Yahweh called to Moses, and spoke to him from the Tent of Meeting, saying, “Speak to the children of Israel, and tell them, ‘When anyone of you offers an offering to Yahweh, you shall offer your offering of the livestock, from the herd and from the flock.
“ ‘If his offering is a burnt offering from the herd, he shall offer a male without defect. He shall offer it at the door of the Tent of Meeting, that he may be accepted before Yahweh. He shall lay his hand on the head of the burnt offering, and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him. He shall kill the bull before Yahweh. Aaron’s sons, the priests, shall present the blood and sprinkle the blood around on the altar that is at the door of the Tent of Meeting. He shall skin the burnt offering, and cut it into pieces. The sons of Aaron the priest shall put fire on the altar, and lay wood in order on the fire; and Aaron’s sons, the priests, shall lay the pieces, the head, and the fat in order on the wood that is on the fire which is on the altar; but he shall wash its innards and its legs with water. The priest shall burn all of it on the altar, for a burnt offering, an offering made by fire, of a pleasant aroma to Yahweh.
“ ‘If his offering is from the flock, from the sheep or from the goats, for a burnt offering, he shall offer a male without defect. He shall kill it on the north side of the altar before Yahweh. Aaron’s sons, the priests, shall sprinkle its blood around on the altar. He shall cut it into its pieces, with its head and its fat. The priest shall lay them in order on the wood that is on the fire which is on the altar, but the innards and the legs he shall wash with water. The priest shall offer the whole, and burn it on the altar. It is a burnt offering, an offering made by fire, of a pleasant aroma to Yahweh.
“ ‘If his offering to Yahweh is a burnt offering of birds, then he shall offer his offering from turtledoves or of young pigeons. The priest shall bring it to the altar, and wring off its head, and burn it on the altar; and its blood shall be drained out on the side of the altar; and he shall take away its crop and its feathers, and cast it beside the altar on the east part, in the place of the ashes. He shall tear it by its wings, but shall not divide it apart. The priest shall burn it on the altar, on the wood that is on the fire. It is a burnt offering, an offering made by fire, of a pleasant aroma to Yahweh.
Geneva Bible translators 1599 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12, 15, 16 Hereby Moses declareth that he taught nothing to the…
Hereby Moses declareth that he taught nothing to the people but that which he received of God.
Because in this book is chiefly entreated of the Levites, and of things pertaining to their office.
Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain.
John Trapp 1656 · Public Domain On vv1–17 Lev 1:1 And the LORD called unto Moses, and…
Lev 1:1 And the LORD called unto Moses, and spake unto him out of the tabernacle of the congregation, saying,
Ver. 1. And the Lord called.] A continuation of the former history, from the rearing of the tabernacle to the numbering of the people; being the history of one month only.
John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Matthew Poole 1685 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17 Moses stood without, Exo 40:35, waiting for God's call.
Moses stood without, Exo 40:35, waiting for God's call.
Out of the tabernacle of the congregation; from the mercyseat in the tabernacle.
Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Matthew Henry 1710 · Public Domain On vv1, 3, 10 Observe here, 1. It is taken for granted that…
Observe here, 1. It is taken for granted that people would be inclined to bring offerings to the Lord. The very light of nature directs man, some way or other, to do honour to his Maker, and pay him homage as his Lord. Revealed religion supposes natural religion to be an ancient and early institution, since the fall had directed men to glorify God by sacrifice, which was an implicit acknowledgment of their having received all from God as creatures, and their having forfeited all to him as sinners. A conscience thoroughly convinced of dependence and guilt would be willing to come before God with thousands of rams, Mic 6:6, Mic 6:7. 2. Provision is made that men should not indulge their own fancies, nor become vain in their imaginations and inventions about their sacrifices, lest, while they pretended to honour God, they should really dishonour him, and do that which was unworthy of him. Every thing therefore is directed to be done with due decorum, by a certain rule, and so as that the sacrifices might be most significant both of the great sacrifice of atonement which Christ was to offer in the fulness of time and of the spiritual sacrifices of acknowledgment which believers should offer daily. 3. God gave those laws to Israel by Moses; nothing is more frequently repeated than this, The Lord spoke unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel. God could have spoken it to the children of Israel himself, as he did the ten commandments; but he chose to deliver it to them by Moses, because they had desired he would no more speak to them himself, and he had designed that Moses should, above all the prophets, be a type of Christ, by whom God would in these last days speak to us, Heb 1:2. By other prophets God sent messages to his people, but by Moses he gave them laws; and therefore he was fit to typify him to whom the Father has given all judgment. And, besides, the treasure of divine revelation was always to be put into earthen vessels, that our faith might be tried, and that the excellency of the power might be of God. 4. God spoke to him out of the tabernacle. As soon as ever the shechinah had taken possession of its new habitation, in token of the acceptance of what was done, God talked with Moses from the mercy-seat, while he attended without the veil, or rather at the door, hearing a voice only; and it is probable that he wrote what he heard at that time, to prevent any mistake, or a slip of memory, in the rehearsal of it. The tabernacle was set up to be a place of communion between God and Israel; there, where they performed their services to God, God revealed his will to them. Thus, by the word and by prayer, we now have fellowship with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ, Act 6:4. When we speak to God we must desire to hear from him, and reckon it a great favour that he is pleased to speak to us. The Lord called to Moses, not to come near (under that dispensation, even Moses must keep his distance), but to attend and hearken to what should be said. A letter less than ordinary in the Hebrew word for called, the Jewish critics tell us, intimates that God spoke in a still small voice. The moral law was given with terror from a burning mountain in thunder and lightning; but the remedial law of sacrifice was given more gently from a mercy-seat, because that was typical of the grace of the gospel, which is the ministration of life and peace.
Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (1708–1710) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Gill 1763 · Public Domain On vv2–17 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto…
Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them,.... For unto no other was the law of sacrifices given; not to the Gentiles, but to the children of Israel:
if any man; or woman, for the word "man", as Ben Gersom observes, includes the whole species:
Read full note →
of you; of you Israelites; the Targum of Jonathan adds,"and not of the apostates who worship idols.''Jarchi interprets it of yours, of your mammon or substance, what was their own property, and not what was stolen from another (d), see Isa 61:8,
bring an offering unto the Lord; called "Korban" of "Karab", to draw nigh, because it was not only brought nigh to God, to the door of the tabernacle where he dwelt, but because by it they drew nigh to God, and presented themselves to him, and that for them; typical of believers under the Gospel dispensation drawing nigh to God through Christ, by whom their spiritual sacrifices are presented and accepted in virtue of his:
ye shall bring your offering of the cattle, even of the herd, and of the flock; that is, of oxen, and of sheep or goats. The Targum of Jonathan is,"of a clean beast, of oxen, and of sheep, but not of wild beasts shall ye bring your offerings.''These were appointed, Ben Gersom says, for these two reasons, partly because the most excellent, and partly because most easy to be found and come at, as wild creatures are not: but the true reason is, because they were very fit to represent the great sacrifice Christ, which all sacrifices were typical of; the ox or bullock was a proper emblem of him for his strength and laboriousness, and the sheep for his harmlessness, innocence, and patience, and the goat, as he was not in himself, but as he was thought to be, a sinner, being sent in the likeness of sinful flesh, and being traduced as such, and having the sins of his people imputed to him.
(d) Vid. T. Bab. Succah, fol. 30. 1. & not. Abendana in Miclol Yophi in loc.
John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
Adam Clarke 1810 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 16 -Year before the common Year of Christ, 1490.
THE THIRD BOOK OF MOSES CALLED LEVITICUS
-Year before the common Year of Christ, 1490.
Read full note →
-Julian Period, 3224.
-Cycle of the Sun, 27.
-Dominical Letter, D.
-Cycle of the Moon, 9.
-Indiction, 6.
-Creation from Tisri or September, 2514.
CHAPTER I
The Lord calls to Moses out of the tabernacle, and gives him
directions concerning burnt-offerings of the beeve kind,
1,2.
The burnt-offering to be a male without blemish, 3.
The person bringing it to lay his hands upon its head, that it
might be accepted for him, 4.
He is to kill, flay, and cut it in pieces, and bring the blood
to the priests, that they might sprinkle it round about the
altar, 5, 6.
All the pieces to be laid upon the altar and burnt, 7-9.
Directions concerning offerings of the SMALLER CATTLE, such as
sheep and goats, 10-13.
Directions concerning offerings of FOWLS, such as doves and
pigeons, 14-17.
NOTES ON CHAP. I
Verse 1. And the Lord called unto Moses] From the manner in which this book commences, it appears plainly to be a continuation or the preceding; and indeed the whole is but one law, though divided into five portions, and why thus divided is not easy to be conjectured.
Previously to the erection of the tabernacle God had given no particular directions concerning the manner of offering the different kinds of sacrifices; but as soon as this Divine structure was established and consecrated, Jehovah took it as his dwelling place; described the rites and ceremonies which he would have observed in his worship, that his people might know what was best pleasing in his sight; and that, when thus worshipping him, they might have confidence that they pleased him, every thing being done according to his own directions. A consciousness of acting according to the revealed will of God gives strong confidence to an upright mind.
Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Joseph Benson 1811 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17 Lev 1:1. And the Lord called unto Moses —…
Lev 1:1. And the Lord called unto Moses — The particle and shows that the beginning of this book is closely connected with the conclusion of the former; and therefore it is probable that this order was given to Moses immediately after the consecration of the tabernacle; that now, when all things were ready for divine service, he drew nigh to the oracle of God, to receive the following instructions about its ministrations and sacrifices.
Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Albert Barnes 1834 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 16 The Lord - In the Hebrew text of Leviticus,…
The Lord - In the Hebrew text of Leviticus, Jehovah יהוה yehovâh is the name by which God is usually called. Where אלהים 'ĕlohı̂ym occurs, it is generally with a possessive pronoun, so as to designate Him as the God of the chosen people (Lev 2:13; Lev 11:45; Lev 18:21; Lev 19:12, Lev 19:14, Lev 19:32, etc.).
The tabernacle of the congregation - Rather, the tent of meeting. See Exo 22:21 note. When Jehovah (Yahweh) was about to give His people the Law of the Ten Commandments Exo 19:3 He called to Moses from the top of Mount Sinai in thunders and lightnings and a thick cloud. When He was now about to give them the laws by which their formal acts of worship were to be regulated, He called to Moses out of the tabernacle which had just been constructed at the foot of the mountain. Exo 25:22.
Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary 1859 · Public Domain On vv2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14, 15, 16, 17 Offer, voluntarily, without any command. Some sacrifices were of…
Offer, voluntarily, without any command. Some sacrifices were of precept, Exodus xxii. 29. (Menochius) --- These first chapters are addressed to the people; the 6th from ver. 9, to the priests. Oxen, goats, and sheep, pigeons, and turtles, were to be offered in sacrifice, and small birds also, in the purification of lepers, (chap. xiv. 4,) as they might easily be procured. (Calmet) --- By sacrifice, we testify the dominion of God over all. They were offered by the patriarchs, and by all nations. God requireth that the victim should be without blemish, and slain with certain ceremonies wisely ordained, Psalm ciii. 24. (Worthington) --- A sacrifice. Hebrew korban, a present of any sort, Mark vii. --- Sheep and goats, ver. 10. The same term, tson, signifies both. (Menochius)
George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).
Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures 1864 · Public Domain On v1
LEVITICUS
THE THIRD BOOK OF MOSES
Read full note →
______________
BOOK I
OF APPROACH TO GOD
Leviticus 1-16
“FIRST DIVISION.—The sanctifying acts (or consecrations for God) to bring about typical holiness by means of various sacrifices, universally ordained for universal sin. The removal of the sinful condition incurred by inadvertence (pardonable sins בִשְׁגָגָה chaps. 1–16 [a. positive enactments, 1–10; b. negative, 11–16]).”—Lange.
___________________
PART I. THE LAWS OF SACRIFICE
Chaps. 1–7
______________
FIRST SECTION
Lev_1:1 to Lev_6:7
[Lange makes the division “Personal Sacrifices” Chapters 1–5.]
A.—BURNT-OFFERINGS
Lev_1:1-17
1And the Lord called1 unto Moses, and spake unto him out of the tabernacle2 of the [omit the3] congregation, saying, 2Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, If any man of you bring an offering unto the Lord,4 ye shall bring your offering5 of the cattle, even of the herd, and of the flock [of the cattle unto the Lord, ye shall bring your offering of the herd or of the flock].
3If his offering be a burnt sacrifice of the herd, let him offer a male without blemish: he shall offer it of his own voluntary will at the door of the tabernacle of the [omit the6] congregation before the Lord7 [offer it at the door of the tabernacle of congregation for his acceptance before the Lord]. 4And he shall put his hand upon the head of the burnt offering; and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him. 5And he shall kill the bullock before the Lord: and the priests, Aaron’s sons, shall bring the blood, and sprinkle the blood round about upon8 the altar that is by [before] the door of the tabernacle of the [omit the3]6congregation. And Hebrews 9 shall flay the burnt offering, and cut it into his pieces. 7And the sons of Aaron the priest shall put fire upon the altar, and lay the wood in order upon the fire: 8and the priests, Aaron’s sons, shall lay the parts, the head, and the fat, in order upon the wood that is on the fire which is upon the altar: 9but his inwards and his legs shall Hebrews 10 wash in water: and the priest shall burn all on the altar, to be a burnt sacrifice,11 an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the Lord.
10And if his offering be of the flocks,12 namely, of the sheep, or of the goats, for a burnt sacrifice; he shall bring it a male without blemish.13 1411And he shall kill it on the side of the altar northward before the Lord: and the priests, Aaron’s sons, 12shall sprinkle his blood round about upon7 the altar. And he15 shall cut it into his pieces, with his head and his fat: and the priest shall lay them in order on the wood that is on the fire which is upon the altar: 13but he shall wash the inwards and the legs with water: and the priest shall bring it all, and burn it upon the altar: it is a burnt sacrifice, an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the Lord.
14And if the burnt sacrifice for his offering to the Lord be of fowls, then he shall bring his offering of turtledoves, or of young pigeons. 15And the priest shall bring it unto the altar, and wring [pinch] off his head, and burn it on the altar; and the blood thereof shall be wrung out at [pressed out against] the side of the altar: 16and he shall pluck away his crop with his feathers [the filth thereof16], and cast it beside the altar on the east part, by the place of the ashes: 17and he shall cleave it with the wings thereof, but17 shall not divide it asunder: and the priest shall burn it upon the altar, upon the wood that is upon the fire: It is a burnt sacrifice, and offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the Lord.
