eateth of the flesh of the sacrifice of peace offerings, that pertain unto the Lord, having his uncleairness upon him, even that soul shall be cut off from his people. Before God no true believer has uncleanness upon him-The blood of Jesus Christ, Gods Son, cleanses us from all sin. When on that cross our iniquities were laid on Christ, He had no sin in Him, but He took our sins upon Him. We now have no sins upon us, but we do have sin within, but this sin should ever be judged in the light of the cross of Christ. This is illustrated for us in ver. 13: Besides the cakes, he shall offer for his offering leavened bread with the sacrifice of thanksgiving of his peace offerings. Here is a direct instance where leavened bread was used with the sacrifice of thanksgiving of the peace offering. We have already seen that no leaven was permitted in the meal offering, but this particular sacrifice evidently typifies not Christ Himself but the worshiper who came to God bringing his peace offering. It was as though the man was confessing: In myself I am a poor sinner, sin is in my very nature; because of that I dare not approach God without an offering. And on the basis of that offering he was accepted and could enter into fellowship with God.
Thus we see that we have here set forth an all-important New Testament truth. Every believer has sin in him, but no believer has sin on him. Attention has often been directed to the three crosses on Calvary. On the centre cross hung that divine Man who had no sin in Him, but He did have sin on Him, for in that hour of His souls anguish Jehovah laid on Him the iniquity of us all. He had no sins of His own, but He made Himself responsible for ours. They were all charged against His account, as Paul directed Philemon to charge the account of Onesimus against him. Paul became surety for Onesimus, and agreed to settle for him. This is but a faint picture of what Jesus did for sinners when He bare our sins in His own body on the tree. The impenitent thief had sin in him and sin on him; he was both sinful by nature and by practice, and he spurned the only Saviour who could have delivered him from his load of guilt. So he went into the presence of God with all his sins upon his soul to answer for them in the day of judgment when God will judge every man according to his works. But how different was the case of the penitent thief! He, too, had been as vile and guilty as the other one, but when he turned in repentance to the Lord Jesus and put his trust in Him, while he still had sin in him, God no longer imputed sin to him. It was not upon him because God saw it all as transferred to Jesus.
I know that many Christians imagine they reach a state of grace where their sins are not only forgiven, but where inbred sin is by direct operation of the Holy Spirit removed from them, so that they claim to be sanctified wholly and are free from all inward tendency to sin. But this is a serious mistake and leads to serious consequences. Never in the Word of God are we so taught. As believers we carry about with us to the end of life our sinful nature, that carnal mind which is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be; but then God says sin need not have dominion over us, yea, shall not, if we but apprehend the blessedness of the truth, Ye are not under the law but under grace.1
There is a great deal more in Leviticus 7 that we might profitably consider, but time forbids going into much of it in detail. One thing, however, I desire to press most earnestly ere I close, and that is the divine insistence that the eating of the sacrifice must not be separated from the offering on the altar. It was to be eaten the same day, under ordinary circumstances, or if a voluntary offering it might be eaten the day after, but later than that it was sternly commanded that whatever was left must be burned with fire. The meaning of this is plain; God will not permit us to separate communion with Him from the work of the Cross. Our fellowship with Him is based upon the one supreme sacrifice of our Lord Jesus Christ who there made peace for us. Communion, as we have already seen, does not consist simply in pious feeling; this may be the greatest delusion, and may be simply satisfaction with a fancied good self instead of heart-occupation with Christ. It is just as dangerous to be occupied with my good self as with my bad self. In the latter case I am likely to be completely discouraged and cast down, but in the former I become lifted up with pride and in grave danger of fancying my spiritual egotism to be communion with God.
It is right here that the Lords Supper so speaks to the hearts of Gods people. For at His table we are occupied with Christ Himself and with what He did for us when He stooped in grace to take our place in judgment and to make peace by the blood of His cross. As we meditate upon these sublime mysteries, our souls are led into the sanctuary, into the immediate presence of God, in hallowed fellowship and sweetest communion. We realize that the veil no longer hides God from us, nor hinders our access to Him. When Jesus cried, It is finished, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom. It was Gods hand that rent that veil, and now we are bidden to press boldly in to His immediate presence where we fall as worshipers before His face to bless and adore Him who gave Himself for us.
The veil is rent, our souls draw near
Unto a throne of grace;
The merits of the Lord appear,
They fill the holy place.
His precious blood has spoken there,
Before and on the throne,
And His own wounds in Heaven declare
The atoning work is done.
Tis finished!-here our souls find rest,
His work can never fail,
By Him, our sacrifice and priest.
We pass within the veil.
And there, with all the blood-bought throng, we feast upon the sacrifice of peace offering as we dwell upon the infinite love and grace of Him who has so fully expressed the heart of God toward guilty man by giving up His holy life in death for us. To attempt to worship apart from this is but a mockery. All religious exercises and frames of feeling that are not linked with the work of the cross are simply delusive and deceive the soul, for there can be no true communion with God excepting in connection with the cross-work of our Lord Jesus Christ.
I add a few additional remarks as to Psalm 85, which may well be called the Psalm of the peace offering. Notice verses 1 and 2, Lord, Thou hast been favorable unto Thy land: Thou hast brought back the captivity of Jacob. Thou hast forgiven the iniquity of Thy people, Thou hast covered all their sin. Then observe verses 7 to 11, Show us Thy mercy, O Lord, and grant us Thy salvation. I will hear what God the Lord will speak: for He will speak peace unto His people, and to His saints: but let them not turn again to folly. Surely His salvation is nigh them that fear Him; that glory may dwell in our land. Mercy and truth are met together; righteousness and peace have kissed each other; truth shall spring out of the earth, and righteousness shall look down from heaven. It is God Himself who speaks peace to His people, for He alone could devise a plan whereby mercy and truth could meet together and righteousness and peace kiss each other. Truth and righteousness demanded the payment of our fearful debt ere mercy could be shown to the sinner. That man could not settle the differences between himself and God is evident; atone for his own sins he could not. It is written in Zec 6:12, 13, And speak unto him, saying, Thus speaketh the Lord of hosts, saying, Behold the Man whose name is The BRANCH; and He shall grow up out of His place, and He shall build the temple of the Lord: even He shall build the temple of the Lord; and He shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule upon His throne; and He shall be a priest upon His throne: and the counsel of peace shall be between Them both. The counsel of peace is between the Lord of hosts and the Man whose name is The Branch, or, to put it in New Testament language, it is between the Father and the Son. Peace was made when our Lord Jesus took our place upon the cross and met every claim of the outraged majesty of the throne of God. Now righteousness and peace are linked eternally together, and being justified by faith we have peace with God. This is not merely a sense of righteousness in our hearts; it is far more than that; it is a question settled between God and the sinner in perfect righteousness, so that grace can now go out to guilty man. When we believe this we enter into peace. We enjoy what Christ has effected.
There is an incident that has often been related, but well illustrates what I am trying to say. At the close of the war between the States, a party of Federal cavalrymen were riding along a road toward Richmond one day, when a poor scarecrow of a fellow, weak and emaciated, and clad only in the ragged remnants of a Confederate uniform, came out of the bushes on one side and attracted their attention by begging hoarsely for bread. He declared that he had been starving in the woods for a number of weeks, and subsisting only upon the few berries and roots he could find. They suggested that he go into Richmond with them and get what he needed. He demurred, saying that he was a deserter from the Confederate army, and he did not dare to show himself lest he be arrested and confined in prison, or possibly shot for desertion in time of war. They looked at him in amazement and asked, Have you not heard the news? What news? he anxiously enquired. Why, the Confederacy no longer exists. General Lee surrendered to General Grant over a week ago, and peace is made. Oh! he exclaimed, peace is made, and I have been starving in the woods because I did not know it. Believing the message, he went with them into the city to find comfort and food. Oh, unsaved one, let me press upon you the blessed truth that peace was made when our adorable Saviour died for our sins upon the cross of shame. Believe the message, then you enter into the good of it; and, remember, peace rests not on your frames or feelings but on His finished work.
That which can shake the Cross,
Can shake the peace it gave,
Which tells me Christ has never died,
Nor ever left the grave.
As long as these blessed facts remain – the death and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ -our peace stands secure.
1 I have tried to go into this with considerable fulness in my book entitled, Holiness: the False and the True, and I venture to commend this to any who have trouble in regard to this subject.
Fuente: Commentaries on the New Testament and Prophets
3. The Peace Offering
CHAPTER 3
1. The ox (Lev 3:1-5)
2. The sheep or goat (Lev 3:6-17)
This is the third sweet savour offering, and is closely linked with the burnt offering, but it differs from it, especially, in that part of it was to be eaten. The peace offering also had the character of a thank offering (Lev 7:11-13). As it was offered on the altar upon the burnt sacrifice, it cannot therefore be separated from Christ offering Himself as the burnt offering. Lev 7:11-34 contains the law of the peace offering and tells of the eating of the peace offering, which is not mentioned in the third chapter. It typifies the gracious results accomplished for the sinner by the death of Christ. The blood is sprinkled upon the altar, which is for propitiation. Fellowship therefore results with praise and thanksgiving. As we shall learn more fully from the seventh chapter about the feeding upon the breast and the shoulder of the peace offering, we pass all this by. However, we call attention to the prominence given to the fat of the sacrifice. It is the type of the inward energy of Christ, expressed in doing the Fathers will, even unto death; and this is called the food of Jehovah. He delights in this. The happy scene of how the priests, the offerer and his friends partook of that of which God partakes Himself, we shall see later.
Fuente: Gaebelein’s Annotated Bible (Commentary)
peace-offering
The peace-offering. The whole work of Christ in relation to the believer’s peace is here in type. He made peace, Col 1:20 proclaimed peace, Eph 2:17 and is our peace, Eph 2:14.
In Christ God and the sinner meet in peace; God is propitiated, the sinner reconciled– both alike satisfied with what Christ has done. But all this at the cost of blood and fire. The details speak of fellowship. This brings in prominently the thought of fellowship with God through Christ. Hence the peace-offering is set forth as affording food for the priests Lev 7:31-34. Observe that it is the breast (affections) and shoulders (strength) upon which we as priests 1Pe 2:9 feed in fellowship with the Father. This it is which makes the peace-offering especially a thank-offering. Lev 7:11; Lev 7:12.
Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes
a sacrifice: Lev 7:11-21, Lev 7:29-34, Lev 22:19-21, Exo 20:24, Exo 24:5, Exo 29:28, Num 6:14, Num 7:17, Jdg 20:26, Jdg 21:4, 1Ch 21:26, Pro 7:14, Eze 45:15, Amo 5:22, Rom 5:1, Rom 5:2, Col 1:20, 1Jo 1:3
without: Lev 1:3, Num 6:14, Mal 1:8, Mal 1:14, Heb 10:22
Reciprocal: Gen 15:9 – General Lev 3:6 – be of Lev 3:7 – offer it Lev 3:12 – a goat Lev 3:13 – lay his hand Lev 7:37 – sacrifice Lev 9:4 – a bullock Lev 9:18 – a sacrifice Lev 17:5 – and offer them Lev 19:5 – a sacrifice Lev 22:21 – peace Lev 23:19 – two lambs Num 15:8 – peace Deu 27:7 – peace offerings 1Ki 3:15 – peace offerings 1Ki 8:63 – a sacrifice 2Ch 33:16 – peace
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
We now come to the third class of the offerings that were ordained under the law. The burnt offering and the meat offering were very closely connected: the first typifying the sacrificial death and blood-shedding of Christ in the excellence of His sweet savour before God; the second, the equally sweet savour of His perfect life in the energy of the Holy Spirit, tested even unto death. In the peace offering we have another aspect of His sacrifice which is based on the foregoing.
The very title of this offering would show us that it was to be brought by an Israelite whose conscience was in rest and peace before God. There was no compulsion about it; he just desired to bring it; In this respect it was the opposite to the sin or trespass offering, which was to be brought under compulsion by the Israelite, whose conscience was not in peace because of wrong-doing.