TEXTUAL AND GRAMMATICAL
Lev_1:1. וַיִּקְרָא in our text has the final א of smaller size than the other letters. The reason (leaving out of view Cabalistic interpretations) seems to be that suggested by Rosenmüller—that there was an ancient variation of the MSS., some having our present reading; while others, omitting the א, read וַיִּקָּר, Fut. Apoc. Niphal of קָרָה = and the Lord met (or appeared to) Moses. Comp. Num_23:4; Num_23:16.
Lev_1:1. אֹהֶל means strictly the covering of haircloth over the מִשְׁכָן of boards with linen curtains. Both occur together, Exo_40:29. Both are translated in the A. V. alike by tent and by tabernacle, and both in the LXX. most frequently by σκηνή. In the original both are used to designate the structure in which the ark was placed. There is therefore no sufficient reason for changing the familiar name of Tabernacle.
Lev_1:1. מוֹעֵך is without the article, as always. The word is used very frequently (Lev_23:2; Lev_23:4; Lev_23:37; Lev_23:44, etc.) of the religious festivals of the Law, of which the tabernacle was the centre, and perhaps both in the Heb. and the Chald. the “times of the festivals” is the most prominent idea of the word. Hence, as the place of assembly, the centre around which the congregation was at such times to gather, the Tabernacle came to be called אֹהֶל מוֹעֵר, as Jerusalem is called (Isa_33:20) קִרְיַת מ֝. The proposal to translate Tent of meeting (Speaker’s Com., Kalisch, Murphy, and many others) as referring to God’s meeting with Moses, seems unsupported by the usage of the word, and is sustained by none of the ancient versions. (The LXX. and Vulgate take the word in the sense of covenant or law). The article, however, should be omitted. Nevertheless, Lange says “The Tabernacle is designated as the Tabernacle of the meeting. That the Israelites should assemble themselves in that place, is only the secondary result of the primary meeting with Jehovah.”
Lev_1:2. The Masoretic punctuation places the Athnach on לַיְהוֹה֑, and this is sustained by the Sam., Chald., LXX., Vulg., and followed by the A. V. Houbigant suggests that it should rather be placed on the next word, הַבְּהֵמָ֑ה as in the Syr. The latter sense is followed in the commentary.
Lev_1:1. מוֹעֵך is without the article, as always. The word is used very frequently (Lev_23:2; Lev_23:4; Lev_23:37; Lev_23:44, etc.) of the religious festivals of the Law, of which the tabernacle was the centre, and perhaps both in the Heb. and the Chald. the “times of the festivals” is the most prominent idea of the word. Hence, as the place of assembly, the centre around which the congregation was at such times to gather, the Tabernacle came to be called אֹהֶל מוֹעֵר, as Jerusalem is called (Isa_33:20) קִרְיַת מ֝. The proposal to translate Tent of meeting (Speaker’s Com., Kalisch, Murphy, and many others) as referring to God’s meeting with Moses, seems unsupported by the usage of the word, and is sustained by none of the ancient versions. (The LXX. and Vulgate take the word in the sense of covenant or law). The article, however, should be omitted. Nevertheless, Lange says “The Tabernacle is designated as the Tabernacle of the meeting. That the Israelites should assemble themselves in that place, is only the secondary result of the primary meeting with Jehovah.”
Lev_1:2. “Offerings” in the plural is read in the Sam., LXX., Vulg., and Syr.
Lev_1:3. לֶרצֹנוֹ לִפְנֵי יְהוָֹה. The translation of the A. V. is defended by Grotius, but most interpreters follow the unanimous voice of the ancient versions in giving the sense as corrected above. Comp. Exo_28:38; Lev_22:20-21, etc. The A. V. varies in the translation even in the same passage, as Lev_22:19-21; Lev_22:29.
Lev_1:5. The sense is, upon all the sides of the altar, not on its upper surface.
Lev_1:6. The Sam. and LXX. by reading the verbs of this verse in the plural, apparently make the flaying and cutting up of the victim the act of the priests.
Lev_1:9. The Sam. and the LXX. here also, by the use of the plural, make the washing the act of the priests.
Lev_1:9. The Sam. followed by the LXX. and Syr., read עֹלָה הִיא=this is the burnt-offering, i.e., the law of the burnt-offerings.
Lev_1:10. The Sam. followed by the LXX. reads וְאִס־מִן־הַצֹּאן עלָה קָרְבָּנוֹ לַיְהוָֹה, the Sam. omitting the subsequent עֹלָה, which makes the sense clearer.
Lev_1:10. The Sam. adds—at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation shall he offer it.
Lev_1:11. The LXX. prefixes from Lev_1:4, καὶ ἐπιθήσει τὴν χεῖρα ἐπὶ τὴν κεφαλὴν αὐτοῦ—which is of course to be understood.
Lev_1:12. The Sam. (now followed both by the LXX. and the Vulg.) here again as in Lev_1:6; Lev_1:9 reads the plural.
Lev_1:16. בְּנצָתָהּ (Sam. תו—) is variously translated. In the LXX. and Vulg., as in the A. V., it is rendered feathers; in the Sam. Vers., however, the Chald. of Onkelos, of Jonathan, and of Jerusalem, and in the Syr., the idea is the food in the crop, or the filth connected therewith, as is expressed in the margin of the A. V. By Gesenius and Fuerst it is translated as filth or excrement in the crop; they consider it a contracted form of Part. Niph. of יָצָא. This is probably the true sense. Lange explains it “the excrement from the crop yet to be found in the body.”
Lev_1:17. The Sam., 15 MSS., and all the versions supply the conjunction, which must of course be understood.
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
The Divine presence having now been manifested in the newly erected tabernacle (Exo_40:34), God according to His promise (Exo_25:22), there reveals Himself to Moses, and makes known through him His will to the people. As this was the place where they were to draw nigh to Him, the first commands uttered from the tabernacle relate to the means of this approach, and occupy the first sixteen chapters of Leviticus. Of these, seven are concerned with the general laws of sacrifice, of which it would appear some knowledge must have been previously communicated to Moses to make the directions of Exodus 29 intelligible to him, and also to guide him in the sacrifices offered by himself, Exo_40:28-29; but now for the first time he is directed to proclaim these laws to the people. The law is first declared in regard to the people’s part in the offerings (1–6:7), although this involves incidentally something also of the duties of the priests; this is followed by special instructions chiefly for the priests (Lev_6:8 to Lev_7:38), although the line cannot be so sharply drawn that this part shall not also contain something for the people. Each kind of offering is treated by itself, the first chapter being occupied with the whole burnt-offering, which must always be an animal, but might be either a quadruped (2–13), or a fowl (14–17). The former again, might be either “of the herd,” i.e., a bullock (3–9), or “of the flock.” i.e., a sheep or a goat (10–13). The directions for burnt-sacrifices are arranged under these three heads.
Lev_1:1 The Lord.—Jehovah is the distinctive Divine title throughout Leviticus; the names אֲדֹנָי (occurring so frequently elsewhere), שַׁךַּי, and the very common אֵל do not occur, nor even the ordinary אֱלֹהִים, except the last joined with a possessive pronoun or some other construction, to mark Him as in a peculiar sense the God of Israel.
Out of the tabernacle of congregation.—There can be no reasonable doubt that this is the newly-erected tabernacle; the attempt to prove that these laws were given from some other tent upon the slopes of Mt. Sinai by reference to Lev_7:38, has no foundation, as the parallelism of that ver. shows that mount is there only another expression for the place called the wilderness of Sinai.
“Lev_1:2 ss. The common regulations concerning all the sacrifices. The whole motive of animal sacrifice is appropriately exhibited in the verb קָרַבto draw near; in the Hiphil to cause to draw near. The sense of the word is fully shown in Jer_30:21. Sinful man, as such, dares not draw near to Jehovah. But Jehovah forms one chosen out of His people (the Messiah) for the purpose of approach, until he draws nearest of all to Him, touches Him, yields up himself to Him, and becomes one with Him. With reverent dread man, conscious of sin, pushes forward the guiltless animal as an offering of drawing near (Korban), as a symbol of his desire to draw near himself to Jehovah. As yet the sacrifice was not commanded in its particulars; but the general idea of sacrifice as now necessary was commanded, and in every case it must be of the cattle, either large or small, and thus of the clean domestic animals. The subsequent addition of pigeons and turtle-doves are as substitutes.” Lange.
If any man of you bring.—The sacrifices of the first three chapters were those of individuals, and were purely voluntary in so far as respects their being offered at all; when, however, the individual had determined to offer any of them, the instructions as to the selection of the victim, and the manner of offering, were minute and peremptory. The duty of the priests in regard to these offerings was simply ministerial.
Offering.—קָרְבָּן, always translated by the LXX. δῶρον, and most frequently by the Vulg. oblatio. Except in two instances in Ezek. (Eze_20:28; Eze_40:43), and in two of the same consonants differently pointed in Neh. (Neh_10:34 (35); Lev_13:31), its use is confined to Lev. and Num. It is the technical word for an offering to the Lord, including sacrifices both bloody, as here, and unbloody as in Leviticus 2, and also dedicatory offerings for the sanctuary, as in Numbers 7.
Ye shall bring.—The Rabbins infer from this use of the plural that two or more persona might unite in the same offering. This was undoubtedly the fact; but does not seem to be the reason for the use of the plural here, which is rather required simply by the generality of the law. Comp. Lev_2:11-12, etc.
Of the cattle unto the Lord.—The Masoretic punctuation must here be modified in order to represent the systematic arrangement intended. See Textual Note 4. The בְּהֵמָה = quadruped, is in contradistinction to the fowls of Lev_1:14; and the direction is that if an offering of this kind be brought, it shall be taken from the herd or the flock, not from wild animals. The word sometimes includes all quadrupeds, wild and tame (Gen_6:7; Exo_9:25, etc.), but is more commonly used, according to the restriction here, of the domestic animals. It includes both the herd and the flock. The range of animals allowed for sacrifice was much narrower than that of those clean for food, and far narrower than among the heathen. See Knobel, p. 352. The Egyptians, among other victims, offered swine, and the Hindoos and Germans, horses.
Lev_1:3-9. The law of the burnt-offering of a bullock, עֹלָה = whole burnt-offering. Lange: “The names: עֹלָה the going up (in a specific sense, for all sacrifices were brought up on the altar), כָּלִיל the whole, the entirely finished, consumed, burned, holocaustum. Thus the burnt-offering, or the fire-offering in the most especial sense, which was entirely consumed in the fire, forms the central point of the whole sacrificial system.” “The New Testament antitype of the burnt-offering is expressed by Paul in Rom_12:1.” See the preliminary note on sacrifices, p. 12.
Lev_1:3. A male.—The burnt-offering, unlike the sin and peace-offering, must always be a male. The case of the cows offered in 1Sa_6:14, was altogether exceptional, and the red heifer (Num_19:1-10) was not burned upon the altar at all.—Without blemish, LXX., ἄμωμος. The bullock, like all other victims, (Lev_22:19-24) except in the case of free will offerings, must be free from bodily faults either of defect or redundancy; and it was provided that no victim obtained by the price of a dog, or of whoredom, might be offered to God (Deu_23:18). It was the Jewish custom to appoint a priest as a special inspector of victims, to whose scrutiny every animal must be subjected before being offered.—At the door.—At the wide entrance of the court in which the great altar stood. Lange, however, considers that the door “not of the court, but of the Holy Place, is the boundary between the holy things and the region of that to be hallowed, and therefore the appropriate point for the meeting which in the name of Jehovah was obtained by the priests for the people through the sacrifice.” This presentation of the victim before the Lord was the technical offering, so essential a part of the sacrifice that it is often put for the sacrifice itself. The details of the sacrifice were so ordered that when occasion required, great multitudes of victims might be offered quickly and without confusion. After the erection of the temple, rings were fixed in the pavement, to which the victims were secured; with a sharp knife the throat was then cut at one stroke quite through the arteries and the jugular veins, so that the blood might flow rapidly into a vessel held underneath; this vessel was then (when there were many sacrifices) passed from hand to hand by a row of priests and Levites extending to the altar; meantime the flaying and cutting up of the victim was going on; on the north side of the altar there were eight stone pillars connected by three rows of beams, each bearing a row of hooks; upon these the victims were hung, the largest upon the highest hooks, the smaller upon the others. Outram I., xvi., and the authorities there cited. By such means an almost incredible number of victims are said to have been sacrificed with perfect order in a short time.—For his acceptance before the Lord.—It was the object of the burnt-offering, as of all sacrifices, to secure to the offerer the good pleasure of God. How far the burnt-offering partook of a strictly expiatory character has already been discussed in the preliminary essay; but that this, with all other voluntary offerings, sprang from a sense of need on the part of the worshipper, and a desire by some means to draw nearer to God, there can be no doubt. This expression, however, as Knobel notes, is never used in connection with the sin-offering, whose peculiar office was to obtain the pardon, rather than the gracious favor of God. Lange: “The sacrifices follow one another in a natural sequence. The burnt-offering denotes the giving up of life to God; the meat-offering, the giving up of life’s enjoyment. Both were offered for a covering for the universal sinfulness of man. Only the expiatory sacrifices relate to particular sins.”
Lev_1:4. And he shall put his hand upon the head.—This solemn and essential part of the ceremonial is always specified when the law is given in detail, not only in connection with the burnt-offerings, but also with the peace-offerings (Lev_3:2; Lev_3:8; Lev_3:13), and the sin-offerings (Lev_4:4; Lev_4:15; Lev_4:24; Lev_4:29; Lev_4:33); where in the brevity of the description it is omitted (Lev_1:11, Lev_5:6; Lev_5:15; Lev_5:18,) it is yet to be understood. As to the significance of the act, a great variety of opinions has been held; by many, both of the ancients and moderns, it has been understood to symbolize the transfer of his sins from the offerer to the victim, or the substitution of the victim to die in his stead (Theodoret, Quæst. 61 in Ex., and many others). This view has countenance from the laying on of both the hands of the high-priest on the head of the scape-goat on the day of atonement (Lev_16:21) for the express purpose of “putting all their sins upon the head of the goat,” that he might “bear upon him all their iniquities unto a land not inhabited;” but the ritual is here very different, and this goat was not burned upon the altar. On the other hand in the case of the blasphemer who was to be stoned (Lev_24:14), all the witnesses were to lay their hands upon his head, clearly not for the purpose of transferring their sins to him. By others the act has been regarded as a surrender and dedication of the offerer’s property to God; by still others as a dedication of himself through the victim representing him; Lange: “The laying (pressing) on of the hand has the effect of substituting in a typical sense the animal to be offered for the offerer (for him לוֹ). It denotes the transferring of the individual life to the offering in a symbolical sense, not merely the giving up of this possession (as a gift) to Jehovah.” Various other views also have been advocated. None of them, however, can claim exclusively the sanction of Scripture, which prescribes the act, but does not define its significance. Neither do any of them rest upon evidence independent of preconceived views, and of the doctrinal interpretation of other Scriptures. This much will be generally admitted: That the act connected the offerer personally with the victim, and denoted that his sacrifice was offered solemnly and for the purpose of securing to himself that “covering” or atonement of which mention is immediately afterwards made. The connection of the two clauses shows that the laying on of the hand was directly connected with this atonement. It was certainly an expression of faith in the use of the means God had appointed for drawing near to Him, and the act may be beyond the reach of a closer analysis.
Accepted—the word is of the same root and sense as in Lev_1:3.
To make atonement for him.—לְבַפֵר עָלָיו. This verb is not used in the Kal. In the Piel the primary sense is to cover and hence to atone for. It is used sometimes simply with the accus. of the thing (Psa_65:4; Psa_78:38; Dan_9:24), but usually with עַל of the thing (Psa_79:9; Jer_18:23, etc.), or of the person (Lev_19:22), or with both (Lev_5:18); less frequently with לְ, and more rarely with עַל of the person and מִן of the thing (Lev_4:26, etc.); seldom with בְּ of the thing (Lev_17:11). The phrase is used chiefly in reference to the sin and trespass-offerings (Leviticus 4-6) and but rarely in connection with the burnt-offerings. It is here used in connection with the laying on of the hand of the offerer, not as in the case of the sin-offering (Lev_4:20; Lev_4:26; Lev_4:35) and the trespass-offering (Lev_5:6; Lev_5:10; Lev_5:13; Lev_5:18; Lev_6:7, etc.), with the act of the priest, although in all cases the mediatorial function of the priest was, as here, necessarily involved.
Lev_1:5. He shall kill.—The killing, skinning, washing and preparation of the victim, were the duty of the offerer, or, according to Outram, of some clean person appointed by him. Lange: “This is also an expression of the freewill of the sacrificer. He must indeed slay his own offering himself, just as the devout can offer his will to God only in free self-determination. Only false priests took the sacrifice by craft or force into the court, and slew it themselves, or had it slain at their command.” The functions of the priest were concerned with the presentation and sprinkling of the blood, and the burning of the victim upon the altar. In the case, however, of national offerings, the offerer’s part also was undertaken by the priests assisted by the Levites (2Ch_29:24; 2Ch_29:34), apparently not in consequence of their office, but as representatives of the whole people. So also in the case of the Passovers of Hezekiah (2Ch_30:17) and of Josiah (ib. 2Ch_35:10-11) the Levites performed these duties on behalf of the people, because many of them were disqualified by uncleanness. Hence, as appears in the ancient versions, there has arisen a difference of opinion as to the part performed by the offerer.
Kill.—שָׁחַט is a general word exactly rendered, and is frequently used for killing in sacrifice. It does not therefore need to be changed. The technical word used only for sacrifice is זָבַח, while חֵמִית = to put to death is never used in this connection.
The bullock.—בֶן בָקָר = lit., son of an ox, applied to a calf (Lev_9:2) and to a mature young bull (פַּר4:3, 14).
Before the Lord—i.e., in immediate view of the place where His presence was especially manifested. Knobel (in loco) notes how the slaughtering of the victim where it might be considered ἐν ὀφθαλμοῖς τοῦ θεοῦ was provided for among the heathen.
And the priests.—With the blood began the exclusively priestly functions. In the case of very numerous sacrifices the Levites might catch the blood and pass it to the priests (2Ch_30:16). but the “sprinkling” was always done by the priests alone.
Sprinkle.—The word זָרַק is a different one from the נָזָה (more common in the Hiphil form הִזָה) generally used of sprinkling with the finger or with hyssop, and refers to the throwing of the blood by a jerk against the sides of the altar from the מִזְרָק or bowl in which the blood of the victim was caught. Rosenmüller shows that the word cannot be translated, as some would have it. by pour. The LXX. usually, but not always, renders the former by προσχεῖν, the latter by ῤαίνειν. There seems, however, no sufficient reason for changing the translation of the A. V. The priest was to sprinkle the blood against all the sides of the altar: and this was done, according to Jewish tradition, by throwing it from the bowl successively against the opposite corners of the altar, so that it sprinkled against each of the adjoining sides. The same law held for the peace-offerings (Lev_3:2; Lev_3:8; Lev_3:13; Lev_9:18), and trespass-offerings (Lev_7:2); but not for the sin-offering (Lev_4:5-7). Lange: “The blood is the symbol of the spiritual life which is given up to Jehovah (at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation) but which may not be consumed with the body of mortality by the fire of God’s appointment. As it is said that it is ‘to be brought up,’ it follows that the slaying belongs between the altar and the door of the court, where the station of the sacrificer is. That it must be poured out on the altar before the burnt-offering can be kindled, tells us plainly that no offering up of life or body is profitable unless the soul has first been given to Jehovah. But this has been given up to the God of the altar, not surrendered to the altar-fire to destroy or change.”
Before the door of the tabernacle.—The altar was in full view of the gate-way or door, as it is expressed Exo_40:6לִפְנֵי פֶתַח.
Lev_1:6. He shall flay.—The offerer skinned the animal, and the skin was the perquisite of the officiating priest (Lev_7:8). Kalisch, however, says that “the flaying was probably performed by a Levite under the direction of the officiating priest.” Lange says. “With the slaying the life departs, with the skin goes the old appearance of life, under the conventionally commanded division disappears also the old figure of life, in the burning disappears the substance of the body itself. Only the blood, the soul, does not disappear, but passes through the purifying process of sacrifice, and goes hence into the invisible, to God. The pouring out of the blood at the foot of the altar round about, can in no case mean ‘the convenient disposal of the blood.’ The blood goes through the sanctified earth to God.”
Cut it into his pieces—i.e., properly divide it according to custom.
Lev_1:7-9. The priests.—We here again come upon those essential parts of the sacrifice which could be performed by the priests alone. The direction to put fire upon the altar is understood by Knobel and others to refer only to the first sacrifice upon the newly-erected altar, as it was required afterwards (Lev_6:13) that the fire should be kept always burning upon the altar; or it may be understood of so arranging the fire—when not in use, raked together—as to consume the sacrifice. The head is especially mentioned in order that the whole animal may be expressly included, since it would not be considered one of the “pieces” into which the animal was divided. The fatפֶךֶר used only in connection with burnt-offerings (Lev_1:8; Lev_1:12; Lev_8:20) probably means the fat separated from the entrails and taken out to wash. Bochart, adeps a carne sejunctus. All was to be laid in order upon the wood; everything about the sacrifice must have that method and regard to propriety becoming in an act of worship. According to Jewish writers, the parts were so laid upon one another as to have the same relative positions as in the living animal. Outram I. 16, § 13.
His inwards and his legs, which were to be washed, are generally understood of the lower viscera and the legs, especially the hind legs, below the knee; it is doubtful whether the washing was required for the heart, the lungs and the liver—LXX. ἐγκοίλια καὶ οἱ ποδές; Vulg., intestina et pedes. Lange: “Head and Fat. The knowledge of earth and its prosperity must first pass into the fiery death; then also the purified organs of growth, nourishment, and motion.”
Shall burn.—הִקְטִיר = to cause to ascend in smoke, as incense. The word is used only of the burning of incense, of the sacred lamps, and of sacrifices, and is a very different one from שָּׂרַף the word for common burning, which is applied to the victims, or parts of victims burned without the camp (Lev_4:12; Lev_4:21, etc.). It connects the bloody sacrifice with the incense, and shows that the object of the burning was not to destroy the victim, but rather, as declared just below, to cause its essence to ascend as a sweet savor unto God.
An offering made by fire.—אִשֶׁה a word applied exclusively to sacrifices (although sometimes to the parts of them eaten by the priests. Deu_18:1; Jos_13:14), in Lev_24:7 applied to the incense laid upon the shew-bread. The appearance of tautology, hardly to be avoided in the translation, does not exist in the original. The word is usually associated, as here, with the phrase “a sweet savour unto the Lord” (LXX. ὀσμὴ εὐωδίας). This phrase is applied to all sacrifices, but belongs peculiarly to the burnt-offering; as the phrase to make atonement belongs peculiarly, but not exclusively, to the sin-offering. Its intent is plainly to describe the divine pleasure in the sacrifice offered. Theodoret (Quæst. 62 in Ex.): “By human things he teaches Divine. As we delight in sweet odors, so he calls the sacrifice made according to the law a sweet savor. But that this is not to be taken in the naked letter is shown both by the Divine nature which is incorporeal, and by the ill smell of the burnt bones. For what can smell worse than these?” Lange: “The conception is not exhausted in the conception of a sweet, pleasant smell. As in a pictorial sense, anger is represented by the snorting of the nostrils, so the resignation of self to God and His rule is called a savor well-pleasing to the nose.”
Lev_1:10-13. The burnt-offering from the flock. The law here being essentially the same as for the bullock is more briefly given, except in regard to the place of slaying. The offering might be either from the sheep or goats, but the former were probably more esteemed.
Lev_1:11. On the side of the altar northward.—So also the table of shew-bread with the continual meat-offering stood on the north side of the holy place (Exo_26:35). The east side of the altar was the place for the heap of ashes on the side towards the door by which they must be carried out; the west side would have been inconvenient, being towards the holy place with the laver between; the south side had probably (as Josephus says was the case in the second temple, Bell. Jud. V. 5, 6, ἀπὸ μεσημβρίαςἐπ’ αὐτὸν ἄνοδος) the ascent to the altar which must be kept clear; so that the north side alone remained. Lange: “Death is something belonging to the mysterious night, and belongs as a night-side of life, to the night-side of the earth; just as also the priestly eating of the shew-bread must be considered as a night meal.” In the same place were also to be slain the sin-offerings (Lev_4:24; Lev_4:29; Lev_4:33) and the trespass-offerings (Lev_7:2). There being ample room in the court for the sacrifice of the smaller victims, which also required less time in their preparation, they were killed near the altar instead of at the door. Nothing is said of the peace-offerings which, according to Mishna, might be killed in any part of the court. When not too numerous, however, they would have been more conveniently slain in the same place.
Lev_1:12. His head,etc.—is to be connected per zeugma with he shall cut, i.e., he shall cut it into his pieces and (sever) his head and his fat.
Lev_1:14-17. The burnt-offering of fowls. From Lev_5:7-11; Lev_12:8, it is probable that this offering was for those who were unable to bring the more costly offerings. It might be either of turtledoves, or of young pigeons; but only one bird was required. The turtledoves (turtur auritus) appear in vast numbers in Palestine early in April, and are easily captured; later in the season they entirely disappear. The common pigeon has been bred in the country from time immemorial, and also is found wild, at all seasons, in great abundance; but when full-grown is difficult of capture. It has, however, in the course of the year, several broods of two each, which may be easily taken on the nest. Hence, in the case of the pigeon, the mention of the age. Knobel observes that the allowing of doves or pigeons in sacrifice was quite exceptional among the ancient Orientals, and distinguished the Hebrew law from others. We have then in this a fresh instance of the especial care for the poor in the Divine law.
Lev_1:15. And the priest shall.—In this case the offerer’s part must be performed by the priest to prevent the loss of the small quantity of blood contained in the bird. No mention is made of the laying on of hands which was perhaps omitted on account of the diminutive size of the victim.
Pinch off his head.—מָלַק occurs only here and in v. 8, and its precise meaning has been much questioned. In v. 8 it is expressly limited by the provision that the head was not to be entirely separated from the body in the case of the bird to be eaten by the priest; in regard to the other bird (v. 7, 10), it was to be treated as the bird for a burnt-offering. As there is no such limitation here, as it is implied that the treatment was different from that of the bird in v. 8, and as the head was to be immediately burned on the altar, while something further was to be done to the body, the precept must be understood to require an entire separation of the head. So Outram, following the Mishna and other Jewish authorities. Lange, however, considers from the analogy of v. 8, that the head was not to be disjoined from the body. He translates מַָלק, “cleave in two, so that death is produced and the blood can flow out as from a vessel. The closely related מָלַח means apparently to tear off; the closely related פָּלַח means to cleave, cut into.” The LXX. has ἀποκνίζειν in both places. The exact sense seems best expressed by the margin of the A. V.—pinch off the head with the nail.
Pressed out against.—The small quantity of blood made it practically impossible to deal with it as in the case of the larger sacrifices. The sense of נִמְצָה וגו֝ is that the blood of the bird should be thoroughly squeezed out against the side of the altar.
Lev_1:16. His crop with its filth. The obscure word בְּנֹצָתָהּ has occasioned much difference of opinion; see Textual Notes. The rendering here given is ably supported at length by Rosenmüller. This was to be flung on the heap of ashes and refuse east of the altar.
Lev_1:17. He shall cleave.—The priest was to split the bird open, (by its wings, or by means of its outspread wings, Lange), but so as not to separate the parts; in the same way a fowl is now prepared for broiling. Lange: “The direction was given to take the place, as far as possible, of the cutting in pieces of the burnt-offering, i.e., the destruction of the figure of the body.”
A sweet savour.—The repetition of the same words as in Lev_1:9 and Lev_1:13, shows that this humbler sacrifice of the poor was acceptable equally with the more costly sacrifice of the rich.
DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL
I. The offerings mentioned in this chapter were purely voluntary; yet when offered, the law in regard to them was strict and sharply defined. In this the Israelites- were taught a general principle of the Divine will. Whoever seeks to draw near to God must do so in the way of God’s own appointment. That worship only is acceptable to Him which is in accordance with His will. Not that which may seem most effective, not that which may be thought best adapted to man’s needs; but simply that which God approves may be offered to Him.