Again we notice that the animal offered might be taken from the herd or from the sheep or from the goats, and the animal must be without blemish. But. on the other hand more latitude was allowed for a female as well as a male might be brought. This is what we might expect, seeing that it is the response of the would-be worshipper that is before us here.
The laying of the hand upon the head of the victim, the shedding and sprinkling of its blood by the priests is the same as with the burnt offering, but now instead of the whole victim in its parts being burnt on the altar, only the fat from the inward parts was to be burnt for a sweet savour to the Lord. Since this inward fat would be the sign of an animal of health and vigour, it aptly symbolizes the excellence and energy of that devotion unto death which marked our blessed Lord. This came up as a sweet savour to God as the type indicates.
The fat then of the peace offerings was wholly claimed by God, and the last verse of the chapter states this very clearly. The fat must be burned on the altar, and the blood must be sprinkled on it round about. The people of Israel were to eat neither the one nor the other. The blood was the life of the victim and the fat was its excellence. This strict ordinance testified that man as a fallen sinner, has forfeited his own life, and has in himself no excellence in which he can stand before God. If he stands at all, it must be on the basis of the perfect life of Another poured out sacrificially before God, and in the excellence of the One who became the victim.
In this chapter we only learn what was to be done with the blood and the fat, which was God’s portion. We have to turn to the law of the peace offering, given to us in Lev 7:11-34, to learn that in the peace offering not only the priest had his share, but that the offerer himself had his portion. So that communion with God, as to the excellence of the sacrifice of Christ, is a distinguishing feature of this offering. But its details should come before us when we reach chapter 7.
There is in our chapter, however, one slight intimation of this feature in verses Lev 3:11; Lev 3:16. Twice do we get the expression, “the food of the offering,” which was made by fire, and which came up as a sweet savour to God. Now the word here translated “food” is far more frequently translated “bread,” but whichever word we adopt as the better translation, we have conveyed to us the thought of food which provides a satisfying portion. And we are permitted to find a portion in that which is the “bread” of God.
As we have before noticed in these types, God begins from His own side of the matter and works down to us. Hence we start with the burnt offering and lastly come to the offerings for sin and trespass. On our side of the matter, we have to begin with the sin offering. Nothing is right, nor can we advance further, until our sins with all their guilt are settled. With the offering for sins Lev 4:1-35 is occupied.
In verse Lev 3:2 let us note two things. First, the sin that is contemplated is “against any of the commandments of the Lord.” As before remarked, “sin is not imputed [put to account] when there is no law (Rom 5:13). We have now reached the time when the law, with its many commandments in detail, has been given, so that when any of these commandments had been broken, the sin was at once put to account against the transgressor, and this particular offering was instituted to make atonement for the sinner.
But second, the sins that were contemplated when this offering was instituted, were those committed “through ignorance.” In this we see the compassion of our God shining out. He well knew the frailty and ignorance and forgetfulness that characterizes poor, fallen humanity, and this provision was made. Sin committed deliberately in cold-blooded defiance of God is not contemplated here; indeed we read in Heb 10:28, “He that despised Moses’ law died without mercy under two or three witnesses.” Though God is a God of mercy, the law as such has no mercy in it, and therefore the merciful provision of the sin and trespass offerings only came into effect where the root of the sin was ignorance and not wilfulness.
Having read right through this chapter we at once see that the instructions fall naturally into four sections, according to the position held by the person or persons committing the sin. Upon that depended the gravity of the sin in the sight of God. Sin might be committed by (1) the high priest himself; (2) the whole congregation of Israel; (3) a ruler; (4) one of the common people. Hence in each case certain differences come to light, though there are features that appear consistently in each of the four.
Let us first note these consistent features. In each case, when the sin was recognized it had to be confessed before God in a practical way by the bringing of the appropriate sacrifice to be killed before the Lord, and the guilty one had to lay his hand on the head of the victim, thus identifying himself with it. In the case of the whole congregation sinning this had to be done by the elders of the congregation, as representing the mass of the people.
This identification, however, may be distinguished from that which we saw in the case of the burnt offering, inasmuch as here it meant the identification of the victim with the sinner, so that the guilt of the sin was transferred from the sinner to the victim, which would die in his stead. In the case of the burnt offering it signified the reverse and complementary thought of the offerer being identified with the sweet savour and acceptance of the offering. Both these things unite in the antitype – the propitiatory and substitutionary death of our blessed Lord.
In each case the victim was slain. Death is the wages of sin, and no sentence can be pronounced as an alternative to that. This is acknowledged in our law courts. A prisoner may be sentenced to a fine, with imprisonment as an alternative. But we never hear a judge sentence a man to death, with the alternative of prison or anything else. In all its gravity the death sentence on sin stands alone. This is clearly foreshadowed here. In each case the blood of the victim was sprinkled before the Lord, though not in each case sprinkled in just the same way. The sprinkled blood testified before God that the death sentence was accomplished, and, “it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul” (Lev 17:11).
Also in each case certain parts of the inwards and all the fat was to be taken and burnt upon the altar just as the fat of the peace offerings was burned. Nothing is said as to this burning being for a sweet savour as was the case with the peace offerings. The fat truly spoke of the excellence of the victim, which was a needful thing if there was to be atonement made for sin, but the point now is the covering of man’s sin, rather than the gratification that is brought to God.
Lastly, in each case there was the forgiveness of the sin in virtue of the sacrifice. In the first case, that of the anointed priest, this fact is not mentioned, but evidently he was no exception to the rule. If we would understand the nature of the forgiveness that is mentioned, we must read and consider Rom 3:25.
In that important verse the word translated “remission” is one that means a “passing over,” and it is the only time the word occurs in Scripture. In that verse we find that in Christ and His propitiatory death God has declared His righteousness in passing over the sins of His people in His forbearing mercy during the ages before Christ came. Holy angels, who may well have known what is stated in Heb 10:4, that, “It is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins,” may have wondered where was the righteous basis for the forgiveness offered in Lev 4:1-35. It was the death of Christ that declared God’s righteousness in this, and vindicated His action. The sacrifices and the forgivenesses of Old Testament times were like promissory notes with a distant due date. The due date came when Christ died, and turned the notes into the pure gold of a divinely accomplished redemption.
Now consider the differences in the four sections. If the anointed priest sinned, then we have the most serious case of all. He was the appointed link between the people and God, and the whole people were involved with himself. So a young bullock without blemish had to be offered, and its blood had to be sprinkled not only on the altar without, but carried into the sanctuary and sprinkled seven times before the veil and on the horns of the altar of incense. In type, the worship of the people was interrupted in the sin of the man, who presented it before God in the fragrance of the incense. Until the blood was sprinkled there could be no priestly action before the Lord on behalf of the people.
We find just the same features in the second case, that of the sin of the whole congregation. In this case possibly the priest himself was not implicated, but even so he would be left without any people fit to be represented before the Lord, so in effect the result was very much the same. In both these cases, where the sin was of a gravity affecting all, the body of the victim was to be carried without the camp and burnt there.
To this fact Heb 13:11 refers, and the application for us is given in the next verse. The sacrifice of Christ was for others and had in view the whole people, thus fitting in with the type. When He suffered, the days of Israel’s wilderness camp were over, and Jerusalem was their city. Well, He suffered without the gate of their religious centre. The place of the Christian now, even if by nature a Jew, is outside that religious system in association with the rejected Christ who died and lives again.
When a ruler or one of the common people sinned, the animals brought for sacrifice were of lesser value. The blood was applied to the altar without, but not carried to the sanctuary within. Correspondingly the body of the victim was not to be burned without the camp. What was to be done with these bodies we are not told here. When we come to the law of the sin offering we find that it provided very holy food for the priests and their sons.
Details concerning the trespass offerings follow in Lev 5:1-19 and the first 7 verses of Lev 6:1-30. A trespass might be committed against one’s fellow as well as against God and His holy things and a number of ways are specified in which trespass could take place.
The sacrifices enjoined reveal two things. First, that a trespass against God in His holy things is a more serious matter than a trespass against man, consequently the offerings prescribed in verses Lev 6:15, 18, and also in Lev 6:6 are of a more substantial sort than the others. To touch an unclean thing, or to state something on oath erroneously has not the same gravity before God as to defile holy things or to do violence and deceit to one’s neighbour and thus dishonour the name of the Lord.
For these lesser trespasses a lamb or kid, or two young pigeons might be brought; and of these two one might be offered as a burnt offering after the first had been offered as a trespass offering. Again, if so poor that a man could not bring even two pigeons! he might bring so little as the tenth part of an ephah of fine flour and the priest might offer as a trespass offering even that. When fine flour was offered as a meat offering there must be with it both oil and frankincense. Here both these are expressly excluded. The sweet savour element was wanting in that which had compulsorily to be offered in atonement for the wrongdoing of sinful men.
We read in Heb 9:22, that “almost all things are by the law purged with blood.” Here is a case in point, which made it necessary to put the word, “almost,” before the word, “all.” In the case before us we see the kindness of God considering the very great poverty of some of His erring people. The priest might eat the residue as though it had been a meat offering, but nevertheless the handful was burned as a sin offering.
Another thing marked these trespass offerings, where the rights of men had been infringed. The trespasser had not only to bring his offering to God but he had to make amends to the one whom he had trespassed against. If the evil had brought loss in the holy things of God, he had to make amends, as we see in Lev 5:16. And so also if a man had suffered loss, as we see in Lev 6:3. Reparation had to be made on the same basis in both cases. What had been lost originally had to be repaid and a fifth part added to it. Nothing more just than this can be found. Many a robber would not mind doing a bit of imprisonment if he be allowed to retain the gain he has made. But to lose all he made plus a fifth part beyond takes all the glamour from the wrong-doing.
In the light of this we see how very exceptional was the statement of Zacchaeus, recorded in Luk 19:8. He could say, “If I have taken anything from any man by false accusation, I restore him fourfold.” This was going far beyond that which the law demanded, and by the man of the world it would have been considered over-scrupulous honesty; so much so that if anyone merited salvation Zacchaeus must have done so. All such thoughts were brushed aside by the Lord when He said, “The Son of Man is come to seek and to save that which was lost.”
The most virtuous observance of the law in one of its details does not compensate for the infringement of it in other details. Hence we read “Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in His sight” (Rom 3:20). Zacchaeus had to receive salvation as a true “son of Abraham,” that is as a believer – see, Gal 3:7.
We cannot doubt that the principles laid down in verses Lev 3:2-5, have their application today to any wrongdoing or offence against man on the part of a Christian. Even if done inadvertently, the believer should be most careful to make reparation, as full as may be within his power. The fact that we are not under law, but under grace with its higher standards, should make us most careful not to fall below the standard which the law has set in this matter.