II. These offerings must be “perfect,” i.e., without, blemish, and the most scrupulous cleanliness was required in offering them. These requirements were of course necessary in view of the typical relation of the sacrifices to Christ; but they also taught the general principle that in his offerings to God man may not try to put off upon Him what is of inferior value—the light coin, or the scraps of unoccupied time. God is to be served with the best that man can command. And in this service regard must be had to the infinite purity and holiness of Him with whom we have to do.
III. The sacrifice might not be completed by the offerer. Man, being sinful, was unworthy to offer propitiation to God for himself. The priest must intervene for the sprinkling of the blood and the burning of the victim. In view of the peculiar virtue everywhere attributed to blood as “the life” (Gen_9:4, etc.), and the especial office of that “life” in connection with the disturbed relations between God and man (Lev_17:10-12, etc.), and of the appointment of the priest to this duty, it is plain that he here acts in a mediatorial capacity. As Calvin (in loco) notes, “ministers of reconciliation must be sought, made competent to their high function by Divine anointing. This points to Christ not only as the Victim offered for sin, but also (as is shown at length in the Ep. to the Heb.) as Himself the Priest.” In general it establishes the principle that they only may exercise authority on God’s behalf whom He has commissioned for the purpose.
IV. In the provision for a less costly burnt-offering, we see that while in His providence God distributes unequally the means of offering to Himself, He yet provides that an equally acceptable offering shall be within the reach of all. The poor widow’s two mites were greater in His eyes than the costly gifts of the rich. The same thing is true when the propitiatory character of the offering is considered. Before God all souls are alike precious, and all equally have the opportunity of drawing near to Him.
V. In the New Testament certain words and phrases are applied to Christ which are the Septuagint translations of the technical words here and elsewhere used of the sacrifices. Thus He is called (Eph_5:2) προσφορὰν καὶ θυσίαν τῷ θεῷ εἰς ὀσμὴν εὐωδίας and in Heb_2:17 He is said to be πιστὸς ἀρχιερεὺς τὰ πρὸς τὸν θεόν, εἰς τὸ ἱλάσκεσθαι τὰς ἁμαρτίας τοῦ λαοῦ, and in 1Jn_2:2; 1Jn_4:10, He is described as our ἱλασμὸς περὶ τῶνἁμαρτιῶν. It seems impossible to suppose that the Apostles could have used these expressions and others like them without intending to point to Christ as the Antitype of the sacrifices, and as actually accomplishing that which they had prefigured. From the work of Christ, therefore, in effecting reconciliation between God and man, light is thrown back upon the function of the sacrifices; and that function once established, we may learn again from the sacrifices something of the nature of the propitiatory work of Christ.
VI. Wordsworth notes that a new Parashah, or section of the law, as read in Synagogues, begins at Lev_1:1, and extends to Lev_6:7. “The parallel Haphtarah,” or Section of the Prophets, “is Isa_43:21 to Isa_44:23, where God reproves Israel for their neglect of His worship, and promises them forgiveness of sins, and comforts the church with the pledges of divine mercy. Thus the ancient Jewish church, when listening to the law concerning offerings for sin, declared its faith in a better Covenant, and in larger outpourings of divine favor and spiritual grace in Christ.”
HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL
The course of God’s dealings with man always, since man’s fall, is to bring about a closer communion with Himself, as man is able to bear it. The legislation from Mt. Sinai was a great advance; but here there is a fresh advance. The Divine voice calls no longer from the Mount, but from the tabernacle in the midst of the congregation. Thus another step is taken towards God’s speaking “unto us by His Son.”
Provision is made in these three chapters for voluntary sacrifices. The definitely prescribed duties of man are always a minimum; God requires of man the absolute devotion of himself and all that he is and has; this is recognized in the law by the provision for voluntary sacrifices and free-will-offerings of every kind.
All sacrifices were types of Christ inasmuch as after His sacrifice all others ceased. Origen. No one sacrifice could express the manifoldness of that which He wrought; therefore the several aspects of His work are adumbrated by various types. In this chapter we have the whole burnt-offering, the most general and comprehensive, as the most ancient, of the sacrifices; it is therefore the one which in the most general way sets forth the sacrifice of Christ. In so far as it became specialized by the introduction of other kinds of sacrifice, it is thought to be a symbol of entire consecration. It therefore typifies the entire consecration of Christ to God, and through Him, that of His followers, according to the allusion in Rom_12:1, which probably has this sacrifice more particularly in view.
Whatever is offered to God must be perfect in its kind. The offering may be varied in value according to the ability of the offerer, for all souls are alike precious to God, and He provides that all may be able to draw near to Him. Still, from the largest to the smallest offering, none may be allowed with blemish or defect.
On each sacrifice the offerer must lay his hands: so must man identify himself with what he offers to God. Such offering is a serious and a personal matter, and one may not delegate such duty to another; but must give to it personal thought and care. Sinful man cannot directly approach the Majesty on high, before whom he stands as a sinner; he must come through a Mediator, typified of old by the priest, and He “makes atonement for him.”
As the law had but “a shadow of good things to come,” (Heb_10:1), so do they who now consecrate themselves to God offer that real sacrifice which the Israelites, offering various animals under the law, did but prefigure. Theodoret.
Footnotes:
[1]Lev_1:1. וַיִּקְרָא in our text has the final א of smaller size than the other letters. The reason (leaving out of view Cabalistic interpretations) seems to be that suggested by Rosenmüller—that there was an ancient variation of the MSS., some having our present reading; while others, omitting the א, read וַיִּקָּר, Fut. Apoc. Niphal of קָרָה = and the Lord met (or appeared to) Moses. Comp. Num_23:4; Num_23:16.
[2]Lev_1:1. אֹהֶל means strictly the covering of haircloth over the מִשְׁכָן of boards with linen curtains. Both occur together, Exo_40:29. Both are translated in the A. V. alike by tent and by tabernacle, and both in the LXX. most frequently by σκηνή. In the original both are used to designate the structure in which the ark was placed. There is therefore no sufficient reason for changing the familiar name of Tabernacle.
[3]Lev_1:1. מוֹעֵך is without the article, as always. The word is used very frequently (Lev_23:2; Lev_23:4; Lev_23:37; Lev_23:44, etc.) of the religious festivals of the Law, of which the tabernacle was the centre, and perhaps both in the Heb. and the Chald. the “times of the festivals” is the most prominent idea of the word. Hence, as the place of assembly, the centre around which the congregation was at such times to gather, the Tabernacle came to be called אֹהֶל מוֹעֵר, as Jerusalem is called (Isa_33:20) קִרְיַת מ֝. The proposal to translate Tent of meeting (Speaker’s Com., Kalisch, Murphy, and many others) as referring to God’s meeting with Moses, seems unsupported by the usage of the word, and is sustained by none of the ancient versions. (The LXX. and Vulgate take the word in the sense of covenant or law). The article, however, should be omitted. Nevertheless, Lange says “The Tabernacle is designated as the Tabernacle of the meeting. That the Israelites should assemble themselves in that place, is only the secondary result of the primary meeting with Jehovah.”
[4]Lev_1:2. The Masoretic punctuation places the Athnach on לַיְהוֹה֑, and this is sustained by the Sam., Chald., LXX., Vulg., and followed by the A. V. Houbigant suggests that it should rather be placed on the next word, הַבְּהֵמָ֑ה as in the Syr. The latter sense is followed in the commentary.
[5]Lev_1:2. “Offerings” in the plural is read in the Sam., LXX., Vulg., and Syr.
[6]Lev_1:1. מוֹעֵך is without the article, as always. The word is used very frequently (Lev_23:2; Lev_23:4; Lev_23:37; Lev_23:44, etc.) of the religious festivals of the Law, of which the tabernacle was the centre, and perhaps both in the Heb. and the Chald. the “times of the festivals” is the most prominent idea of the word. Hence, as the place of assembly, the centre around which the congregation was at such times to gather, the Tabernacle came to be called אֹהֶל מוֹעֵר, as Jerusalem is called (Isa_33:20) קִרְיַת מ֝. The proposal to translate Tent of meeting (Speaker’s Com., Kalisch, Murphy, and many others) as referring to God’s meeting with Moses, seems unsupported by the usage of the word, and is sustained by none of the ancient versions. (The LXX. and Vulgate take the word in the sense of covenant or law). The article, however, should be omitted. Nevertheless, Lange says “The Tabernacle is designated as the Tabernacle of the meeting. That the Israelites should assemble themselves in that place, is only the secondary result of the primary meeting with Jehovah.”
[7]Lev_1:3. לֶרצֹנוֹ לִפְנֵי יְהוָֹה. The translation of the A. V. is defended by Grotius, but most interpreters follow the unanimous voice of the ancient versions in giving the sense as corrected above. Comp. Exo_28:38; Lev_22:20-21, etc. The A. V. varies in the translation even in the same passage, as Lev_22:19-21; Lev_22:29.
[8]Lev_1:5. The sense is, upon all the sides of the altar, not on its upper surface.
[9]Lev_1:6. The Sam. and LXX. by reading the verbs of this verse in the plural, apparently make the flaying and cutting up of the victim the act of the priests.
[10]Lev_1:9. The Sam. and the LXX. here also, by the use of the plural, make the washing the act of the priests.
[11]Lev_1:9. The Sam. followed by the LXX. and Syr., read עֹלָה הִיא=this is the burnt-offering, i.e., the law of the burnt-offerings.
[12]Lev_1:10. The Sam. followed by the LXX. reads וְאִס־מִן־הַצֹּאן עלָה קָרְבָּנוֹ לַיְהוָֹה, the Sam. omitting the subsequent עֹלָה, which makes the sense clearer.
[13]Lev_1:10. The Sam. adds—at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation shall he offer it.
[14]Lev_1:11. The LXX. prefixes from Lev_1:4, καὶ ἐπιθήσει τὴν χεῖρα ἐπὶ τὴν κεφαλὴν αὐτοῦ—which is of course to be understood.
[15]Lev_1:12. The Sam. (now followed both by the LXX. and the Vulg.) here again as in Lev_1:6; Lev_1:9 reads the plural.
[16]Lev_1:16. בְּנצָתָהּ (Sam. תו—) is variously translated. In the LXX. and Vulg., as in the A. V., it is rendered feathers; in the Sam. Vers., however, the Chald. of Onkelos, of Jonathan, and of Jerusalem, and in the Syr., the idea is the food in the crop, or the filth connected therewith, as is expressed in the margin of the A. V. By Gesenius and Fuerst it is translated as filth or excrement in the crop; they consider it a contracted form of Part. Niph. of יָצָא. This is probably the true sense. Lange explains it “the excrement from the crop yet to be found in the body.”
[17]Lev_1:17. The Sam., 15 MSS., and all the versions supply the conjunction, which must of course be understood.
Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical), ed. John Peter Lange, English translation edited by Philip Schaff (1864–1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset & David Brown 1871 · Public Domain On vv2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 14 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto…
Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them--If the subject of communication were of a temporal nature, the Levites were excluded; but if it were a spiritual matter, all the tribes were comprehended under this name (Deu 27:12).
If any man of you bring an offering unto the Lord--The directions given here relate solely to voluntary or freewill offerings--those rendered over and above such, as being of standing and universal obligation, could not be dispensed with or commuted for any other kind of offering (Exo 29:38; Lev 23:37; Num 28:3, Num. 28:11-27, &c.).
Read full note →
bring your offering of the cattle, &c.--that is, those animals that were not only tame, innocent and gentle, but useful and adapted for food. This rule excluded horses, dogs, swine, camels, and asses, which were used in sacrifice by some heathen nations, beasts and birds of prey, as also hares and deers.
Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
Daniel D. Whedon 1874 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14, 15, 16, 17 1. Lord — The Hebrew for “Lord” is Jehovah,…
1. Lord — The Hebrew for “Lord” is Jehovah, a name recently disclosed in its fulness of significance. See note on Exo_3:11, and Concluding Note of the same chapter. We shall use it instead of the more indefinite, generic appellative Lord.
Called… out — The calling is as if with an audible voice. See note on Num_1:1. This is the sixth and last time this word is used in the Hebrew to indicate the method of communicating the Divine will to Moses, beginning at the burning bush. These important occasions are Exo_3:4; Exo_19:3; Exo_19:20; Exo_24:16; Exo_34:6. The next and only person to whom God “called out” is the boy Samuel. 1Sa_3:4.
Read full note →
Tabernacle of the congregation — Or, tent of meeting. Primarily, where Jehovah met Moses, and secondarily, where Moses met the Israelites. The word “congregation” in the Authorized Version misleads by conveying the impression that the chief use of the tabernacle was to contain the assembled people, like a modern church edifice. The Israelites, except the priests, were not allowed to enter. They could come only to the door of the holy place, the court of the priests. See the description of the newly erected tabernacle, Exodus 25-27. We cannot agree with Murphy that the tabernacle referred to here is the tent which Moses pitched without the camp afar off, probably on the slope of Mount Sinai, and called by the same name, “the tent of meeting.” The message now given to Moses is the first which ever resounded from the Divine Oracle within the tabernacle. Till now the glory of the Lord had so filled it that Moses was not able to enter. Exo_40:35.
Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges 1878 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 14, 15, 16, 17 1. And the Lord called] The tabernacle had been…
1. And the Lord called] The tabernacle had been reared up, and the cloud had covered it (Exo_40:17-34); Moses, who was not able to enter into the tent of meeting (Exo_40:35), remains without, and receives the first ordinances issued from within the tent. The verse connects these ordinances about sacrifice (chs. 1–7) with Exo_40:35, and the erection of the tabernacle.
out of the tent of meeting] The place from which God issues His commands is more exactly described (Exo_25:22; Num_7:89) as ‘from above the mercy-seat, from between the two cherubim.’ The tent (‘tabernacle’ A.V.) is called the ‘tent of meeting’ (Heb. ’Ohel Mô‘çd) because it is the appointed place of meeting where the Lord meets Moses (Exo_25:22; Exo_30:6; Exo_30:36), and the children of Israel (Exo_29:43). The account of the tent of meeting in Exo_33:7-11 (E), though different in some points from that of P, describes it as the place where the Lord meets Moses (‘the pillar of cloud descended, and stood at the door (opening) of the Tent: and the Lord spake with Moses’). See Driver’s notes on Exo_27:21, and on the passages here quoted, and Intr. to Pent. pp. 84 f. The translation of A.V. tabernacle of the congregation renders mô‘çd (‘appointed meeting place’) as if it were ‘çdâh (congregation), and suggests that the tabernacle was the place where the children of Israel assembled. But they were not allowed to come near it (Num_17:13); only priests and Levites were permitted to draw nigh.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers 1878 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17 (1) And the Lord called . . . and…
(1) And the Lord called . . . and spake.—Rather, And he called unto Moses, and the Lord spake, &c. (See Lev_8:15.) At the end of the previous book we are told that when the tent of meeting was completed, the Lord showed His approbation of it by covering the outside of the edifice with a heaven-sent cloud, and by filling the inside with His glory (Exo_40:34-38). He therefore, who had filled the sanctuary with his glory now “called unto Moses,” thus indicating by “And he called,” which are one word in the original, the intimate connection between the two books. The ancient Jewish synagogue already pointed out the fact that this unusual phrase, “And he called unto Moses,” is used as an introductory formula on the three different occasions when the Lord made a special communication to this great law-giver. Thus when the Lord first communicated to Moses that He was about to deliver the Israelites from Egypt, “He called unto him” from the burning bush (Exo_3:4). When the Lord was about to give to Moses the Ten Commandments for the people of Israel, “He called unto him” from the top of Sinai (Exo_19:3; Exo_19:20); and now when the Lord is about to give to His chosen people, through His servant Moses, the laws by which their Divine worship is to be regulated, “He called unto him” from the tent of meeting (Lev_1:1).
A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
C. H. Mackintosh 1880 · Public Domain On v1 Leviticus 1
Leviticus 1
Ere entering upon the details of the chapter before us, there are two things which demand our careful consideration; namely, first, Jehovah’s position; and, secondly, the order in which the offerings are presented.
Read full note →
"And the Lord called unto Moses, and spake unto him out of the tabernacle of the congregation." Such was the position from which Jehovah made the communications contained in this Book, He had been speaking from Mount Sinai, and his position, there, gave marked character to the communication. From the fiery mount "went a fiery law;" but, here, He speaks "out of the tabernacle of the congregation." This was an entirely different position. We have seen this tabernacle set up, at the close of the preceding book. "And he reared up the court round about the tabernacle and the altar, and set up the hanging of the court gate. So Moses finished the work. Then a cloud covered the tent of the congregation, and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle . . . . . . . For the glory of the Lord was upon the tabernacle, by day, and fire was on it, by night, in the sight of all the House of Israel, throughout all their journeys." (Ex. 40: 33-38)
Now, the tabernacle was God’s dwelling place, in grace. He could take up His, abode there, because He was surrounded, on all sides, by that which vividly set forth the ground of His relationship with the people. Had He come into their midst, in the full display of the character revealed upon Mount Sinai, it could only have been to "consume them in a moment," as a "Stiff-necked people." But He retired within the veil - type of Christ’s flesh, (Heb. 10: 20) - and took His place on the mercy seat where the blood of atonement, and not the "stiff-neckedness" of Israel, was that which met His view, and satisfied the claims of His nature. The blood which was brought into the sanctuary, by the high priest, was the type of that precious blood which cleanses from all sin; and, although Israel, after the flesh, saw nothing of this, it, nevertheless, justified God in abiding amongst them - it "sanctified to the purifying of the flesh." (Heb. 9: 13)
Thus much as to Jehovah’s position in this Book, which must be taken into account, in order to a proper understanding of the communications made therein. In them we shall find inflexible holiness united with the purest grace. God is holy, no matter from whence He speaks. He was holy on Mount Sinai, and holy above the mercy-seat; but, in the former case, His holiness stood connected with "a devouring fire;" in the latter, it was connected with patient grace. Now, the connection of perfect holiness with perfect grace is that which characterises the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, which redemption is, in various ways, shadowed forth in the Book of Leviticus. God must be holy, even though it should be in the eternal condemnation of impenitent sinners; but the full display of His holiness, in the salvation of sinners, calls forth heaven’s loudest and loftiest note of praise. "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, Good-will toward men." (Luke 2: 14.) This doxology could not have been sung in connection with "the fiery law." No doubt, there was "glory to God in the highest," but there was no "Peace on earth" nor "good pleasure in men," inasmuch as it was the declaration of what men ought to be, ere God could take pleasure in them. But when "the Son" took His place, as a man, on the earth, the mind of Heaven could express its entire delight in Him as the One whose Person and work could combine, in the most perfect manner, divine glory with human blessedness.
And, now, one word, as to the order of the offerings, in the opening chapters of the Book of Leviticus. The Lord begins with the burnt offering, and ends with the trespass offering. That is to say, He leaves off where we begin. This order is marked and most instructive. When, first, the arrow of conviction enters the soul, there are deep searchings of conscience, in reference to sins actually committed. Memory casts back its enlightened eye over the page of one’s past life, and sees it stained with numberless trespasses against God and man. At this point of the soul’s history, it is not so occupied with the question of the root from whence those trespasses have sprung, as with the stern and palpable fact that such and such things have actually been committed; and, hence, it needs to know that God has provided a sacrifice through which "all trespasses" can be "frankly forgiven." This is presented to us in the trespass offering.
But, as one advances, in the divine life, he becomes conscious that those sins which he has committed are but branches from a root, streams from a fountain; and, moreover, that sin in his nature is that fountain - that root. This leads to far deeper exercise, which can only be met by a deeper insight into the work of the cross. In a word, the cross will need to be apprehended by that in which God Himself has "condemned sin in the flesh," (Rom. 8: 3) My reader will observe, it does not say, "sins in the flesh," but the root from whence these have sprung, namely, "sin in the flesh." this is a truth of immense importance. Christ not merely "died for our sins, according to the scriptures," but He was "made sin for us." (2 Cor. 5: 21) This is the doctrine of the sin offering.
Now, it is when the heart and conscience are set at rest, through the knowledge of Christ’s work, that we can feed upon Himself as the ground of our peace and joy, in the presence of God. There can be no such thing known as peace or joy, until we see all our trespasses forgiven and our sin judged. The trespass offering and the sin offering must be known, ere the Peace offering, joy offering, or thanksgiving offering can be appreciated. Hence, therefore, the order in which the peace offering stands, corresponds with the order of our spiritual apprehension of Christ.
The same perfect order is observable in reference to the meat offering. When the soul is led to taste the sweetness of spiritual communion with Christ - to feed upon Him, in peace and thankfulness, in the divine presence, it is drawn out in earnest desire to know more of the wondrous mysteries of His Person; and this desire is most blessedly met in the meat offering, which is the type of Christ’s perfect manhood.
Then, in the burnt offering, we are conducted to a point beyond which it is impossible to go, and that is, the work of the cross, as accomplished under the immediate eye of God, and as the expression of the unswerving devotion of the heart of Christ. All these things will come before us, in beauteous detail, as we pass along; we are here only looking at the order of the offerings, which is truly marvellous, whichever way we travel, whether outward from God to us, or inward from us to God. In either case, we begin with the cross and end with the cross. If we begin with the burnt offering, we see Christ, on the cross, doing the will of God - making atonement, according to the measure of His perfect surrender of Himself to God. If we begin with the trespass offering, we see Christ, on the cross, bearing our sins, and putting them away, according to the perfection of His atoning sacrifice; while, in each and all, we Behold the excellency, the beauty, and the perfection of His divine and adorable Person. Surely, all this is sufficient to awaken in our hearts the deepest interest in the study of those precious types which we shall now proceed to consider in detail. And may God the Holy Ghost, who penned the Book of Leviticus, expound its contents in living power to our hearts; that so, when we have reached the close, we may have abundant cause to bless His name for many thrilling and soul-stirring views of the Person and work of our blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, to whom be glory, now, henceforth, and for evermore. Amen.
---------------------
In the burnt offering, with which our book opens, we have a type of Christ "offering himself without spot to God." Hence the position which the Holy Ghost assigns to it. If the Lord Jesus Christ came forth to accomplish the glorious work of atonement, His highest and most fondly-cherished object, in so doing, was the glory of God. "Lo, I come, to do thy will, O God," was the grand motto in every scene and circumstance of His life, and in none more markedly than in the work of the cross. Let the will of God be what it might, He came to do it. Blessed be God, we know what our portion is in the accomplishment of this "Will" for by it "we are sanctified, through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once." (Heb. 10: 10) Still, the primary aspect of Christ’s work was to God-ward. It was an ineffable delight to Him to accomplish the will of God on this earth. No one had ever done this before. Some had, through grace, done "that which was right in the sight of the Lord;" but no one had ever, perfectly, invariably, from first to last, without hesitation, and without divergence, done the will of God. But this was, exactly, what the Lord Jesus did. He was "obedient unto death, even the death of the cross." (Phil. 2: 8) "He steadfastly set his face to go to Jerusalem." And as He walked from the garden of Gethsemane to the cross of Calvary, the intense devotion of His heart told itself forth in these accents: "The cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?’
Now, in all this self-emptied devotedness to God, there was truly a sweet savour. A perfect Man on the earth accomplishing the will of God, even in death, was an object of amazing interest to the mind of Heaven. Who could fathom the profound depths of that devoted heart, which displayed itself, under the eye of God, on the cross? Surely, none but God; for in this, as in everything else, it holds good that "no man knoweth the Son, but the Father;" and no one can know ought about Him, save as the Father reveals Him. The mind of man can, in some measure, grasp any subject of knowledge "under the sun." Human science can be laid hold of by the human intellect; but no man knoweth the Son, save as the Father reveals Him, by the power of the Holy Ghost, through the written word. The Holy Ghost delights to reveal the Son - to take of the things of Jesus, and show them unto us. These things we have, in all their fullness and beauty, in the word. There can be no new revelation, inasmuch as the Spirit brought "all things" to the apostles’ memory, and led them into "all truth." There can be nothing beyond "all truth;" and, hence, all pretension to a new revelation, and the development of new truth, - meaning thereby truth not contained in the sacred canon of inspiration - is an effort, on man’s part, to add to what God calls "all truth." No doubt, the Spirit may unfold and apply, with new and extraordinary power, truth contained in the word; but this is, obviously, a very different thing from our travelling outside the range of divine revelation, for the purpose of finding principles, ideas, or dogmas, which shall command the conscience. This latter can only be regarded in the light of impious presumption.
In the gospel narrative, we have Christ presented to us in the varied phases of His character, His Person, and His work. To those precious documents the people of God in all ages have rejoiced to betake themselves, and drink in their heavenly revelations of the object of their love and confidence - the One to whom they owed everything, for time and eternity. But very few, comparatively, have ever been led to regard the rites and ceremonies of the Levitical economy as fraught with the most minute instruction in reference to the same commanding theme. The offerings of Leviticus, for example, have been too much regarded as so many antiquated records of Jewish customs, conveying no intelligible voice to our ears - no spiritual light to our understandings. However, it must be admitted that the apparently abstruse records of Leviticus, as well as the sublime strains of Isaiah. take their place amongst the "things which were written aforetime," and they are, therefore, "for Our learning." True, we shall need to study those records, as indeed all Scripture, with an humble, self-emptied spirit; with reverent dependence upon the teaching of Him who graciously penned them for us; with sedulous attention to the general scope, bearing, and analogy of the entire body of divine revelation; with an effectual curb on the imagination, that it may not take unhallowed flights; but if thus, through grace, we enter upon the study of the types of Leviticus, we shall find in them a vein of the richest and finest ore.
We shall now proceed to examine the burnt offering, which, as we have remarked, presents Christ, offering Himself, without spot, to God.
"If His offering be a burnt sacrifice of the herd, let him offer a male, without blemish." The essential glory and dignity of Christ’s Person form the basis of Christianity. He imparts that dignity and glory to every thing He does, and to every office He sustains, No office could possibly add glory to Him who is "God over all, blessed for ever" - "God manifest in the flesh" - the glorious "Immanuel" - "God with us" - the eternal Word - the Creator and Sustainer of the universe. What office could add to the dignity of such an One? In point of fact, we know that all His offices are connected with His humanity; and in assuming that humanity, He stooped from the glory which He had with the Father, before the world was. He thus stooped, in order to glorify God perfectly, in the very midst of a scene where all was hostile to Him. He came to be "eaten up" by a holy, unquenchable zeal for the glory of God, and the effectual carrying out of His eternal counsels.
The unblemished male, of the first year, was a type of the Lord Jesus Christ offering Himself for the perfect accomplishment of the will of God. There should be nothing expressive either of weakness or imperfection. "A male of the first year" was required. We shall see, when we come to examine the other offerings, that "a female" was, in some cases, permitted; but that was only expressive of the imperfection which attached to the worshipper’s apprehension, and in nowise of any defect in the offering, inasmuch as it was "unblemished" in the one case, as well as in the other. Here, however, it was an offering of the very highest order, because it was Christ offering Himself to God. Christ, in the burnt offering, was exclusively for the eye and heart of God. This point should be distinctly apprehended. God alone could duly estimate the Person and work of Christ. He alone could fully appreciate the cross as the expression of Christ’s perfect devotedness. The cross. as foreshadowed by the burnt offering, had an element in it which only the divine mind could apprehend. It had depths so profound that neither mortal nor angel could fathom them. There was a voice in it which was intended exclusively for, and went directly to, the ear of the Fat her. There were communications between the cross of Calvary and the throne of God, which lay far beyond the highest range of created intelligence.