Fuente: F. B. Hole’s Old and New Testaments Commentary
Lev 3:1. A sacrifice of peace-offering The original word here used, , shelamim, is in the plural number, and is properly rendered peaces, pacifications, and also payments. These were offerings for peace, prosperity, and the blessing of God; either, 1st, Obtained, and then they were thank-offerings, or peace-offerings for thanksgiving, as they are termed, Lev 7:15. Or, 2d, Desired; and so they were a kind of supplications to God. Sometimes, again, they were offered by way of vow, (Lev 7:16; Pro 7:14,) in expectation of peace and future blessings; for peace, in the Hebrew language, signifies all manner of prosperity and happiness. In this case they were properly termed payments, namely, of the vows previously made. Sometimes they were offered without any antecedent obligation of a vow, in which case they were called free-will-offerings, Lev 7:11; Lev 7:16. Those sacrifices which were called sin-offerings and trespass-offerings, supposed the offerer to be obnoxious to the divine justice on account of sin, and God to be displeased; and they were appointed for atonement and reconciliation. But peace-offerings supposed God to be reconciled to the offerer, and him to be at peace with God; in testimony of which reconciliation and peace, the offerer was in this case admitted to partake of the altar. For whereas, in the holocausts, or whole burnt-offerings, the altar consumed all the flesh of the sacrifice, neither the priest nor any of the people being allowed to partake; and in the sin and trespass offerings, though the priests did partake, yet the offerers had no share; in these peace-offerings the offerers themselves were allowed to partake of the sacrifice, and feast upon it. They partook of the Lords table, and that was a sign of favour and friendship. For eating together was always esteemed so, and was therefore used in ancient times in making covenants and agreements. Thus, when Christ becomes our peace, and being justified through his blood, we are made one with him and with his followers; through him we have communion with God, and with his people in his ordinances, finding the flesh of Christ to be meat indeed, and his blood drink indeed. Through the exercise of faith in his sacrifice, which puts away sin, love to him and each other is shed abroad in our hearts, and while we gratefully offer and dedicate ourselves to his service as a free-will-offering, we rejoice in each others gifts and graces, and communicate to one anothers necessities. This fellowship with the Father and the Son, and one with another, is happily shadowed forth, and seems to have been intended to be represented in this significant ceremony of the Jewish Church. Whether it be male or female Females were allowed here, though not in burnt-offerings, because those principally respected the honour of God, who is to be served with the best, but the peace-offerings did primarily respect the benefit of the offerer, and therefore the choice was left to himself. Again, burnt-offerings had regard to God, as in himself the best of beings, and therefore were wholly burned. But peace-offerings had regard to God as a benefactor to his creatures, and therefore were divided between the altar, the priest, and the offerer.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Lev 3:1. Oblation, is variously rendered; sometimes an offering of any kind, sometimes, as here, a sacrifice of peace-offering. The LXX render it an offering of salutation; when a man had recovered from some affliction, or escaped some danger, this was his eucharist to the Lord.
Lev 3:5. The burnt-sacrifice, or holocaust, signifies not only a single beast, but often a collection of animals, slain and burnt for sin.
Lev 3:17. That ye eat neither fat nor blood. They were not to eat blood, because it is the life of the creature. But why were they forbidden to eat the fat which covereth the inwards? Because the idolaters both ate the fat and drank the blood of their victims; because the fat being extremely nutritive, it might teach them to avoid all impurity; because fat being the best portion, and fittest to burn on the altar, it was most proper to offer it up to the Lord.
REFLECTIONS.
The covenant made with Israel included every class of temporal mercies, and those mercies were shadows of heavenly things to those who had faith to look at things not seen. National peace and prosperity being gifts of the covenant, as well as remission of sins, it was a most reasonable duty to bring peace-offerings to the Lord, and to acknowledge his mercy and love. Who hath hardened himself against the Lord and prospered? Job 9:4.
The oblations being brought to the door of the tabernacle by the imposition of hands and the sprinkling of blood, resembled the holocausts or burnt- offerings; but they differed in the admission of female victims, in the triple division of the parts, one to the Lord, another to the priests, and a third to the worshipper.
The fat and all the richer parts of the sacrifice being claimed by the Lord, should teach us to give him our heart and our mind, and to withdraw our affections from every low and corrupt desire. He who gives his whole heart to the Lord shall not be torn with warring passions, but eat the full ripe fruits of the Spirit; and Christ will dwell in him richly in all wisdom and heavenly understanding. The peace-offerings being divided among the worshippers, as well as among the priests, seem to teach that all who approach Gods covenant have an equal interest in the merits of his Son; the righteousness of God being upon all them that believe. Let every soul therefore be encouraged to come, for in Christ we have a high altar, and ease of access.
But while the Lord provides for the soul a rich sacrifice of all the fruits of the Redeemers passion and death, we are taught by the prohibition of eating fat, not to indulge the body in the slightest intemperance. If it is nourished with plain and wholesome food, as the beast for labour, it is quite sufficient. Our real happiness does not consist in sensual enjoyment, but in intellectual delight. Then pleasure is pure and divine, a joy becoming the house and altar of the Most High.
The prohibition concerning blood, is doubtless designed to teach us, that as it was the blood of the sacrifice that made the atonement, it was to be regarded as sacred to the Lord, especially as being prefigurative of that precious blood shed for us on Calvary, by which we have life and salvation. Nor are we, at the same time, taught less caution concerning the blood of man, for God will require blood for blood, and life for life: he will also visit for all sorts of cruelty and hardness of heart, whether to man or beast.
Fuente: Sutcliffe’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Leviticus 3
The more closely we contemplate the offerings, the more fully do we see how that no one offering furnishes a complete view of Christ. It is only by putting all together, that anything like a just idea can be formed. Each offering, as might be expected, has features peculiar to itself. The Peace offering differs from the burnt offering, in many points; and a clear understanding of the points in which any one type differs from the others, will be found to help much in the apprehension of its special import.
Thus, in comparing the peace offering with the burnt offering, we find that the threefold action of “flaying,” “Cutting it into its pieces,” and “washing the inwards and legs” is entirely omitted; and this is quite in character. In the burnt offering, as we have seen, we find Christ offering Himself to, and accepted by God, and hence, the completeness of His self-surrender, and also the searching process to which He submitted Himself, had to be typified. In the peace offering, the leading thought is the communion of the worshipper. It is not Christ as enjoyed, exclusively, by God, but as enjoyed by the worshipper, in communion with God. Therefore it is that the whole line of action is less intense. No heart, be its love ever so elevated, could possibly rise to the height of Christ’s devotedness to God, or of God’s acceptance of Christ. None but God Himself could duly note the pulsations of that heart which throbbed in the bosom of Jesus; and, therefore, a type was needed to set forth that one feature of Christ’s death, namely, His perfect devotedness therein to God. This type we have in the burnt offering, in which, alone, we observe the threefold action above referred to.
So, also, in reference to the character of the sacrifice. In the burnt offering, it should be “a male without blemish;” whereas, in the peace offering, it might be “a male or female,” though equally “without blemish.” The nature of Christ, whether we view Him as enjoyed exclusively by God, or by the worshipper in fellowship with God, must ever be one and the same. There can be no alteration in that. The only reason why “a female” was permitted in the peace offering, was because it was a question of the worshipper’s capacity to enjoy that blessed One, who, in Himself, is “the same yesterday, today, and for ever.” (Heb. 13)
Again, in the burnt offering, we read, “The priest shall burn all;” whereas, in the peace offering, a part only was burnt, that is, “the fat, the kidneys, and the caul. This makes it exceedingly simple. The most excellent portion of the sacrifice was laid on God’s altar. The inward parts – the hidden energies – the tender sensibilities of the blessed Jesus, were devoted to God as the only One who could perfectly enjoy them. Aaron and his sons fed upon “the wave breast” and “the heave shoulder.”* (See carefully Lev. 7: 28-36) All the members of the priestly family, in communion with their head, had their proper portion of the peace offering. And now, all true believers constituted, by grace, priests unto God, can feed upon the affections and the strength of the true Peace Offering – can enjoy the happy assurance of having His loving heart and powerful shoulder to comfort and sustain them continually.** “This is the portion of the anointing of Aaron, and of the anointing of his sons, out of the offerings of the Lord made by fire, in the day when he presented them to minister unto the Lord in the priest’s office; which the Lord commanded to be given them of the children of Israel, in the day that he anointed them by a statute for ever throughout their generations.” (Lev. 7: 35, 36)
{*The “breast” and the “shoulder” are emblematical of love and power – strength and affection.}
{**There is much force and beauty in verse 31: “The breast shall be Aaron’s and his sons.” It is the privilege of all true believers to feed upon the affections of Christ – the changeless love of that heart which beats with a deathless and changeless love for them.}
All these are important points of difference between the burnt offering and the peace offering; and, when taken together, they set the two offerings, with great clearness, before the mind. There is something more in the peace offering than the abstract devotedness of Christ to the will of God. The worshipper is introduced; and that, not merely as a spectator, but as a participator – not merely to gaze, but to feed. This gives very marked character to this offering. When I look at the Lord Jesus in the burnt offering, I see Him as One whose heart was devoted to the one object of glorifying God and accomplishing His will. But when I see Him in the peace offering, I find One who has a place in His loving heart, and on His powerful shoulder, for a worthless, helpless sinner. In the burnt offering, the breast and shoulder, legs and inwards, head and fat, were all burnt on the altar – all went up as a sweet savour to God. But in the peace offering, that very portion that suits me is left for me. Nor am I left to feed, in solitude, on that which meets my individual need. By no means. I feed in communion – in communion with God, and in communion with my fellow priests. I feed, in the full and happy intelligence, that the selfsame sacrifice which feeds my soul has already refreshed the heart of God; and, moreover, that the same portion which feeds me feeds all my fellow worshippers. Communion is the order here – communion with God – the communion of saints. There was no such thing as isolation in the peace offering. God had His portion, and so had the priestly family.
Thus it is in connection with the Antitype of the peace offering. The very same Jesus who is the object of heaven’s delight, is he spring of joy, of strength, and of comfort to every believing heart; and not only to every heart, in particular, but also to the whole church of God, in fellowship. God, in His exceeding grace, has given His people the very same object that He has Himself. “Truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.” (1 John 1) True, our thoughts of Jesus can never rise to the height of God’s thoughts. Our estimation of such an object must ever fall far short of His; and, hence, in the type, the house of Aaron could not partake of the fat. But though we can never rise to the standard of the divine estimation of Christ’s Person and sacrifice, it is, nevertheless, the same object we are occupied With, and, therefore, the house of Aaron had “the wave breast and the heave shoulder.” All this is replete with comfort and joy to the heart. The Lord Jesus Christ – the One “who was dead, but is alive for evermore,” is now the exclusive object before the eye and thoughts of God; and, in perfect grace, He has given unto us a portion in the same blessed and all-glorious Person. Christ is our object too – the object of our hearts, and the theme of our song. “Having made peace by the blood of his cross,” He ascended into heaven, and sent down the Holy Ghost, that “other Comforter,” by whose powerful ministrations we feed upon the breast and shoulder “of our divine “Peace Offering.” He is, indeed, our peace; and it is our exceeding joy to know that such is God’s delight in the establishment of our peace that the sweet odour of our Peace offering has refreshed His heart. This imparts a peculiar charm to this type. Christ, as the burnt offering, commands the admiration of the heart; Christ, as the peace offering, establishes the peace of the conscience, and meets the deep and manifold necessities of the soul. The sons of Aaron might stand around the altar of burnt offering; they might behold the flame of that offering ascending to the God of Israel; they might see the sacrifice reduced to ashes; they might, in view of all this, bow their heads and worship; but they carried nought away for themselves. Not so in the peace offering. In it they not only beheld that which was capable of emitting a sweet odour to God, but also of yielding a most substantial portion for themselves on which they could feed, in happy and holy fellowship.
And, assuredly, it heightens the enjoyment of every true priest to know that God (to use the language of our type) has had His portion, ere he gets the breast and the shoulder. The thought of this gives tone and energy, unction and elevation to the worship and communion. It unfolds the amazing grace of Him who has given us the same object, the same theme, the same joy with Himself. Nothing lower – nothing less than this could satisfy Him. The Father will have the prodigal feeding upon the fatted calf, in fellowship with Himself. He will not assign him lower – place than at His own table, nor any other portion than that on which He feeds Himself. The language of the peace offering is, “it is meet that we should make merry and be glad” – “Let us eat and be merry.” Such is the precious grace of God! No doubt, we have reason to be glad, as being the partakers of such grace; but when we can hear the blessed God saying, “Let us eat and be merry,” it should call forth from our hearts a continual stream of praise and thanksgiving. God’s joy in the salvation of sinners, and His joy in the communion of saints, may well elicit the admiration of men and angels throughout eternity.
Having, thus, compared the peace offering with the burnt offering, we may, now, briefly glance at it, in connection with the meat offering. The leading point of difference, here, is that, in the peace offering, there was blood-shedding, and in the meat offering, there was not. They were both “sweet savour” offerings; and, as we learn, from Lev. 7: 12, the two offerings here very intimately associated. Now, both the connection and the contrast are full of meaning and instruction.