"He shall offer it of his own voluntary will at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation before the Lord." The use of the word "voluntary," here, brings out, with great clearness, the grand idea in the burnt offerings. It leads us to contemplate the cross in an aspect which is not sufficiently apprehended. We are too apt to look upon the cross merely as the place where the great question of sin was gone into and settled, between eternal Justice and the spotless victim - as the place where our guilt was atoned for, and where Satan was gloriously vanquished. Eternal and universal praise to redeeming love! The cross was all this. But it was more than this. It was the place where Christ’s love to the Father was told out in language which only the Father could hear and understand. It is in the latter aspect that we have it typified, in the burnt offering; and, therefore, it is that the word voluntary" occurs. Were it merely a question of the imputation of sin, and of enduring the wrath of God on account of sin, such an expression would not be in moral order. The blessed Lord Jesus could not, with strict propriety, be represented as willing to be "made sin" - willing to endure the wrath of God, and the hiding of His countenance; And, in this one fact, we learn, in the clearest manner, that the burnt offering does not foreshadow Christ, on the cross, bearing sin but Christ on the cross, accomplishing the will of God. that Christ Himself contemplated the cross in these two aspects of it, is evident from His own words. When he looked at the cross as the place of sin-bearing - when He anticipated the horrors with which, in this point of view, it stood invested, He exclaimed, "Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me." (Luke 23: 42) He shrank from that which His work, as a sin-bearer, involved. His pure and holy mind shrank from the thought of contact with sin; and His loving heart shrank from the thought of losing, for a moment, the light of God’s countenance.
But, then, the cross had another aspect. It stood before the eye of Christ as a scene, in which He could fully tell out all the deep secrets of His love to the Father - a place in which He could, "of his own voluntary will," take the cup which the Father had given Him, and drain it to the very dregs. True it is that the whole life of Christ emitted a fragrant odour, which ever ascended to the Father’s throne - He did always those things which pleased the Father - He ever did the will of God; but the burnt offering does not typify Him in His life - precious, beyond all thought, as was every act of that life - but in His death, and in that, not as one "made a curse for us," but as one presenting to the heart of the Father an odour of incomparable fragrance.
This truth invests the cross with peculiar charms for the spiritual mind. It imparts to the sufferings of our blessed Lord an interest of the most intense character. The guilty sinner, no doubt, finds in the cross a divine answer to the deepest and most earnest cravings of heart and conscience. The true believer finds in the cross that which captivates every affection of his heart, and transfixes his whole moral being. The angels find in the cross a theme for ceaseless admiration. All this is true; but there is that, in the cross, which passes far beyond the loftiest conceptions of saints or angels; namely, the deep-toned devotion of the heart of the Son presented to, and appreciated by, the heart of the Father. This is the elevated aspect of the cross, which is so strikingly shadowed forth in the burnt offering.
And, here, let me remark that the distinctive beauty of the burnt offering must be entirely sacrificed, if we admit the idea that Christ was a sin-bearer all His life. There would then be no force, no value, no meaning in the word "voluntary." There could be no room for voluntary action in the case of one who was compelled, by the very necessity of his position, to yield up his life. If Christ were a sin-bearer, in His life, then, assuredly, His death must have been a necessary, not a voluntary, act. Indeed, it may be safely asserted that there is not one of the offerings the beauty of which would not be marred, and its strict integrity sacrificed, by the theory of a Life of sin-bearing. In the burnt offering, this is especially the case, inasmuch as it is not, in it, a question of sin-bearing, or enduring the wrath of God, but entirely one of voluntary devotedness, manifested in the death of the cross. In the burnt offering we recognise a type of God the Son, accomplishing, by God the Spirit, the will of God the Father. This He did "of His own voluntary will." "Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again." (John 10: 17) Here we have the burnt offering aspect of the death of Christ. On the other hand, the prophet, contemplating Him as the sin offering, says, "his life is taken from the earth." (Acts 8: 33, which is the LXX. version of Isaiah 53: 8) Again, Christ says, "No one (ou deis) taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself." Was He a sin-bearer when He said this? Observe, it is "no one" man, angel, devil, or else. It was His own voluntary act, to lay down His life that He might take it again. "I delight to do thy will, O my God." Such was the language of the divine burnt offering - of Him who found His unutterable joy in offering Himself without spot to God.
Now, it is of the last importance to apprehend, with distinctness, the primary object of the heart of Christ, in the work of redemption. It tends to consolidate the believer’s peace. The accomplishment of God’s will, the establishment of God’s counsels, and the display of God’s glory, occupied the fullest, deepest, and largest place in that devoted heart which viewed and estimated everything in reference to God. The Lord Jesus never once stopped to inquire how any act or circumstance would affect Himself. "He humbled himself" - "He made himself of no reputation" - He surrendered all. And, hence, when He arrived at the close of His career, He could look back upon it all, and say, with His eyes lifted up to heaven," I have glorified thee on the earth; I hare finished the work which thou gavest me to do." (John 17: 4) It is impossible to contemplate the work of Christ, in this aspect of it, without having the heart filled with the sweetest affections toward His Person. It does not detract, in the smallest degree, from our sense of His love to us, to know that He made God His primary object, in the work of the cross. Quite the opposite. His love to us, and our salvation in Him, could only be founded upon God’s established glory. That glory must form the solid base of everything. "As truly as I live, All the earth shall be filled with the glory of the Lord." (Num. 14: 21) But we know that God’s eternal glory, and the creature’s eternal blessedness, are, in the divine counsels, inseparably linked together, so that if the former be secured, the latter must needs be so likewise.
"And he shall put his hand upon the head of the burnt offering; and it shall be accepted for him, to make atonement for him." The act of laying on of hands was expressive of full identification. By that significant act, the offerer and the offering became one; and this oneness, in the case of the burnt offering, secured for the offerer all the acceptableness of his offering. The application of this to Christ and the believer sets forth a truth of the most precious nature, and one largely developed in the New Testament; namely, the believer’s everlasting identification with, and acceptance in, Christ. "As he is, so are we, in this world." "We are in him that is true." (1 John 4: 17; 1 John 5: 20) Nothing, in any measure, short of this could avail. The man who is not in Christ is in his sins. There is no middle ground. You must be either in Christ or out of Him. There is no such thing as being partly in Christ. If there is a single hair’s-breadth between you and Christ, you are in an actual state of wrath and condemnation. but, on the other hand, if you are in Him, then are you "as he is" before God, and so accounted in the presence of infinite holiness. Such is the plain teaching of the Word of God. "Ye are complete in him" - "accepted in the beloved" - "members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones." "He that is joined to the Lord, is one Spirit." (1 Cor. 6: 17; Eph. 1: 6; Eph. 5: 30; Col. 2: 1) Now, it is not possible that the Head can be in one degree of acceptance and the members in another. No; the Head and the members are one. God counts them one; and, therefore, they are one. This truth is, at once, the ground of the loftiest confidence, and of the most profound humility. It imparts the fullest assurance of "boldness in the day of judgement," inasmuch as it is not possible that ought can be laid to the charge of Him with whom we are united. It imparts the deep sense of our own nothingness, inasmuch as our union with Christ is founded upon the death of nature and the utter abolition of all its claims and pretensions.
Since, therefore, the Head and the members are viewed in the same position of infinite favour and acceptance, before God, it is perfectly evident that all the members stand in one acceptance, in one salvation, in one life, in one righteousness. There are no degrees in justification. The babe in Christ stands in the same justification as the saint of fifty years’ experience. The one is in Christ, and so is the other; and this, as it is the only ground of life, so it is the only ground of justification. There are not two kinds of life, neither are there two kinds of justification. No doubt, there are various measures of enjoyment of this justification - various degrees in the knowledge of its fullness and extent - various degrees in the ability to exhibit its power upon the heart and life; and these things are frequently confounded with the justification itself, which, as being divine, is, necessarily, eternal, absolute, unvarying, entirely unaffected by the fluctuation of human feeling and experience.
But, further, there is no such thing as progress in justification. The believer is not more justified today? than he was yesterday; nor will he be more justified tomorrow than he is today; yea, a soul who is "in Christ Jesus" is as completely justified as if he were before the throne. He is "complete in Christ." He is "as" Christ. He is, on Christ’s own authority, "clean every whit." (John 13: 10) What more could he be, at this side of the glory? He may, and - if he walks in the Spirit-will, make progress in the sense and enjoyment of this glorious reality; but, as to the thing itself, the moment he, by the power of the Holy Ghost, believed the gospel, he passed from a positive state of unrighteousness and condemnation into a positive state of righteousness and acceptance. All this is based upon the divine perfectness of Christ’s work; just as, in the case of the burnt offering, the worshipper’s acceptance was based upon the acceptableness of his offering. It was not a question of what he was, but simply of what the sacrifice was. "It shall be accepted for him, to make atonement for him."
"And he shall kill the bullock before the Lord: and the priests, Aaron’s sons, shall bring the blood, and sprinkle the blood round about upon the altar that is by the door of the tabernacle of the congregation." It is most needful, in studying the doctrine of the burnt offering, to bear in mind that the grand point set forth therein is not the meeting of the sinner’s need, but the presentation to God of that which was infinitely acceptable to Him. Christ, as foreshadowed by the burnt offering, is not for the sinner’s conscience, but for the heart of God. Further, the cross, in the burnt offering, is not the exhibition of the exceeding hatefulness of sin, but of Christ’s unshaken and unshakable devotedness to the Father. Neither is it the scene of God’s out-poured wrath on Christ the sin-bearer; but of the Father’s unmingled complacency in Christ, the voluntary and most fragrant sacrifice. Finally, "atonement," as seen in the burnt offering, is not merely commensurate with the claims of man’s conscience, but with the intense desire of the heart of Christ, to carry out the will and establish the counsels of God - a desire which stopped not short of surrendering up His spotless, precious life, as "a voluntary offering’ of "sweet savour" to God.
From the carrying out of this desire, no power of earth or hell, men or devils, could shake Him. When Peter ignorantly sought to dissuade Him, in words of false tenderness, from encountering the shame and degradation of the cross - "Pity thyself, Lord! this shall not be unto thee" - what was the reply? "Get thee behind me, Satan; thou art an offence unto me; for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men." (Matt. 16: 22, 23) So also, on another occasion, He says to His disciples, "Hereafter, I will not talk much with you, for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me: but that the world may know that I love the Father, and as the Father hath given me commandment, even so I do." (John 14: 30) These and numerous other kindred scriptures, bring out the burnt offering phase of Christ’s work, in which, it is evident, the primary thought is His "Offering himself without spot to God."
In full keeping with all that has been stated, in reference to the special point in the burnt offering, is the place which Aaron’s sons get, and the functions assigned them therein. They "sprinkle the blood" - they "put the fire upon the altar" - they "lay the wood in order upon the fire" - they "lay the parts, the head and the fat, in order upon the wood that is on the fire which is upon the altar" These are very prominent actions, and they form a marked feature of the burnt offering, as contrasted with the sin offering, in which Aaron’s sons are not mentioned at all. "The sons of Aaron" represent the church, not as "one body," but as a priestly house. This is easily apprehended. If Aaron was a type of Christ, then Aaron’s house was a type of Christ’s house, as we read, in Heb. 3, "But Christ as a Son over his own house, whose house are we." And, again, "Behold I and the children whom God hath given me." Now, it is the privilege of the Church, as led and taught by the Holy Ghost, to gaze upon, and delight in, that aspect of Christ, which is presented in this opening type of Leviticus. "Our fellowship is with the Father," who graciously calls us to participate, with Him, in His thoughts about Christ. True, we can never rise to the height of those thoughts; but we can have fellowship therein, by the Holy Ghost who dwells in us. It is not, here, a question of having the conscience tranquillised, by the blood of Christ, as the sin-bearer, but of communion with God in the matter of Christ’s perfect surrender of Himself on the cross.
"The priests, Aaron’s sons, shall bring the blood, and sprinkle the blood round about upon the altar that is by the door of the tabernacle of the congregation." Here, we have a type of the Church, bringing the memorial of an accomplished. sacrifice, and presenting it in the place of individual approach to God. But, we must remember, it is the blood of the burnt offering, and not of the sin offering. It is the Church, in the power of the Holy Ghost, entering into the stupendous thought of Christ’s accomplished devotedness to God, and not a convicted sinner, entering into the value of the blood of the sin-bearer. I need hardly say that the Church is composed of sinners, and convicted sinners, too; but "Aaron’s sons" do not represent convicted sinners, but worshipping saints. It is as "priests" they have to do with the burnt offering. Many err as to this. They imagine that, because one takes the place of a worshipper - being invited by the grace of God, and fitted by the blood of Christ, so to do - he, thereby, refuses to acknowledge himself a poor worthless sinner. this is a great mistake. the believer is, in himself, "nothing at all." But in Christ, he is a purged worshipper. He does not stand, in the sanctuary, as a guilty sinner, but as a worshipping priest, clothed in "garments of glory and beauty." To be occupied with my guilt, in the presence of God, is not humility, as regards myself, but unbelief, as regards the sacrifice.
However, it must be very evident to my reader, that the idea of sin-bearing - the imputation of sin - the wrath of God, does not appear in the burnt offering. True, we read, "it shall be accepted for him, to make atonement for him;" but, then, it is "atonement" not according to the depths and enormity of human guilt, but according to the perfection of Christ’s surrender of Himself to God, and the intensity of God’s delight in Christ. this gives us the very loftiest idea of atonement. If I contemplate Christ as the sin offering, I see atonement made according to the claims of divine justice, with respect to sin. But when I see atonement, in the burnt offering, it is according to the measure of Christ’s willingness and ability to accomplish the will of God; and according to the measure of God’s complacency in Christ and His work. What a perfect atonement must that be which is the fruit of Christ’s devotion to God! Could there be anything beyond this? Assuredly not. The burnt offering aspect of atonement is that about which the priestly household may well be occupied in the courts of the Lord’s house, for ever.
"And he shall flay the burnt offering, and cut it into his pieces." The ceremonial act of "flaying" was peculiarly expressive. It was simply the removing of the outward covering, in order that what was within might be fully revealed. It was not sufficient that the offering should be, outwardly, "without blemish," "the hidden parts" should be all disclosed, in order that every sinew and every joint might be seen. It was only in the case of the burnt offering that this action was specially named. This is quite in character, and tends to set forth the depth of Christ’s devotedness to the Father. It was no mere surface-work with Him. The more the secrets of His inner life were disclosed, the more the depths of His being were explored, the more clearly was it made manifest that pure devotion to the will of His Father, and earnest desire for His glory, were the springs of action in the great Antitype of the burnt offering. He was, most assuredly, a whole burnt offering.
"And cut it into his pieces." this action presents a somewhat similar truth to that taught in the "sweet incense beaten small," (Lev. 16) The Holy Ghost delights to dwell upon the sweetness and fragrance of the sacrifice of Christ, not only as a whole, but also in all its minute details. Look at the burnt offering, as a whole, and you see it without blemish. Look at it in all its parts, and you see it to be the same. Such was Christ; and as such He is shadowed forth in this important type.
"And the sons of Aaron the priest shall put fire upon the altar, and lay the wood in order upon the fire. And the priests, Aaron’s sons, shall lay the parts, the head and the fat, in order upon the wood that is on the fire which is upon the altar." This was a high position for the priestly family. The burnt offering was wholly offered to God. It was all burnt upon the altar;* Man did not partake of it; but the sons of Aaron the priest, themselves being likewise priests, are here seen standing round the altar of God, to behold the flame of an acceptable sacrifice ascending to Him - an odour of sweet smell. this was a high position - high communion-a high order of priestly service - a striking type of the Church having fellowship with God, in reference to the perfect accomplishment of His will in the death of Christ. As convicted sinners, we gaze on the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, and behold therein that which meets all our need. The cross, in this aspect of it, gives perfect peace to the conscience. But, then, as priests, as purged worshippers, as members of the priestly family, we can look at the cross in another light, even as the grand consummation of Christ’s holy purpose to carry out, even unto death, the will of the Father. As convicted sinners, we stand at the brazen altar, and find peace through the blood of atonement; but, as priests, we stand there, to behold and admire the completeness of that burnt offering - the perfect surrender and presentation of the spotless One to God.
{*It may be well, at this point, to inform the reader that the Hebrew word which is rendered "burn," in the case of the burnt offering is wholly different from that which is used in the sin offering. I shall, because of the peculiar interest of the subject, refer to a few of the passages in which each word occurs. The word used in the burnt offering signifies "incense," or to "burn incense," and occurs in the following passages, in some one or other of its various inflections. Lev. 6: 15; "and all the frankincense, . . . . and shall burn it upon the altar." Deut, 33: 10; "they shall put incense before thee, and whole burnt sacrifice upon thine altar. Ex. 30: 1; "and thou shalt make an altar to burn incense upon." Ps. 46: 15; "with the incense of rams." Jer. 44: 21 "The incense that ye burned in the cities of Judah." Cant. 3: 15 Perfumed with Myrrh and frankincense." Passages might be multiplied, but the above will suffice to show the use of the word which occurs in the burnt offering.
The Hebrew word which is rendered "burn," in connection with the sin offering, signifies to burn, in general, and occurs in the following passages. Gen. 40: 3; "let us make brick, and burn them thoroughly." Lev. 10: 16; "And Moses diligently sought the goat of the sin offering and, behold, it was burnt." 2 Chr. 16: 14; "And they made a very great burning for him."
Thus, not only was the sin offering burnt in a different place, but a different word is adopted by the Holy Ghost to express the burning of it. Now, we cannot imagine, for a moment, that this distinction is a mere interchange of words, the use of which is indifferent. I believe the wisdom of the Holy Ghost is as manifest in the use of the two words, as it is in any other point of difference in the two offerings. The spiritual reader will attach the proper value to the above most interesting distinction.}
We should have a very defective apprehension of the mystery of the cross, were we only to see in it that which meets man’s need as a sinner. There were depths in that mystery, which only the mind of God could fathom. It is, therefore, important to see that when the Holy Ghost would furnish us with foreshadowings of the cross, He gives us, in the very first place, one which sets it forth in its aspect to God-ward. This alone would be sufficient to teach us that there are heights and depths in the doctrine of the cross which man never could reach. He may approach to "that one well-spring of delight," and drink for ever - he may satisfy the utmost longings of his spirit - he may explore it with all the powers of the renewed nature; but, after all, there is that in the cross which only God could know and appreciate. Hence it is that the burnt offering gets the first place. It typifies Christ’s death as viewed and valued by God alone. and surely, we may say, we could not have done without such a type as this, for, not only does it give us the highest possible aspect of the death of Christ, but it also gives us a most precious thought in reference to God’s peculiar interest in that death. The very fact of His instituting a type of Christ’s death, which was to be exclusively for Himself, contains a volume of instruction for the spiritual mind.
But though neither man nor angel can ever fully sound the amazing depths of the mystery of Christ’s death, we can, at least, see some features of it which would needs make it precious, beyond all thought, to the heart of God. From the cross, He reaps His richest harvest of glory. In no other way could He have been so glorified, as by the death of Christ. In Christ’s voluntary surrender of Himself to death, the divine glory shines out in its fullest brightness. In it, too, the solid foundation of all the divine counsels was laid. This is a most comforting truth. Creation never could have furnished such a basis. Moreover, the cross furnishes a righteous channel through which divine love can flow. and, finally, by the cross, Satan is eternally confounded, and "principalities and powers made a show of openly." These are glorious fruits produced by the cross; and, when we think of them, we can see just reason why there should have been a type of the cross exclusively for God Himself, an d also a reason why that type should occupy the leading place - should stand at the very top of the list. Again, let me say, there would have been a grievous blank among the types had the burnt offering been lacking; and there would be a grievous blank in the page of inspiration had the record of that type been withheld.
"But his inwards and his legs shall he wash in water: and the priest shall burn all on the altar, to be a burnt sacrifice, an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the Lord." This action rendered the sacrifice, typically, what Christ was essentially - pure, both inwardly and outwardly, pure. There was the most perfect correspondence between Christ’s inward motives and His outward conduct. The latter was the index of the former. All tended to the one point, namely, the glory of God. The members of His Body perfectly obeyed and carried out the counsels of His devoted heart - that heart which only beat for God, and for His glory, in the salvation of men. Well, therefore, might the priest "burn all on the altar." It was all typically pure, and all designed only as food for the altar of God. Of some sacrifices the priest partook; of some, the offerer; but the burnt offering was "all" consumed on the altar. It was exclusively for God. The priests might arrange the wood and the fire , and see the flame ascend; and a high and holy privilege it was so to do. But they did not eat of the sacrifice. God alone was the object of Christ, in the burnt offering aspect of His death. We cannot be too simple in our apprehension of this. From the moment that the unblemished male was voluntarily presented at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, until it was reduced to ashes, by the action of the fire, we discern in it Christ offering Himself, by the Eternal Spirit, without spot to God.
This makes the burnt offering unspeakably precious to the soul. It gives us the most exalted view of Christ’s work. In that work God had His own peculiar joy - a joy into which no created intelligence could enter. This must never be lost sight of. It is unfolded in the burnt offering, and confirmed by "the law of the burnt offering," to which we shall just refer.
"And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Command Aaron and his sons, saying, this is the law of the burnt offering: it is the burnt offering, because of the burning upon the altar all night unto the morning, and the fire of the altar shall be burning in it. And the priest, shall put on his linen garment, and his linen breeches shall he put upon his flesh, and take up the ashes which the fire hath consumed with the burnt offering on the altar, and he shall put them beside the altar. And he shall put off his garments, and put on other garments, and carry forth the ashes without the camp unto a clean place. And the fire upon the altar shall be burning in it, it shall not be put out: and the priest shall burn wood on it every morning, and lay the burnt offering in order upon it, and he shall burn thereon the fat of the peace offering. The fire shall ever be burning upon the, altar: it shall never go out." (Lev. 6: 8-13) The fire on the altar consumed the burnt offering, and the fat of the peace offering. It was the apt expression of divine holiness which found in Christ, and His perfect sacrifice, a proper material on which to feed. That fire was never to go out. There was to be the perpetual maintenance of that which set forth the action of divine holiness. Through the dark and silent watches of the night, the fire blazed on the altar of God.
"And the priest shall put on his linen garment," &c. Here, the priest takes, in type, the place of Christ, whose personal righteousness is set forth by the white linen garment. He, having given Himself up to the death of the cross, in order to accomplish the will of God, has entered, in His own eternal righteousness, into heaven, bearing with Him the memorials of His finished work. The ashes declared the completion of the sacrifice, and God’s acceptance thereof. Those ashes, placed beside the altar, indicated that the fire had consumed the sacrifice - that it was not only a completed, but also an accepted, sacrifice. The ashes of the burnt offering declared the acceptance of the sacrifice. The ashes of the sin offering declared the judgement of the sin.
Many of the points on which we have been dwelling will, with the divine blessing, come before us with increasing clearness, fullness, precision, and power as we proceed with the offerings. Each offering is, as it were, thrown into relief, by being viewed in contrast with all the rest. All the offerings, taken together, give us a full view of Christ. They are like so many mirrors, arranged in such a manner, as to reflect, in various ways, the figure of that true and only perfect Sacrifice. No one type could fully present Him. We needed to have Him reflected in life and in death - as a Man and as a Victim - to God-ward and to us-ward; and we have Him thus, in the offerings of Leviticus. God has graciously met our need, and may He give us an enlarged capacity to enter into and enjoy His provision.
C. H. Mackintosh, Notes on the Pentateuch — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Pulpit Commentary 1880 · Public Domain On vv1–16 THE LEVITICAL SACRIFICES LITERALLY CONSIDERED see "Lev_2:13, Lev_19:12. And…
THE LEVITICAL SACRIFICES LITERALLY CONSIDERED see "Lev_2:13, Lev_19:12. And spake unto him. The manner in which God ordinarily communicated with a prophet was by "a vision" or "in a dream;" but this was not the case with Moses; "My servant Moses is not so, who is faithful in all mine house; with him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently". (Num_12:8) The Levitical code of laws, therefore, was delivered to Moses in his ordinary mental state, not in trance, or dream, or ecstasy. Out of the tabernacle of the congregation. The tabernacle had just been set up by Moses. (Exo_40:16) It derives its name of the congregation, or rather of meeting, from being the place where God met the representatives of his people. (see Num_16:42) Hitherto God had spoken from the mount, now he speaks from the mercy-seat of the ark in the tabernacle. He had symbolically drawn near to his people, and the sacrificial system is now instituted as the means by which they should draw nigh to him. All the laws in the Book of Leviticus, and in the first ten chapters of the Book of Numbers, were given during the fifty days which intervened between the setting up of the tabernacle (Exo_40:17) and the departure of the children of Israel from the neighbourhood of Mount Sinai. (Num_10:11)
Vers. 1, 2. The sacrificial system.
Read full note →
The religion of Israel, as exhibited to us in the Law, bears at first sight a strange appearance, unlike what we should have expected. We read in it very little about a future life, and not much about repentance, faith, and prayer, but we find commanded an elaborate system of sacrifices, based upon a practice almost coeval with the Fall.
I SACRIFICE WAS USED IN ANTE-MOSAIC DAYS AS A MEANS OF APPROACH TO GOD. "In process of time it came to pass that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord. And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof". (Gen_4:4) The covenant with Noah was made by sacrifice: "And Noah builded an altar unto the Lord, and took of every clean beast and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar. And the Lord smelled a sweet savour.... And God spake unto Noah, and to his sons with him, saying, And I, behold, I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after you". (Gen_8:20, 21 9:8, 9) When Abraham first entered Canaan, he "builded an altar unto the Lord who appeared unto him", (Gen_12:7) as the means of communicating with him. At his next halting-place, "he builded an altar unto the Lord," as the means of "calling upon the name of the Lord". (Gen_12:8 Gen_13:4) On removing to Hebron, again he "built there an altar unto the Lord". (Gen_13:18) The covenant with Abraham was made by sacrifice; (Gen_15:9) and at Jehovah-jireh, Abraham "offered a ram for a burnt offering in the stead of his son". (Gen_22:13) At Beer-sheba Isaac "builded an altar and called upon the name of the Lord". (Gen_26:25) At Shalem Jacob "erected an altar and called it El-elohe-Israel". (Gen_33:20) At Beth-el he "built an altar and called the place El-beth-el". (Gen_35:7) At Beer-sheba he "offered sacrifices unto the God of his father Isaac". (Gen_46:1) During the sojourn in Egypt it is probable that the practice of sacrifice was discontinued through fear of giving offense to the religious feelings of the Egyptians; (Exo_8:26) but the idea of sacrifice being the appointed means of serving God was preserved. (Exo_5:3 Exo_8:27) Moses, Aaron, and the elders of Israel took part in a sacrificial meal with Jethro in the wilderness. (Exo_18:12) And the covenant made at Sinai was ratified by burnt offerings and peace offerings. (Exo_24:5) Indeed, the Book of Psalms declares the method of entering into covenant with God to be "by sacrifice." "Gather my saints together unto me; those that have made a covenant with me by sacrifice". (Psa_1:5) The Christian covenant was thus ratified, (Heb_9:15) as well as the covenants of Noah, Abraham, and Moses:
II THERE ARE THREE CLASSES OF SACRIFICES UNDER THE MOSAIC DISPENSATION, ESSENTIALLY DIFFERING IN CHARACTER
Burnt offerings;
Peace offerings;
Sin offerings;
beside Meat offerings, ordinarily attached to the burnt offerings, and Trespass offerings, a species of sin offering.
III WHAT WAS THEIR MEANING.
1. In general, they served, as before, as a means of reconciliation between God and man, as a means of access for man to God. This purpose they fulfilled to all humble-minded men, whether their full meaning was understood or no. To the more spiritually minded they were also a means of instruction in sacred mysteries to be revealed hereafter.
2. Specifically, they each taught their own lesson and brought about, symbolically and ceremonially, each their own effect.
The sin offering taught the need of, and symbolically effected, the propitiation of God"s anger and the expiation of man"s sin.
The burnt offering taught the lesson of self-surrender, and symbolically effected the surrender of the offerer to God.
The peace offering taught the lesson of the necessity and joyousness of communion between God and man, and symbolically represented that communion as existing between the offerer and God.
IV WHENCE THEY DERIVED THEIR EFFICACY. Their efficacy was derived from representing and foreshadowing the sacrifice of Christ on the cross, the sin offering typifying the propitiation and expiation once for all there wrought, the burnt offering the perfect self-surrender of the sinless sufferer, the peace offering the reconciliation thereby effected and continued between God and his people.
HOMILIES BY R.M. EDGAR Chapter 1Entire consecration, as illustrated in the burnt offering.
Rom_12:1. We start with the assumption that the Book of Exodus presents "the history of redemption." It is an account of how the Lord delivered the people he had chosen out of bondage, and brought them to himself. (cf. Exo_19:4) It contains, moreover, an account of the erection of the tabernacle, or "tent of meeting," where God proposed to dwell as a Pilgrim in the midst of a pilgrim people, and out of which would issue his commands as their Guide and Leader. In this Book of Leviticus, then, we have the Lord speaking "out of the tent of meeting" (verse 1), that is, to a people in covenant relations with himself.