It is only in communion with God that the soul can delight itself in contemplating the perfect humanity of the Lord Jesus Christ. God the Holy Ghost must impart, as He must also direct, by the word, the vision by which we can gaze on “the Man Christ Jesus.” He might have been revealed “in the likeness of sinful flesh;” He might have lived and laboured on this earth; He might have shone, amid the darkness of this world, in all the heavenly lustre and beauty which belonged to His Person; He might have passed rapidly, like a brilliant luminary, across this world’s horizon; and, all the while, have been beyond the range of the sinner’s vision.
Man could not enter into the deep joy of communion with all this, simply because there mould be no basis laid down on which this communion might rest. In the peace offering, this necessary basis is fully and clearly established. “He shall lay his hand upon the head of his offering, and kill it at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation: and Aaron’s sons, the priests, shall sprinkle the blood upon the altar round about.” (Lev. 3: 2) Here, we have that which the meet offering does not supply, namely, a solid foundation for the worshipper’s communion with all the fullness, the preciousness, and the beauty of Christ, so far as He. by the gracious energy of the Holy Ghost, is enabled to enter thereunto. Standing on the platform which “the precious blood of Christ “provides, we can range, with tranquillised hearts, and worshipping spirits, throughout all the wondrous scenes of the manhood of the Lord Jesus Christ. Had we nought save the meat offering aspect of Christ, we should lack the title by which, and the ground on which, we can contemplate and enjoy Him therein. If there were no blood-shedding, there could be no title, no standing place for the sinner. but Leviticus 7: 12 links the meat offering with the peace offering, and, by so doing, teaches us that, when our souls have found peace, we can delight in the One, who has “made peace,” and who is “our peace.”
But let it be distinctly understood that while, in the peace offering, we have the shedding and sprinkling of blood, yet sin-bearing is not the thought. When we view Christ, in the peace offering, He does not stand before us as the bearer of our sins, as in the sin and trespass offerings; but (having borne them) as the ground of our peaceful and happy fellowship with God. If sin-bearing were in question, it could not be said, “It is an offering made by fire of a sweet savour unto the Lord.” (Lev. 3: 5 comp. with Lev. 4: 10-12) Still, though sin-bearing is not the thought, there is full provision for one who knows himself to be a sinner, else he could not have any portion therein. To have fellowship with God we must be “in the light;” and how can we be there? Only on the ground of that precious statement, “the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanseth us from all sin.” (1 John 1) The more we abide in the light, the deeper will be our sense of everything which is contrary to that light, and the deeper, also, our sense of the value of that blood which entitles us to be there. The more closely we walk with God, the more we shall know of “the unsearchable riches of Christ.”
It is most needful to be established in the truth that we are in the presence of God, only as the partakers of divine life, and as standing in divine righteousness. The Father could only have the prodigal at his table, clothed in “the best robe,” and in all the integrity of that relationship in which He viewed him. Had the prodigal been left in his rags, or placed” as a hired servant” in the house, we never should have heard those glorious words, “Let us eat and be merry: for this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found.” Thus it is with all true believers. Their old nature is not recognised as existing, before God. He counts it dead, and so should they. It is dead, to God – dead, to faith. It must be kept in the place of death. It is not by improving our old nature that we get into the divine presence; but as the possessors of a new nature. It was not by repairing the rags of his former condition that the prodigal got a place at the Father’s table, but by being clothed in a robe which he had never seen, or thought of before. He did not bring this robe with him from the “far country,” neither did he provide it as he came along; but the father had it for him in the house. The prodigal did not make it, or help to make it; but the father provided it for him, and rejoiced to see it on him. Thus it was they sat down together, to feed in happy fellowship, upon “the fatted calf.”
I shall now proceed to quote at length “the law of the sacrifice of peace offering,” in which we shall find some additional points of much interest – points which belong peculiarly to itself: “And this is the law of the sacrifice of peace offerings, which he shall offer unto the Lord. If he offer it for a thanksgiving, then he shall offer with the sacrifice of thanksgiving unleavened cakes mingled with oil, and unleavened wafers anointed with oil, and cakes mingled with oil, of fine flour fried. Besides the cakes, he shall offer for his offering leavened bread with the sacrifice of thanksgiving of his peace offerings. And of it he shall offer one out of the whole oblation for an heave offering unto the Lord, and it shall be the priest’s that sprinkleth the blood of the peace offerings. And the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace offerings for thanksgiving shall be eaten the same day that it is offered; he shall not leave any of it until the morning. But if the sacrifice of his offering be a vow, or a voluntary offering, it shall be eaten the same day that he offereth his sacrifice: and on the morrow also the remainder of it shall be eaten; but the remainder of the flesh of the sacrifice on the third day shall be burnt with fire. And if any of the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace offerings be eaten at all on the third day, it shall not be accepted, neither shall it be imputed unto him that offereth it: it shall be an abomination, and the soul that eateth of it shall bear his iniquity. And the flesh that toucheth any unclean thing shall not be eaten; it shall be burnt with fire: and as for the flesh all that be clean shall eat thereof. But the soul that eateth of the flesh of the sacrifice of peace offerings that pertain unto the Lord, having his uncleanness upon him, even that soul shall be cut off from his people. Moreover, the soul that shall touch any unclean thing, as the uncleanness of man, or any unclean beast, or any abominable unclean thing, and eat of the flesh of the sacrifice of peace offerings, which pertain unto the Lord, even that soul shall be cut off from his people.” (Lev. 7: 11-21)
It is of the utmost importance that we accurately distinguish between sin in the flesh, and sin on the conscience. If we confound these two, our souls must, necessarily, be unhinged, and our worship marred. An attentive consideration of 1 John 1: 8-10 will throw much light upon this subject, the understanding of which is so essential to a due appreciation of the entire doctrine of the peace offering, and more especially of that point therein at which we have now arrived. There is no one who will be so conscious of indwelling sin as the man who walks in the light. “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.” In the verse immediately preceding, we read, “the blood of Jesus Christ his Son Cleanseth us from all sin.” Here the distinction between sin in us, and sin on us, is fully brought out and established. To say that there is sin on the believer, in the presence of God, is to call in question the purging efficacy of the blood of Jesus, and to deny the truth of the divine record. If the blood of Jesus can perfectly purge, then the believer’s conscience is perfectly purged. The word of God thus puts the matter; and we must ever remember that it is from God Himself we are to learn what the true condition of the believer is, in His sight. We are more disposed to be occupied in telling God what we are in ourselves, than to allow Him to tell us what we are in Christ. In other words, we are more taken up with our own self-consciousness, than with God’s revelation of Himself. God speaks to us on the ground of what He is in Himself and of what He has accomplished, in Christ. Such is the nature and character of His revelation of which faith takes hold, and thus fills the soul with perfect peace. God’s revelation is one thing; my consciousness is quite another.
But the same word which tells us we have no sin on us, tells us, with equal force and clearness, that we have sin in us. “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.” Every one who has “truth “in him, will know that he has “sin” in him, likewise; for truth reveals every thing as it is. What, then, are we to do? It is our privilege so to walk in the power of the new nature, that the “sin” which dwells in us may not manifest itself in the form of “sins.” The Christian’s position is one of victory and liberty. He is not only delivered from the guilt of sin, but also from sin as a ruling principle in his life. “knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. For he that is dead is freed from sin . . . . . .let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof…For sin shall not have dominion over you: for we are not under the law, but under grace.” (Rom. 6: 6-14) Sin is there in all its native vileness; but the believer is “dead to it.” How? He died in Christ. By nature he was dead in sin. By grace he is dead to it. What claim can anything or any one have upon a dead man? None whatever. Christ “died unto sin once,” and the believer died in Him. “Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him: knowing that Christ being raised from the dead, dieth no more, death hath no more dominion over him. For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God.” What is the result of this, in reference to believers? “Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.” Such is the believer’s unalterable position, before God so that it is his holy privilege to enjoy freedom from sin as a ruler over him, though it be a dweller in him.
But, then, “if any man sin,” what is to be done? The inspired apostle furnishes a full and most blessed answer: “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” (1 John 1: 9) Confession is the mode in which the conscience is to be kept free. The apostle does not say, “If we pray for pardon, he is gracious and merciful to forgive us.” No doubt, it is ever happy for a child to breathe the sense of need into his father’s ear – to tell him of feebleness, to confess folly, infirmity, and failure. All this is most true; and, moreover, it is equally true that our Father is most gracious and merciful to meet His children in all their weakness and ignorance; but, while all this is true, the Holy Ghost declares, by the apostle, that, “if we confess,” God is “faithful and just to forgive.” confession, therefore, is the divine mode. A Christian, having erred, in thought, word, or deed, might pray for pardon, for days and months together, and not have any assurance, from 1 John 1: 9, that he was forgiven; whereas the moment he truly confesses his sin, before God, it is a simple matter of faith to know that he is perfectly forgiven and perfectly cleansed.
There is an immense moral difference between praying for forgiveness, and confessing our sins, whether we look at it in reference to the character of God, the sacrifice of Christ, or the condition of the soul. It is quite possible that a person’s prayer may involve the confession of his sin, whatever it may happen to be, and thus come to the same thing. But, then, it is always well to keep close to scripture, in what we think, and say, and do. It must be evident that when the Holy Ghost speaks of confession, He does not mean praying. And, it is equally evident that He knows there are moral elements in, and practical results flowing out of, confession, which do not belong to prayer. In point of fact, one has often found that a habit of importuning God for the forgiveness of sins, displayed ignorance as to the way in which God has revealed Himself in the Person and work of Christ; as to the relation in which the sacrifice of Christ has set the believer; and as to the divine mode of getting the conscience relieved from the burden, and purified from the soil, of sin.
God has been perfectly satisfied, as to all the believer’s sins, in the cross of Christ. On that cross, a full atonement was presented for every jot and tittle of sin, in the believer’s nature, and on his conscience. Hence, therefore, God does not need any further propitiation. He does not need ought to draw His heart toward the believer. We do not require to supplicate Him to be “faithful and just,” when His faithfulness and justice have been so gloriously displayed, vindicated, and answered, in the death of Christ. Our sins can never come into God’s presence, inasmuch as Christ who bore them all, and put them away, is there instead. But, if we sin, conscience will feel it, must feel it; yes, the Holy Ghost will make us feel it. He cannot allow so much as a single light thought to pass unjudged. What then? Has our sin made its way into the presence of God? Has it found its place in the unsullied light of the inner sanctuary? God forbid! The “Advocate” is there – “Jesus Christ the righteous,” to maintain, in unbroken integrity, the relationship in which we stand. But, though sin cannot affect God’s thoughts in reference to us, it can and does affect our thoughts in reference to Him.* Though it cannot make its way into His presence, it can make its way into ours, in a most distressing and humiliating manner. Though it cannot hide the Advocate from God’s view, it can hide Him from ours. It gathers, like a thick, dark cloud, on our spiritual horizon, so that our souls cannot bask in the blessed beams of our Father’s countenance, It cannot affect our relationship with God, but it can very seriously affect our enjoyment thereof. What, therefore, are we to do? The word answers,” if we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” By confession, we get our conscience cleared; the sweet sense of our relationship restored; the dark; cloud dispersed; the chilling, withering influence removed; our thoughts of God set straight. Such is the divine method; and we may truly say that the heart that knows what it is to have ever been in the place of confession, will feel the divine power of the apostle’s words, “My little children, these things write I unto you, THAT YE SIN NOT.” (1 John 2: 1)
{*The reader will bear in mind that the subject treated of in the text, leaves wholly untouched the important and most practical truth taught in John 14: 21-23, namely, the peculiar love of the Father for an obedient child, and the special communion of such a child with the Father and the Son. May this truth be written on all our hearts, by the pen of God the Holy Ghost}
Then, again, there is a style of praying for forgiveness, which involves a losing sight of the perfect ground of forgiveness, which has been laid in the sacrifice of the cross. If God forgives sins, He must be “faithful and just,” in so doing. But it is quite clear that our prayers, be they ever so sincere and earnest, could not form the basis of God’s faithfulness and justice, in forgiving us our sins. Nought save the work of the cross could do this. There the faithfulness and justice of God have had their fullest establishment, and that, too, in immediate reference to out actual sins, as well as to the root thereof, in our nature. God has already judged our sins in the Person of our Substitute, “on the tree;” and, in the act of confession, we judge ourselves. This is essential to divine forgiveness and restoration. The very smallest unconfessed, unjudged sin, on the conscience, will entirely mar our communion with God. Sin in us need not do this; but if we suffer sin to remain on us, we cannot have fellowship with God. He has put away our sins in such a manner, as that He can have us in His presence; and, so long as we abide in His presence, sin does not trouble us. But, if we get out of His presence, and commit sin, even in thought, our communion must, of necessity, be suspended, until, by confession, we have got rid of the sin. All this, I need hardly add, is founded, exclusively, upon the perfect sacrifice and righteous advocacy of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Finally, as to the difference between prayer and confession, as respects the condition of the heart before God, and its moral sense of the hatefulness of sin, it cannot, possibly, be over-estimated. It is a much easier thing to ask, in a general way, for the forgiveness of our sins than to confess those sins. Confession involves self-judgement; asking for forgiveness may not, and, in itself, does not. This alone would be sufficient to point out the difference. Self-judgement is one of the most valuable and healthful exercises of the Christian life; and, therefore, anything which produces it, must be highly esteemed by every earnest Christian.
The difference between asking for pardon, and confessing the sin, is continually exemplified in dealing with children. If a child has done anything wrong, he finds much less difficulty in asking his father to forgive him, than in openly and unreservedly confessing the wrong. In asking for forgiveness, the child may have in his mind a number of things which tend to lessen the sense of the evil; he may be secretly thinking that he was not so much to blame, after all, though, to be sure, it is only proper to ask his father to forgive him; whereas, in confessing the wrong, there is just the one thing, and that is self-judgement. Further, in asking for forgiveness the child may be influenced, mainly, by a desire to escape the consequences of his wrong; whereas, a judicious parent will seek to produce a just sense of its moral evil, which can only exist in connection with the full confession of the fault – in connection with self-judgement.
Thus it is, in reference to God’s dealings with His children, when they do wrong. He must have the whole thing brought out and thoroughly judged. He will make us not only dread the consequences of sin which are unutterable – but hate the thing itself, because of its hatefulness, in his sight. Were it possible for us, when we commit sin, to be forgiven, merely for the asking, our sense of sin, and our shrinking from it, would not be nearly so intense; and, as a consequence, our estimate of the fellowship with which we are blessed, would not be nearly so high. The moral effect of all this upon the general tone of our spiritual constitution, and also upon our whole character and practical career, must be obvious to every experienced Christian.*
{*The case of Simon Magus, in Acts 8, may present a difficulty to the reader. But of him, it is sufficient to say that one “in the gall of bitterness and in the bond of iniquity, “could never be set forth as a model for God’s dear children. His case in nowise interferes with the doctrine of 1 John 1: 9. He was not in the relationship of a child, and, as a consequence, not a subject of the advocacy. I would further add, that the subject of the Lord’s prayer is by no means involved in what is stated above. I wish to confine myself to the immediate passage under consideration. We must ever avoid laying down iron rules. A soul may cry to God, under any circumstances, and ask for what it needs. He is ever ready to hear and answer.}
This entire train of thought is intimately connected with. and fully borne out by, two leading principles laid down in “the law of the peace offering.”
In verse 13, of the seventh of Leviticus, we read, “he shall offer for his offering leavened bread.” And, yet, at verse 20, we read, “But the soul that eateth of the flesh of the sacrifice of peace offerings, that pertain unto the Lord, having his uncleanness upon him, even that soul shall be cut off from his people.” Here, we have the two things clearly set before us, namely, sin in us, and sin on us. “Leaven” was permitted, because there was sin in the worshipper’s nature. “Uncleanness” was forbidden, because there should be no sin on the worshipper’s conscience. If sin be in question, communion must be out of the question. God has met and provided for the sin, which He knows to be in us, by the blood of atonement; and, hence, of the leavened bread in the peace offering, we read, “of it he shall offer one out of the whole oblation for an heave offering unto the Lord, and it shall be the priest’s that sprinkleth the blood of the peace offerings.” (ver. 14) In other words, the “leaven,” in the worshipper’s nature, was perfectly met by the “blood” Of the sacrifice. The priest who eats the leavened bread, must be the sprinkler of the blood. God has put our sin out of His sight for ever. Though it be in us, it is not the object on which His eye rests. He sees only the blood; And, therefore, He can go on with us, and allow us the most unhindered fellowship with Him. but if we allow the “sin” which is in us to develop itself in take shape of “sins,” there must be confession, forgiveness, and cleansing, ere we can again eat of the flesh of the peace offering. The cutting off of the worshipper, because of ceremonial uncleanness, answers to the suspension of the believer’s communion now, because of unconfessed sin. To attempt to have fellowship with God in our sins, would involve the blasphemous insinuation that He could walk in companionship with sin. “If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth.” (1 John 1: 6)
In the light of the foregoing line of truth, we may easily see how much we err, when we imagine it to be a mark of spirituality to be occupied with our sins. Could sin or sins ever be the ground or material of our communion with God? Assuredly not. We have just seen that, so long as sin is the object before us, communion must be interrupted. Fellowship can only be “in the light;” and, undoubtedly, there is no sin in the light. There is nought to be seen there, save the blood which has put our sins away, and brought us nigh, and the Advocate which keeps us nigh. Sin has been for ever obliterated from that platform on which God and the worshipper stand in hallowed fellowship. What was it which constituted the material of communion between the Father and the prodigal? Was it the rags of the latter? Was it the husks of “the far country?” By no means. It was not anything that the prodigal brought with him. It was the rich provision of the Father’s love – “the fatted calf.” Thus it is with God and every true worshipper. They feed together, in holy and elevated communion, upon Him whose precious blood has brought them into everlasting association, in that light to which no sin can ever approach.
Nor need we, for an instant, suppose that true humility is either evidenced or promoted by looking at, or dwelling upon, our sins. An unhallowed and melancholy mopishness may, thus, be super induced; but the deepest humility springs from a totally different source. Whether was the prodigal an humbler man, “when he came to himself” in the far country, or when he came to the Father’s bosom and the Father’s house? Is it not evident that the grace which elevates us to the loftiest heights of fellowship with God, is that alone which leads us into the most’ profound depths of a genuine humility Unquestionably. The humility which springs from the removal of our sins, must ever be deeper than that which springs from the discovery of them. The former connects us with God; the latter has to do with self. The way to be truly humble is to walk with God in the intelligence and power of the relationship in which He has set us. He has made us His children; and if only we walk as such, we shall be humble.
Ere leaving this part of our subject, I would offer a remark as to the Lord’s Supper, which, as being a prominent act of the Church’s communion, may, with strict propriety, be looked at in connection with the doctrine of the peace offering. The intelligent celebration of the Lord’s Supper must ever depend upon the recognition of its purely eucharistic or thanksgiving character. It is, very especially, a feast of thanksgiving – thanksgiving for an accomplished redemption. “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?” (1 Cor. 10: 16) Hence, a soul, bowed down under the heavy burden of sin, cannot, with spiritual intelligence, eat the Lord’s Supper, inasmuch as that feast is expressive of the complete removal of sin by the death of Christ. Ye do show the Lord’s death till he come.” (1 Cor. 11) in the death of Christ, faith sees the end of everything that pertained to our old-creation standing; and, seeing that the Lord’s Supper” shows forth” that death, it is to be viewed as the memento of the glorious fact that the believer’s burden of sin was borne by One who put it away for ever. It declares that the chain of our sins, which once tied and bound us, has been eternally snapped by the death of Christ, and can never tie and bind us again. We gather round the Lord’s table in all the joy of conquerors. We look back to the cross where the battle was fought and won; and we look forward to the glory where we shall enter into the full and eternal results of the victory.
True, we have “leaven” in us; but we have no “uncleanness” on us. We are not to gaze upon our sins; but upon Him who bore them on the cross, and put them away for ever. We are not to “deceive ourselves” by the vain notion “that we have no sin” in us; nor are we to deny the truth of God’s word, and the efficacy of Christ’s blood, by refusing to rejoice in the precious truth that we have no sin on us, for “the blood Of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. It is truly deplorable to observe the heavy cloud that gathers round the Supper of the Lord, in the judgement of so many professing Christians. It tends, as much as anything else, to reveal the immense amount of misapprehension which obtains, in reference to the very elementary truths of the gospel. In fact, we know that when the Lord’s Supper is resorted to on any ground save that of known salvation – enjoyed forgiveness – conscious deliverance, the soul becomes wrapped up in thicker and darker clouds than ever. That which is only a memorial of Christ is used to displace Him. That which celebrates an accomplished redemption is used as a stepping-stone thereto. It is thus that the ordinances are abused, and souls plunged in darkness, confusion, and error.
How different from this is the beautiful ordinance of the peace offering! In this latter, looked at in its typical import, we see that the moment the blood was shed, God and the worshipper could feed in happy, peaceful fellowship. Nothing more was needed. Peace was established by the blood; and, on that ground, the communion proceeded. A single question as to the establishment of peace must be the death-blow to communion. If we are to be occupied with the vain attempt to make peace with God, we must be total strangers to either communion or worship. If the blood of the peace offering has not been shed, it is impossible that we can feed upon “the wave breast” or “the heave shoulder.” But if, on the other hand, the blood has been shed, then peace is made already. God Himself has made it, and this is enough for faith; and, therefore, by faith, we have fellowship with God, in the intelligence and joy of accomplished redemption. We taste the freshness of God’s own joy in that which He has wrought. We feed upon Christ, in all the fullness and blessedness of God’s presence.
This latter point is connected with, and based upon, another leading truth laid down in “the law of the peace offering.” “And the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace offerings for thanksgiving shall be eaten the same day that it is offered: he shall not leave any of it until the morning.” That is to say, the communion of the worshipper must never be separated from the sacrifice on which that communion is founded. So long as one has spiritual energy to maintain the connection, the worship and communion are also maintained, in freshness and acceptableness; but no longer. We must keep close to the sacrifice, in the spirit of our minds, the affections of our hearts, and the experience of our souls. This will impart power and permanency to our worship. We may commence some act or expression of worship, with our hearts in immediate occupation with Christ; and, ere we reach the close, we may become occupied with what we are doing or saying, or with the persons who are listening to us; and, in this way, fall into what may be termed “iniquity in our holy things.” This is deeply solemn, and should make us very watchful. We may begin our worship in the Spirit and end in the flesh. Our care should ever be, not to suffer ourselves to proceed for a single moment beyond the energy of the Spirit, at the time, for the Spirit will always keep us occupied directly with Christ. If the Holy Ghost produces “five words” of worship or thanksgiving, let us utter the five and have done. If we proceed further, we are eating the flesh of our sacrifice beyond the time; and, so far from its being “accepted,” it is, really, “an abomination.” Let us remember this, and be watchful. It need not alarm us. God would have us led by the Spirit, and so filled with Christ in all our worship. He can only accept of that which is divine; and, therefore, He would have us presenting that only which is divine.
“But if the sacrifice of his offering be a vow or a voluntary offering, it shall be eaten the same day that he offereth his sacrifice: and on the morrow also the remainder of it shall be eaten.” (Lev. 7: 16) When the soul goes forth to God in a voluntary act of worship, such worship will be the result of a larger measure of spiritual energy than where it merely springs from some special mercy experienced at the time. If one has been visited with some marked favour from the Lord’s own hand, the soul, at once, ascends in thanksgiving. In this case, the worship is awakened by, and connected with, that favour or mercy, whatever it may happen to be, and there it ends. But, where the heart is led forth by the Holy Ghost in some voluntary or deliberate expression of praise, it will be of a more enduring character. But spiritual worship will always connect itself with the precious sacrifice of Christ.
“The remainder of the flesh of the sacrifice, on the third day, shall be burnt with fire. And if any of the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace offerings be eaten at all on the third day, it shall not be accepted, neither shall it be imputed unto him that offereth it: it shall be an abomination, and the soul that eateth of it shall bear his iniquity.” Nothing is of any value, in the judgement of God, which is not immediately connected with Christ. There may be a great deal of what looks like worship, which is, after all, the mere excitement and outgoing of natural feeling. There may be much apparent devotion, which is, merely, fleshly pietism. Nature may be acted upon, in a religious way, by a variety of things, such as pomp, ceremony, and parade, tones and attitudes, robes and vestments, an eloquent liturgy, all the varied attractions of a splendid ritualism, while there may be a total absence of spiritual worship. Yea, it not infrequently happens that the very same tastes and tendencies which are called forth and gratified by the splendid appliances of so-called religious worship, would find most suited aliment at the opera or in the concert room.
All this has to be watched against by those who desire to remember that “God is a spirit, and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.” (John 4) Religion, so called, is, at this moment, decking herself with her most powerful charms. Casting off the grossness of the middle ages, she is calling to her aid all the resources of refined taste, and of a cultivated and enlightened age. Sculpture, music, and painting, are pouring their rich treasures into her lap, in order that she may, therewith, prepare a powerful opiate to lull the thoughtless multitude into a slumber, which shall only be broken in upon by the unutterable horrors of death, judgement, and the lake of fire. She, too, can say, “I have peace offerings with me; this day have I paid my vows . . . . . . I have decked my bed with coverings of tapestry, with carved works, with fine linen of Egypt. I have perfumed my bed with myrrh, aloes, and cinnamon.” (Prov. 7) Thus does corrupt religion allure, by her powerful influence, those who will not hearken to wisdom’s heavenly voice.
Reader, beware of all this. See that your worship stands inseparably connected with the work of the cross. See that Christ is the ground, Christ the material, and the Holy Ghost the power of your worship. Take care that your outward act of worship does not stretch itself beyond the inward power. It demands much watchfulness to keep clear of this evil. Its incipient workings are most difficult to be detected and counteracted. We may commence a hymn in the true spirit of worship, and, through lack of spiritual power, we may, ere we reach the close, fall into the evil which answers to the ceremonial act of eating the flesh of the peace offering on the third day. Our only security is in keeping close to Jesus. If we lift up our hearts in “thanksgiving,” for some special mercy, let us do so in the power of the name and sacrifice of Christ. If our souls go forth in “voluntary” worship, let it be in the energy of the Holy Ghost. In this way shall our worship exhibit that freshness, that fragrance, that depth of tone, that moral elevation, which must result from having the Father as the object, the Son as the ground, and the Holy Ghost as the power of our worship.
Thus may it be, O Lord, with all thy worshipping people, until we find ourselves, body, soul, and spirit, in the security of thine own eternal presence, beyond the reach of all- the unhallowed influences of false worship and corrupt religion, and also beyond the reach of the various hindrances which arise from these bodies of sin and death which we carry about with us!
———————
NOTE. – It is interesting to observe that, although the peace offering itself stands third in order, yet “the law” thereof is given us last of all. This circumstance is not; without its import. There is none of the offerings in which the communion of the worshipper is so fully unfolded as in the peace offering. In the burnt offering, it is Christ offering Himself to God. In the meat offering, we have Christ’s perfect humanity. Then, passing on to the sin offering, we learn that sin, in its root, is fully met. In the trespass offering, there is a full answer to the actual sin in the life. But, in none is the doctrine of the communion of the worshipper unfolded. This latter belongs to “the peace offering;” and, hence, I believe, the position which the law of that offering occupies. It comes in, at the close of all, thereby teaching us that, when it becomes a question of the soul’s feeding upon Christ, it must be a full Christ, looked at in every possible phase of His life, His character, His Person, His work, His offices. And, furthermore, that, when we shall have done, for ever, with sin and sins, we shall delight in Christ, and feed upon Him, throughout the everlasting ages. It would, I believe, be a serious defect in our study of the offerings, were we to pass over a circumstance so worthy of notice as the above. If “the law of the peace offering” were given in the order in which the offering itself occurs, it would come in immediately after the law of the meat offering; but, instead of that, “the law of the sin offering, and “the Law of the trespass offering “are given, and, then, “the law of the peace offering” closes the entire.
Fuente: Mackintosh’s Notes on the Pentateuch
III. Peace Offerings.This properly follows ch. 1, and describes the ritual of the next great class of sacrifices, the peace offerings. These are familiar in the narrative parts of the OT, and the Book of the Covenant. The root of the Heb. term for peace offering denotes not simply peace in our sense, but being quits with another. In the OT generally, the peace offering is a common meal, wherein God, priest, and worshippers sit down, as it were, together, in token that there is nothing which separates them, and that all causes of displeasure on the part of God are at an end. This offering is often spoken of as sacrifice par excellence (cf. 1Sa 11:15, 1Ki 1:19). It often takes the form of a family or communal commemoration, of a joyous and festal character (1Sa 20:29). In the Levitical system, each personage at the banquet has his own portion; to Yahweh belong the blood and the fat (the former as sacred or tabootoo dangerous for mortals to consume; the latter for the same reason or as being the special delicacy); the rest of the victim is boiled (cf. 1Sa 2:13 ff.); to the priest go the breast and shoulder; to the worshippers the rest (Lev 7:12 ff., Num 15:17 ff.). Here, however, only Yahwehs portions are mentioned. Originally this would seem to have been the commonest form of sacrifice; by P it is subordinated to the burnt offering.
Lev 3:1-5. Cattle.Females as well as males are allowed here, though not for the burnt offering. The different kinds of fat, all of which belong to Yahweh, are carefully specified (cf. Deu 32:14, Isa 34:6). The fat on the kidneys is thought of, as the Arab proverb shows, as the seat of life, like the blood (Lev 17:14). By the caul is meant the caudate lobe. The liver itself, by many peoples, has been used for divination, notably in Babylonian ritual; perhaps for this reason it is included among the parts to be burnt.
Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible
THE PEACE OFFERING
TAKEN FROM THE HERD (vv. 1-5)
The peace offering was also a voluntary sacrifice. However, it could either be a male or female, but only an unblemished animal. Of course it speaks also of the one sacrifice of Christ, but since a female was allowed, this involves the part that believers have with Christ in the value of His sacrifice. The burnt offering speaks altogether of the value of that sacrifice to God, but the peace offering involves also the blessing that comes to the believer by means of Christ’s sacrifice.
Christ as the peace offering has established peace between God and men by means of His sacrifice, and this is seen especially in Luke’s Gospel, so that grace, concord and fellowship are outstanding features of this offering.
As with the burnt offering, the offerer was to lay his hand on the head of the animal and kill it at the door of the tabernacle. Then the priests sprinkled the blood around the altar. However, all was not to be burned, as with the burnt offering, but only the fat that covered the inwards and the fat attached to the inwards, the two kidneys with the fat attached to them and the fatty lobe attached to the liver. These were to be burned as a sweet aroma to the Lord. This animal was from the herd. The fat always belonged to the Lord: it was not to be eaten, for it speaks of the energy of the devotion of the Lord Jesus to His God and Father. The two kidneys, purifying the blood by innumerable filters, picture the inner motives of the Lord Jesus, which are for God. At this time nothing is said of the parts that were to be given to the priest and the offerer: this subject is left for the law of the offering (Lev 7:11-21).
CHOSEN FROM THE FLOCK (vv. 6-17)
A peace offering could also be of the flock, whether a lamb (v. 7) or a goat (v. 12). In each case also the offerer laid his hand on the head of the animal and killed it, and the priest sprinkled the blood around the altar (vv. 8-11 and 13-16). The parts removed from the animal are similar to those in verses 3 and 4, and these were burned, spoken of as food, an offering made by fire to the Lord. Thus, this offering of the Lord Jesus is for God Himself. Again this is a sweet aroma offering.
In Israel God insisted that it was a perpetual statute that they eat neither fat nor blood (v. 17). Today believers are warned definitely not to eat blood (Act 15:20). This restriction was introduced when God first allowed men to eat animals (Gen 9:3-4), long before the law was given to Israel. Neither at that time, nor under grace today is there any restriction as to eating fat, however. Most of us may find that our health is better if we refrain from eating fat, in spite of our liberty to do so.
Fuente: Grant’s Commentary on the Bible
3:1 And if his oblation [be] a sacrifice of {a} peace offering, if he offer [it] of the herd; whether [it be] a male or female, he shall offer it without blemish before the LORD.
(a) A sacrifice of thanksgiving offered for peace and prosperity, either generally or particularly.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
[See the Chapter Comments for Leviticus Chapter 1 for introductory information]
3. The peace offering ch. 3
The peace (fellowship) offering is the third sacrifice of worship. It represented the fellowship between God and man that resulted from the relationship that God had established with the redeemed individual. Peace and fellowship resulted from redemption, and this act of worship highlighted those blessings from God. This was an optional sacrifice; an Israelite could bring it if and when he desired. Thus it was not one of the offerings that the priests presented daily in the tabernacle, though God ordered its presentation at the feast of Pentecost (Harvest, Weeks; Lev 23:19). Because it was voluntary, its offering became a festive occasion.
There were three different kinds of peace offerings. One was a thanksgiving offering in which an Israelite expressed thanks for a particular blessing (Lev 7:12-15). Another was a votive offering that the Israelites could offer after an acute experience of distress or joy that had elicited a vow from him (cf. Jon 2:9). The third was a freewill offering that the Israelite could offer as an expression of gratitude to God without reference to any particular blessing (Lev 7:16-18). [Note: Wolf, pp. 168-69.]
There were two major distinctives of this offering.
1. It was a soothing aroma (Lev 3:16).
2. All the participants fed together on this sacrifice: the offerer, the priest, and God (symbolically). Eating together had great significance in the ancient Near East. People who ate a ritual meal together often committed themselves to one another in a strong bond of loyalty (cf. 1Sa 9:22-24; John 13-16). Eating together also symbolized fellowship, as it still does today. In this sacrifice the offerer fed on the same offering he had made to God. In the burnt offering God got the whole sacrifice. In the meal offering God and the priest shared the sacrifice. However in the peace offering all three participants shared a part. Even the priest’s children ate of this offering, but they had to be ceremonially clean to participate (Lev 7:20; cf. 1Co 11:28).
"A libation [drink] offering (nesek) accompanied burnt and fellowship offerings. The priest’s portion of the fellowship offering was symbolically ’waved’ before the Lord as his portion and called the ’wave offering’ (tenupa). Certain portions of it (namely, one of the cakes and the right thigh) were given as a ’contribution’ from the offerer to the priests, the so-called ’heave offering’ (teruma)." [Note: Bruce K. Waltke, "Cain and His Offering," Westminster Theological Journal 48:2 (Fall 1986):366.]
The Israelites were not to eat the fat of this sacrifice but to offer it to God on the altar. This may have symbolized that God was worthy of the best since the ancients regarded the fat of an animal as its best part. Another explanation is that since the Old Testament used the kidneys and entrails to represent the seat of human emotions (cf. Job 19:27; Psa 16:7; Jer 4:14; Jer 12:2), these parts represented the worshiper’s best and deepest emotions. This view finds support in the fact that Israelites offered the peace offering in intrinsically emotional situations, when they thanked God or requested from Him. [Note: See Wenham, pp. 80-81.]
"The slain-offering [peace offering], which culminated in the sacrificial meal, served as a seal of the covenant fellowship, and represented the living fellowship of man with God." [Note: Keil and Delitzsch, 2:268.]
These varieties are significant.
1. There were several grades of animals that God permitted. These were similar to the burnt offering but were fewer. Bullocks, lambs, and goats were acceptable. Female animals were also acceptable showing that there were more options than with the burnt offering.
2. The Israelites could present this offering for any of three possible reasons: as a thanksgiving offering, as a freewill offering, or to fulfill a vow (i.e., a votive offering; cf. Lev 7:12-16).
When the Israelites offered thousands of sacrifices at one time they were usually peace offerings. They ate only a part of what they offered on these occasions. [Note: R. Laird Harris, "Leviticus," in Genesis-Numbers, vol. 2 of The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, p. 538.] There are many similarities between this offering and the Lord’s Supper. Both were celebrations that commemorated a covenant, both were occasions of rededication to God, and both involved blood.
"Those who surrender their hearts to God and come before him on the basis of the shed blood of the sacrifice may celebrate being at peace with God (in a communal meal)." [Note: Ross, p. 119.]
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
THE PEACE OFFERING
Lev 3:1-17; Lev 7:11-34; Lev 19:5-8; Lev 22:21-25
IN chapter 3 is given, though not with completeness, the law of the peace offering. The alternative rendering of this term, “thank offering” (marg. R.V), precisely expresses only one variety of the peace offering; and while it is probably impossible to find any one word that shall express in a satisfactory way the whole conception of this offering, it is not easy to find one better than the familiar term which the Revisers have happily retained. As will be made clear in the. sequel, it was the main object of this offering, as consisting of a sacrifice terminating in a festive sacrificial meal, to express the conception of friendship, peace, and fellowship with God as secured by the shedding of atoning blood.
Like the burnt offering and the meal offering, the peace offering had come down from the times before Moses. We read of it, though not explicitly named, in Gen 31:54, on the occasion of the covenant between Jacob and Laban, wherein they jointly took God as witness of their covenant of friendship; and, again, in Exo 18:12, where “Jethro took a burnt offering and sacrifices for God; and Aaron came and all the elders of Israel, to eat bread with Moses father-in-law before God.” Nor was this form of sacrifice, any more than the burnt offering, confined to the line of Abrahams seed. Indeed, scarcely any religious custom has from the most remote antiquity been more universally observed than this of a sacrifice essentially connected with a sacrificial meal. An instance of the heathen form of this sacrifice is even given in the Pentateuch, where we are {Exo 32:6} how the people, having made the golden calf, worshipped it with peace offerings, and “sat down to eat and to drink” at the sacrificial meal which was inseparable from the peace offering; while in 1Co 10:1-33, Paul refers to like sacrificial feasts as common among the idolaters of Corinth.
It hardly needs to be again remarked that there is nothing in such facts as these to trouble the faith of the Christian, any more than in the general prevalence of worship and of prayer among heathen nations. Rather, in all these cases alike, are we to see the expression on the part of man of a sense of need and want, especially, in this case, of friendship and fellowship with God; and, seeing that the conception of a sacrifice culminating in a feast was, in truth, most happily adapted to symbolise this idea, surely it were nothing strange that God should base the ordinances of His own worship upon such universal conceptions and customs, correcting in them only, as we shall see, what might directly or indirectly misrepresent truth. Where an alphabet, so to speak, is thus already found existing, whether in letters or in symbols, why should the Lord communicate a new and unfamiliar symbolism, which, because new and unfamiliar, would have been, for that reason, far less likely to be understood?
The plan of chapter 3 is very simple; and there is little in its phraseology requiring explanation. Prescriptions are given for the offering of peace offerings, first, from the herd (Lev 3:1-5); then, from the flock, whether of the sheep (Lev 3:6-11) or of the goats (Lev 3:12-16). After each of these three sections it is formally declared of each offering that it is “a sweet savour,” “an offering made by fire,” or “the food of the offering made by fire unto the Lord.” The chapter then closes with a prohibition, specially occasioned by the directions for this sacrifice, of all use by Israel of fat or blood as food.
The regulations relating to the selection of the victim for the offering differ from those for the burnt offering in allowing a greater liberty of choice. A female was permitted, as well as a male; though recorded instances of the observance of the peace offering indicate that the male was even here preferred when obtainable. The offering of a dove or a pigeon is not, however, mentioned as permissible, as in the case of the burnt offering. But this is no exception to the rule of greater liberty of choice, since these were excluded by the object of the offering as a sacrificial meal, for which, obviously, a small bird would be insufficient. Ordinarily, the victim must be without blemish; and yet, even in this matter, a larger liberty was allowed {Lev 22:23} in the case of those which were termed “freewill offerings,” where it was permitted to offer even a bullock or a lamb which might have “some part superfluous or lacking.” The latitude of choice thus allowed finds its sufficient explanation in the fact that while the idea of representation and expiation had a place in the peace offering as in all bloody offerings, yet this was subordinate to the chief intent of the sacrifice, which was to represent the victim as food given by God to Israel in the sacrificial meal. It is to be observed that only such defects are therefore allowed in the victim as could not possibly affect its value as food. And so even already, in these regulations as to the selection of the victim, we have a hint that we have now to do with a type, in which the dominant thought is not so much Christ, the Holy Victim, our representative, as Christ the Lamb of God, the food of the soul, through participation in which we have fellowship with God.
As before remarked, the ritual acts in the bloody sacrifices are, in all, six, each of which, in the peace offering, has its proper place. Of these, the first four, namely, the presentation, the laying on of the hand, the killing of the victim, and the sprinkling of the blood, are precisely the same as in the burnt offering, and have the same symbolic and typical significance. In both the burnt offering and the peace offering, the innocent victim typified the Lamb of God, presented by the sinner in the act of faith to God as an atonement for sin through substitutionary death: and the sprinkling of the blood upon the altar signifies in this, as in the other, the application of that blood Godward by the Divine Priest acting in our behalf, and thereby procuring for us remission of sin, redemption through the blood of the slain Lamb.
In the other two ceremonies, namely, the burning and the sacrificial meal, the peace offering stands in strong contrast with the burnt offering. In the burnt offering all was burned upon the altar; in the peace offering all the fat, and that only. The detailed directions which are given in the case of each class of victims are intended simply to direct the selection of those parts of the animal in which the fat is chiefly found. They are precisely the same for each, except in the case of the sheep. With regard to such a victim, the particular is added, according to King Jamess version, “the whole rump”; but the Revisers have with abundant reason corrected this translation, giving it correctly as “the fat tail entire.” The change is an instructive one, as it points to the idea which determined this selection of all the fat for the offering by fire. For the reference is to a special breed of sheep which is still found in Palestine, Arabia, and North Africa. With these, the tail grows to an immense size, sometimes weighing fifteen pounds or more, and consists almost entirely of a rich substance, in character between fat and marrow. By the Orientals in the regions where this variety of sheep is found it is still esteemed as the most valuable part of the animal for food. And thus, just as in the meal offering the Israelite was required to bring out of all his grain the best, and of his meal the finest, so in the peace offering he is required to bring the fat, and in the case of the sheep this fat tail, as the best and richest parts, to be burnt upon the altar to Jehovah. And the burning, as in the whole burnt sacrifice, was, so to speak, the visible Divine appropriation of that which was placed upon the altar, the best of the offering, as appointed to be “the food of God.” If the symbolism, at first thought, perplex any, we have but to remember how frequently in Scripture “fat” and “fatness” are used as the symbol of that which is richest and best; as, e.g., where the Psalmist says, “They shall be abundantly satisfied with the fatness of Thy house”; and Isaiah, “Come unto Me, and let your soul delight itself in fatness.” Thus when, in the peace offering, of which the larger part was intended for food, it is ordered that the fat should be given to God in the fire of the altar, the same lesson is taught as in the meal offering, namely, God is ever to be served first and with the best that we have. “All the fat is the Lords.”
In the burnt offering, the burning ended the ceremonial: in the nature of the case, since all was to be burnt, the object of the sacrifice was attained when the burning was completed. But in the case of the peace offering, to the burning of the fat upon the altar now followed the culminating act of the ritual, in the eating of the sacrifice. In this, however, we must distinguish from the eating by the offerer and his household, the eating by the priests; of which only the first-named properly belonged to the ceremonial of the sacrifice. The assignment of certain parts of the sacrifice to he eaten by the priests has the same meaning as in the meal offering. These portions were regarded in the law as given, not by the offerer, but by God, to His servants the priests; that they might eat them, not as a ceremonial act, but as their appointed sustenance from His table whom they served. To this we shall return in a subsequent chapter, and therefore need not dwell upon it here.
This eating of the sacrifice by the priests has thus not yet taken us beyond the conception of the meal offering, with a part of which they, in like manner, by Gods arrangement, were fed. Quite different, however, is the sacrificial eating by the offerer which follows. He had brought the appointed victim; it had been slain in his behalf; the blood had been sprinkled for atonement on the altar; the fat had been taken off and burned upon the altar; the thigh and breast had been given back by God to the officiating priest; and now, last of all, the offerer himself receives back from God, as it were, the remainder of the flesh of the victim, that he himself might eat it before Jehovah. The chapter before us gives no directions as to this sacrificial eating; these are given in Deu 12:6-7; Deu 12:17-18, to which passage, in order to the full understanding of that which is most distinctive in the peace offering, we must refer. In the two verses last named, we have a regulation which covers, not only the peace offerings, but with them all other sacrificial eatings, thus: “Thou mayest not eat within thy gates the tithe of thy corn, or of thy wine, or of the oil, or the firstlings of thy herd, or of thy flock, nor any of thy vows which thou vowest, nor thy free will offerings, nor the heave offering of thy hand: but thou shalt eat them before the Lord thy God in the place which the Lord thy God shall choose, thou and thy son, and thy daughter, and thy man servant, and thy maid servant, and the Levite that is within thy gates; and thou shalt rejoice before the Lord thy God in all that thou puttest thy hand unto.”
In these directions are three particulars; the offerings were to be eaten, by the offerer, not at his own home, but before Jehovah at the central sanctuary; he was to include in this sacrificial feast all the members of his family, and any Levite that might be stopping with him; and he was to make the feast an occasion of holy joy before the Lord in the labour of his hands. What was now the special significance of all this? As this was the special characteristic of the peace offering, the answer to this question will point us to its true significance, both for Israel in the first place, and then for us as well, as a type of Him who was to come.
It is not hard to perceive the significance of a feast as a symbol. It is a natural and suitable expression of friendship and fellowship. He who gives the feast thereby shows to the guests his friendship toward them, in inviting them to partake of the food of his house. And if, in any case, there has been an interruption or breach of friendship, such an invitation to a feast, and association in it of the formerly alienated parties, is a declaration on the part of him who gives the feast, as also of those who accept his invitation, that the breach is healed, and that where there was enmity, is now peace.
So natural is this symbolism that, as above remarked, it has been a custom very widely spread among heathen peoples to observe sacrificial feasts, very like to this peace offering of the Hebrews, wherein a victim is first offered to some deity, and its flesh then eaten by the offerer and his friends. Of such sacrificial feasts we read in ancient Babylonia and Assyria, in Persia, and, in modern times, among the Arabs, Hindoos, and Chinese, and various native races of the American continent: always having the same symbolic intent and meaning-namely, an expression of desire after friendship and intercommunion with the deity thus worshipped. The existence of this custom in Old Testament days is recognised in Isa 65:11 (R.V), where God charges the idolatrous Israelites with preparing “a table for the god Fortune,” and filling up “mingled wine unto (the goddess) Destiny”-certain Babylonian deities; and in the New Testament, as already remarked, the Apostle Paul refers to the same custom among the idolatrous Greeks of Corinth.
And because this symbolic meaning of a feast is as suitable and natural as it is universal, we find that in the symbolism of Holy Scripture, eating and drinking, and especially the feast, has been appropriated by the Holy Spirit to express precisely the same ideas of reconciliation, friendship, and intercommunion between the giver of the feast and the guest, as in all the great heathen religions. We meet this thought, for instance, in Psa 23:5 : “Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of my enemies”; Psa 36:8, where it is said of Gods people: “They shall be abundantly satisfied with the fatness of Thy house”; and again, in the grand prophecy in Isa 25:1-12, of the final redemption of all the long-estranged nations, we read that when God shall destroy in Mount Zion “the veil that is spread over all nations, and swallow up death forever,” then “the Lord of hosts shall make unto all peoples a feast of fat things, a feast of wines on the lees, of fat things full of marrow, of wines on the lees well refined.” And in the New Testament, the symbolism is taken up again, and used repeatedly by our Lord, as, for example, in the parables of the Great Supper {Luk 14:15-24} and the Prodigal Son, {Luk 15:23} the Marriage of the Kings Son, {Mat 22:1-14} concerning the blessings of redemption; and also in that ordinance of the Holy Supper which He has appointed to be a continual reminder of our relation to Himself, and means for the communication of His grace, through our symbolic eating therein of the flesh of the slain Lamb of God.
Thus, nothing in the Levitical symbolism is better certified to us than the meaning of the feast of the peace offering. Employing a symbol already familiar to the world for centuries, God ordained this eating of the peace offering in Israel, to be the symbolic expression of peace and fellowship with Himself. In Israel it was to be eaten “before the Lord,” and, as well it might be, “with rejoicing.”
But, just at this point, the question has been raised: How are we to conceive of the sacrificial feast of the peace offering? Was it a feast offered and presented by the Israelite to God, or a feast given by God to the Israelite? In other words, in this feast, who was represented as host, and who as guest? Among other nations than the Hebrews, it was the thought in such cases that the feast was given by the worshipper to his god. This is well illustrated by an Assyrian inscription of Esarhaddon, who, in describing his palace at Nineveh, says: “I filled with beauties the great palace of my empire, and I called it the Palace which rivals the World. Ashur, Ishtar of Nineveh, and the gods of Assyria, all of them, I feasted within it. Victims, precious and beautiful, I sacrificed before them, and I caused them to receive my gifts.”
But here we come upon one of the most striking and instructive contrasts between the heathen conception of the sacrificial feast and the same symbolism as used in Leviticus and other Scripture. In the heathen sacrificial feasts, it is man who feasts God; in the peace offering of Leviticus, it is God who feasts man. Some have indeed denied that this is the conception of the peace offering, but most strangely. It is true that the offerer, in the first instance, had brought the victim; but it seems to be forgotten by such, that prior to the feasting he had already given the victim to God, to be offered in expiation for sin. From that time the victim was no longer, any part of it, his own property, but Gods. God having received the offering, now directs what use shall be made of it; a part shall be burned upon the altar; another part He gives to the priests, His servants; with the remaining part He now feasts the worshipper.
And as if to make this clearer yet, while Esar-haddon, for example, gives his feast to the gods, not in their temples, but in his own palace, as himself the host and giver of the feast, the Israelite, on the contrary, -that he might not, like the heathen, complacently imagine himself to be feasting God, -is directed to eat the peace offering, not at his own house, but at Gods house. In this way God was set forth as the host, the One who gave the feast, to whose house the Israelite was invited, at whose table he was to eat.
Profoundly suggestive and instructive is this contrast between the heathen custom in this offering, and the Levitical ordinance. For do we not strike here one of the deepest points of contrast between all of mans religion and the Gospel of God? Mans idea always is, until taught better by God, “I will be religious and make God my friend, by doing something, giving something for God.” God, on the contrary, teaches us in this symbolism, as in all Scripture, the exact reverse; that we become truly religious by taking, first of all, with thankfulness and joy, what He has provided for us. A breach of friendship between man and God is often implied in the heathen rituals, as in the ritual of Leviticus; as also, in both, a desire for its removal, and renewed fellowship with God. But in the former, man ever seeks to attain to this intercommunion of friendship by something that he himself will do for God. He will feast God, and thus God shall be well pleased. But Gods way is the opposite! The sacrificial feast at which man shall have fellowship with God is provided not by man for God, but by God for man, and is to be eaten, not in our house, but spiritually partaken in the presence of the invisible God.
We can now perceive the teaching of the peace offering for Israel. In Israel, as among all the nations, was the inborn craving after fellowship and friendship with God. The ritual of the peace offering taught him how it was to be obtained, and how communion might be realised. The first thing was for him to bring and present a divinely-appointed victim; and then, the laying of the hand upon his head with confession of sin; then, the slaying of the victim, the sprinkling of its blood, and the offering of its choicest parts to God in the altar fire. Till all this was done, till in symbol expiation had been thus made for the Israelites sin, there could be no feast which should speak of friendship and fellowship with God. But this being first done, God now, in token of His free forgiveness and restoration to favour, invites the Israelite to a joyful feast in His own house.
What a beautiful symbol! Who can fail to appreciate its meaning when once pointed out? Let us imagine that through some fault of ours a dear friend has become estranged; we used to eat and drink at his house, but there has been none of that now for a long time. We are troubled, and perhaps seek out one who is our friends friend and also our friend, to whose kindly interest we entrust our case, to reconcile to us the one we have offended. He has gone to mediate; we anxiously await his return; but or ever he has come back again, comes an invitation from him who was estranged, just in the old loving way, asking that we will eat with him at his house. Any one of us would understand this; we should be sure at once that the mediator had healed the breach, that we were forgiven, and were welcome as of old to all that our friends friendship had to give.
But God is the good Friend whom we have estranged; and the Lord Jesus, His beloved Son, and our own Friend as well, is the Mediator; and He has healed the breach; having made expiation for our sin in offering His own body as a sacrifice, He has ascended into heaven, there to appear in the presence of God for us; He has not yet returned. But meantime the message comes down from Him to all who are hungering after peace with God: “The feast is made; and ye all are invited; come! all things are now ready!” And this is the message of the Gospel. It is the peace offering translated into words. Can we hesitate to accept the invitation? Or, if we have sent in our acceptance, do we need to be told, as in Deuteronomy, that we are to eat “with rejoicing.”
And now we may well observe another circumstance of profound typical significance. When the Israelite came to Gods house to eat before Jehovah, he was fed there with the flesh of the slain victim. The flesh of that very victim whose blood had been given for him on the altar, now becomes his food to sustain the life thus redeemed. Whether the Israelite saw into the full meaning of this, we may easily doubt; but it leads us on now to consider, in the clearer light of the New Testament, the deepest significance of the peace offering and its ritual, as typical of our Lord and our relation to Him.
That the victim of the peace offering, as of all the bloody offerings, was intended to typify Christ, and that the death of that victim, in the peace offering, as in all the bloody offerings, foreshadowed the death of Christ for our sins, -this needs no further proof. And so, again, as the burning of the whole burnt offering represented Christ as accepted for us in virtue of His perfect consecration to the Father, so the peace offering, in that the fat is burned, represents Christ as accepted for us, in that He gave to God in our behalf the very best He had to offer. For in that incomparable sacrifice we are to think not only of the completeness of Christs consecration for us, but also of the supreme excellence of that which He offered unto God for us. All that was best in Him, reason, affection, and will, as well as the members of His holy body, -nay, the Godhead as well as the Manhood, in the holy mystery of the Trinity and the Incarnation, He offered for us unto the Father.
This, however, has taken us as yet but little beyond the meaning of the burnt offering. The closing act of the ritual, the sacrificial eating, however, reaches in its typical significance far beyond this or any of the bloody offerings.
First, in that he who had laid his hand upon the victim, and for whom the blood had been sprinkled, is now invited by God to feast in His house, upon food given by himself, the food of the sacrifice, which is called in the ritual “the bread of God.” the eating of the peace offering symbolically teaches us that if we have indeed presented the Lamb of God as our peace, not only has the Priest sprinkled for us the blood, so that our sin is pardoned, but, in token of friendship now restored, God invites the penitent believer to sit down at His own table, -in a word, to joyful fellowship with Himself! Which means, if our weak faith but take it in, that the Almighty and Most Holy God now invites us to fellowship in all the riches of His Godhead; places all that He has at the service of the believing sinner, redeemed by the blood of the slain Lamb. The prodigal has returned; the Father will now feast him with the best that He has. Fellowship with God through reconciliation by the blood of the slain Lamb, -this then is the first thing shadowed forth in this part of the ritual of the peace offering. It is a sufficiently wonderful thought, but there is truth yet more wonderful veiled under this symbolism.
For when we ask, what then was the bread or food of God of which He invited him to partake who brought the peace offering, and learn that it was the flesh of the slain victim; here we meet a thought which goes far beyond atonement by the shedding of blood. The same victim whose blood was shed and sprinkled in atonement for sin is now given by God to be the redeemed Israelites food, by which his life shall be sustained! Surely we cannot mistake the meaning of this. For the victim of the altar and the food of the table are one and the same. Even so He who offered Himself for our sins on Calvary, is now given by God to be the food of the believer; who now thus lives by “eating the flesh” of the slain Lamb of God. Does this imagery, at first thought, seem strange and unnatural? So did it also seem strange to the Jews, when in reply to our Lords teaching they wonderingly asked, {Joh 6:52} “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” And yet so Christ and when He had first declared Himself to the Jews as the Antitype of the manna, the true Bread sent down from heaven, He then went on to say, in words which far transcended the meaning of that type, {Joh 6:51} “The bread which I wilt give is My flesh, for the life of the world.” How the light begins now to flash back from the Gospel to the Levitical law, and from this, again, back to the Gospel! In the one we read, “Ye shall eat the flesh of your peace offerings before the Lord with joy”; in the other, the word of the Lord Jesus concerning Himself: {Joh 6:33; Joh 6:55; Joh 6:57} “The bread of God is that which cometh down out of heaven, and giveth life unto the world My flesh is meat indeed, and My blood is drink indeed As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he that eateth Me, he also shall live because of Me.” And now the Shekinah light of the ancient tent of meeting begins to illumine even the sacramental table, and as we listen to the words of Jesus, “Take, eat! this is My body which was broken for you,” we are reminded of the feast of the peace offerings. The Israel of God is to be fed with the flesh of the sacrificed Lamb which became their peace.
Let us hold fast then to this deepest thought of the peace offering, a truth too little understood even by many true believers. The very Christ who died for our sins, if we have by faith accepted His atonement and have been for His sake forgiven, is now given us by God for the sustenance of our purchased life. Let us make use of Him, daily feeding upon Him, that so we may live and grow unto the life eternal!
But there is yet one thought more concerning this matter, which the peace offering, as far as was possible, shadowed forth. Although Christ becomes the bread of God for us only through His offering of Himself first for our sins, as our atonement, yet this is something quite distinct from atonement. Christ became our sacrifice once for all; the atonement is wholly a fact of the past. But Christ is now still, and will ever continue to be unto all His people, the bread or food of God, by eating whom they live. He was the propitiation, as the slain victim; but, in virtue of that, He is now become the flesh of the peace offering. Hence He must be this, not as dead, but as living, in the present resurrection life of His glorified humanity. Here evidently is a fact which could not be directly symbolised in the peace offering without a miracle ever repeated. For Israel ate of the victim, not as living, but as dead. It could not be otherwise. And yet there is a regulation of the ritual {Lev 7:15-18; Lev 19:6; Lev 19:7} which suggests this phase of truth as clearly as possible without a miracle. It was ordered that none of the flesh of the peace offering should be allowed to remain beyond the third day; if any then was left uneaten, it was to be burned with fire. The reason for this lies upon the surface. It was doubtless that there might be no possible beginning of decay; and thus it was secured that the flesh of the victim with which God fed the accepted Israelite should be the flesh of a victim that was not to see corruption. But does not this at once remind us how it was written of the Antitype, “Thou wilt not suffer Thy Holy One to see corruption”? while, moreover, the extreme limit of time allowed further reminds us how it was precisely on the third day that Christ rose from the dead in the incorruptible life of the resurrection, that so He might through all time continue to be the living bread of His people.
And thus this special regulation points us not indistinctly toward the New Testament truth that Christ is now unto us the bread of God, not merely as the One who died, but as the One who, living again, was not allowed to see corruption. For so the Apostle argues, {Rom 5:11} that “being justified by faith,” and so having “peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,” our peace offering, having been thus “reconciled by His death, we shall now be saved by His life.” And thus, as we appropriate Christ crucified as our atonement, so by a like faith we are to appropriate Christ risen as our life, to be for us as the flesh of the peace offering, our nourishment and strength by which we live.