This helps us to understand why the "burnt offering" is treated first. Not only was it the very oldest offering, but it was to be the daily offering; (Num_29:6) morning and evening was a holocaust to be presented to the Lord. It was, therefore, manifestly meant to express the proper state or condition of those professing to be God"s covenant people. It is on this account that we entitle this a homily on Entire Consecration.
I THIS IDEA OF ENTIRE CONSECRATION IS ONE WHICH ALL CLASSES OF GOD"S PEOPLE ARE EXPECTED TO EXPRESS. The poor, who could only bring "turtle-doves" or "young pigeons," the representatives of domestic fowls at that time, were just as welcome at the tabernacle as those who could bring lambs or bullocks. Consecration is an idea which can be carried out in any worldly condition. The poor widow with her two mites carried it out more gloriously than her neighbours in the midst of their abundance. Complete self-surrender is not the prerogative of a class, but the possibility and ideal of all.
II CONFESSION OF SIN IS AN EXPECTED PRELIMINARY TO CONSECRATION. the Jew, whatever was his grade in society, was directed either expressly to "lean" ( his hand upon the head of his offering, or, as in the case of the fowls where it was physically impossible, to do so by implication; and this was understood to represent, and some believe it to have been regularly accompanied by, confession of sin. Of course, confession of sin is not of the essence of consecration; we have in the case of our blessed Lord, and of the unfallen angels, similar consecration, where no sense of sin is possible. And we are on the way to consecration in the other life, divorced from the sense of sin. Meanwhile, however, confession is only just, since sin remains with us. Indeed, the consecration of redeemed sinners will not prove very deep or thorough where confession of sin is omitted.
III THE SPECTACLE OF A SUBSTITUTE DYING IN OUR ROOM AND STEAD IS WELL FITTED TO DEEPEN OUR SENSE OF CONSECRATION. The slaughter of the animal, upon whose head the sins have by confession been laid, must have exercised upon the offerer a very solemnizing influence. There is nothing in like manner so fitted to hallow us as the spectacle of Jesus, to whom these sacrifices pointed, dying on the cross in our stead. The love he manifested in that death for us constrains us to live, not unto ourselves, but unto him who died for us and rose again. (2Co_5:14, 2Co_5:15) The moral power of substitution cannot be dispensed with in a sinful world like this.
IV THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE BLOOD UPON THE ALTAR, THAT IS, OF LIFE AFTER THE DEATH-PENALTY HAS BEEN PAID, ALSO HELPS TO DEEPEN THE SENSE OF CONSECRATION". For when the priest by Divine direction, sprinkled the blood of the sacrifice all round about upon the altar, it was to indicate the acceptance on God"s part of the life beyond death. It indicated that God was satisfied with the substitution, that the penalty had been paid by the death of the victim, and that in consequence the blood, that is, the life for the life was in the blood (Lev_17:11) could be accepted. Acceptance in and through another was what this portion of the ritual implied, and this is well calculated to deepen the sense of consecration. For, according to the typology, the Person in whom we are accepted is he to whom we ought to be consecrated. It is when we realize that we are accepted in Christ that we feel constrained to dedicate ourselves unto him. The one good turn deserves another, and we are held. under a sense of sweetest obligation.
V THE CONSECRATION OF THE CHILD OF GOD IS THE COMPLETE SURRENDER OF SELF TO THE OPERATION OF THE HOLY GHOST. Ewald has most pertinently remarked that among the Greeks and other nations such holocausts as were daily presented by the Jews were rarities. The idea of entire consecration is too broad for a heathen mind. Partial consecration was comparatively easy in idea, but a "surrender without reserve" is the fruit of Divine teaching. Now this is what the burning of the holocaust in the sacred fire of the altar signified. For, since all sensation had ceased before the sacrifice was laid upon the altar, the burning could not suggest the idea to the worshipper of pain or penalty. The fire had come out from God as the token of acceptance. (Lev_9:24) It is, moreover, one of the recognized symbols of the Holy Ghost. Consequently, the exposure of every portion of the sacrifice to the altar fire represented the yielding of the grateful worshipper in his entirety to the operation of God the Holy Ghost. This, after all, is the essence of sanctification. It is the surrender of our whole nature, body, soul, and spirit, to the disposal of the Holy Ghost. This is devotedness indeed. Nowhere has the idea been more felicitously wrought out than in a little posthumous volume of F.R. Havergal"s, entitled "Kept for the Master"s Use." We cannot better convey the idea of the burnt offering than by copying her simple foundation lines upon which she has built her chapters. "Take my life, and let it be Consecrated, Lord, to Thee. Take my moments and my days; Let them flow in ceaseless praise. Take my hands, and let them move At the impulse of Thy love. Take my feet, and let them be Swift, and "beautiful" for Thee. Take my voice, and let me sing Always, only, for my king. Take my lips, and let them be Filled with messages from Thee. Take my silver and my gold: Not a mite would I withhold. Take my intellect, and use Every power as Thou shall choose. Take my will and make it Thine: It shall be no longer mine. Take my heart; it is Thine own: It shall be Thy royal throne. Take my love: My Lord, I pour At Thy feet its treasure-store. Take myself, and I will be Ever, only, ALL for Thee. R.M.E.
HOMILIES BY S.R. ALDRIDGE Vers. 1-14. The weakness of man and the grace of God.
Measureless is the distance between man and his Maker. And it is sometimes emphasized in such a way as to repress thought and stifle the aspirations of the human breast. In Scripture it is not brought forward as a rayless truth, but is shown to be replete with profit and joy. To consider it increases humility, indeed, but also intensifies gratitude and love. For the less has been blessed by the Greater, and we are permitted to say, looking upon the attributes of the Eternal as exercised towards us in mercy and favour, "This God is our God: we will rejoice in his salvation.
I MAN IS IGNORANT: THE GRACE OF GOD IS SEEN IN THE DISTINCT ENUNCIATION OF HIS WILL. The light of reason, the voice of conscience, the promptings of emotion, these can inform us only to a slight extent of the worship and service likely to be acceptable to God. Hence the surpassing worth of the full, clear-toned, authoritative utterances of Scripture. That God is Spirit, Light, and Love, that he is holy and almighty, are declarations for which we must be devoutly thankful. The Epicureans pictured the happy gods as dwelling in unruffled serenity far from all cognizance of or interference with the concerns of men. Inspiration removes our suspicions, reassures us with the words, "The eyes of the Lord are over the righteous, and his ears are open unto their prayers." Errors in the manner of our approach are prevented. Some would have presumptuously drawn near without the accustomed offering; others might bring unsuitable gifts human sacrifices, unclean animals, etc. A God less kind might suffer the people to incur the terrible consequences of ignorance, but not if Nadab and Abihu perish it shall not be for lack of instruction. "Go ye into all the world, teaching them to observe whatsoever things I have commanded you.
II MAN IS FEARFUL AND PERTURBED IN THE PRESENCE OF GOD: IT IS GRACIOUSLY ORDAINED THAT SPECIAL MESSENGERS SHALL BE THE APPOINTED CHANNELS OF COMMUNICATION. "The Lord called unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel." When God appeared on Sinai and thundered out His Law, the terrified people implored that God might not Himself speak again lest they should die. Their entreaty was regarded, and Moses became the medium of conveying the mind of God. Should Jehovah be for ever appearing in person, his visits would be attended with such overwhelming awe that the purport of his words might be in danger of being lost or mistaken. When embarrassed, man"s thoughts are dispersed, and memory fails. It was better, therefore, that holy men should speak unto men as moved by the Holy Ghost. The striking instance is the assumption of our nature by the Son of God, putting a veil over the features of Deity that weak sinful mortals might draw near without trembling and admire the gracious words proceeding out of his mouth. Even children hear and understand the words of Jesus. And here we may remark that the utterances of the messengers retest be received as coming from the Most High . In the appointed place God talked with Moses, and on his repeating the instructions to the Israelites they were bound to attend to them. It is equally incumbent upon us to respect the decrees of God delivered through prophets and apostles, and above all to honour the Father by honouring the Son, believing his words, trusting him as the Teacher sent from God. Preachers are "ambassadors for Christ." We would give thanks without ceasing when hearers receive the truth from our lips, not as the word of men, but the word of God. (1Th_2:13)
III MAN IS SINFUL: THE GRACE OF GOD PROVIDES MEDIATORIAL ACCESS TO THE HOLY ONE.
1. Sacrifices appointed. "Bring an offering" without blemish, and place your hand upon its head, to show that it is willingly offered and stands instead of the offerer. And "it shall be accepted to make atonement" for you, to cover your person and works with the robe of mercy and righteousness, so that the Divine gaze may be fastened upon you without displeasure. By the grace of God it was arranged that Jesus Christ should taste death for every man. His was the one offering that, through accomplishing the will of God, sanctifies all who make mention of his name. Who will hesitate to appear before the Most High? Let faith lay her hand upon the Saviour, rejoicing in the conviction that "while we were yet sinners Christ died for us.
2. A priesthood. The Levites were set apart for the service of Jehovah, instead of all the firstborn of Israel. And of the Levites, the sons of Aaron were to minister continually before the Lord, observing all his regulations and maintaining constant purification of themselves, so that without insulting the holiness of God they might interpose between him and his people. Priesthood bridged the chasm between sinful creatures and a pure Creator. The priesthood sanctified the entire nation, which was theoretically a "kingdom of priests." Jesus Christ has concentred the priestly functions in himself. He has entered into the heaven as our Forerunner, to sprinkle the atoning blood on the altar. And now with true heart in full assurance of faith we may draw nigh to God.
IV MAN"S CONDITION VARIES; THE GRACE OF GOD PROVIDES FOR ITS INEQUALITIES.
1. Notice is taken of the poor, and appropriate offerings permitted. Oriental monarchs often despised and rejected the subjects who were unable to enrich their royal coffers. But God is no respecter of persons. It is one of the glories of the gospel that it has been preached to the poor, and is adapted to their needs. God expects every man to come and testify his respect and affection. The poor may bring "turtle-doves or young pigeons." The way was thus opened for the parents of him who "became poor for our sakes." It is to be feared that many withhold a contribution because it seems so insignificant. But the Lord is as sorry to see the mite retained in the pocket as the gold which the wealthy refuse to part with. "If there be first a willing mind it is accepted according to that a man hath." Do not decline to engage in Christian work on the plea of defective ability! Surely some fitting department of service can be found. It is often the one talent that is hid in a napkin.
2. The offering of the poor is pronounced equally acceptable. Note the repetition of "it is a sacrifice, of a sweet savour unto the Lord" after the 17th verse. It is rather the spirit than the action itself which God regards. Not the results of labour so much as its motives and the proportion of ability to accomplishment. S.R.A.
Vers. 1-9. The greatness of God.
Too wide a field lessens the thoroughness of observation. Hence it is allowable and advantageous to distinguish in thought what is in reality inseparable, in order, by fixing the attention upon certain parts, to acquire a better knowledge of the whole. Such a method recommends itself in dealing with the attributes of God. To attempt to comprehend them all in one glance is, if not impossible, at least of little result in increasing our acquaintance with His character. Let us observe how the hints in this chapter present us with the greatness of God in varied aspects.
I THE HOLINESS OF GOD DEMANDS A SACRIFICIAL OFFERING FROM ALL WHO WOULD SEEK HIS FAVOUR. The offerings here spoken of were spontaneous free-will offerings. They indicated a desire on the part of man to draw nigh to Jehovah, and they also manifested a sense of disturbance wrought by sin in man"s relations with his Maker. Once man walked with God in uninterrupted harmony. Then transgression chased innocence away, and shame drove man to hide himself from the presence of God. among the trees of the garden. The consciousness of sin renders an offering necessary, under cover of which ("to make atonement for him") we may venture to an audience with the Holy One. Thus can fellowship be resumed. The Antitype of these sacrifices, Jesus Christ, is now our peace. He was "once offered to bear the sins of many." "By one offering he hath for ever perfected them that are sanctified." The old cry, "How shall man be just with God?" is still uttered, and the response comes, "Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.
II THE MAJESTY OF GOD REQUIRES THAT THE REGULATIONS FOR APPROACH WHICH HE HAS APPOINTED BE STRICTLY OBSERVED. The condescension of God in manifesting himself to the Israelites might be fraught with danger if it led to presumption and to holding in light esteem his awe-inspiring attributes. Instructions are consequently given relating to the minutest details; everything is prescribed. God is pleased with the free-will offering, and it will be accepted if the precepts are adhered to; but it must in no wise be supposed that the sincere expression of affection can excuse wilful neglect of appointed rules. The love of an inferior for his superior must not prevent the exhibition of due respect. God will be had in reverence by all that arc about him. Nor is it open to man arrogantly to pronounce that a consecrated way of access through Jesus Christ may be set aside as unnecessary. Christianity may have broadened the road. of approach, but it remains true that there is still an appointed road. To refuse honour to Christ is to treat God with disrespect. "Now is the Son of man glorified, and God is glorified in him." Christless worship, thanksgiving, and prayer, must be shunned.
III THE HONOUR OF GOD EXPECTS AN OFFERING TO CONSIST OF the BEST THAT MAN POSSESSES. If poor, a turtle-dove would not be rejected, but for a rich man to offer the same would be treated as an insult to God. And the offering from the herd or flock must be "a male without blemish." Strength and beauty combined are requisite to satisfy the searching eye of the High and Lofty One. We see these requisites embodied in the Lamb of God, the perfect Sacrifice, "holy, harmless, undefiled." He knows little of God who imagines that he will be put off with scanty service, mean oblations. We ought to ask, not what is there can be easily spared, but how much can possibly be laid upon the altar. Let us not mock him by indulging in our own pleasures, and then giving to him the petty remnants of our poverty! Let us strive so to act that the firstfruits of our toil, the chiefest of our possessions, the prime of our life, the best of our days, shall be devoted to purposes of religion! Bestow upon God the deepest thoughts of the mind, the strongest resolutions of the will, the choicest affections of the heart.
IV THE PERFECTION OF GOD NECESSITATES ORDERLY ARRANGEMENT IN ALL THAT CONCERNS HIS WORSHIP AND SERVICE. There is an appointed place for the offering, "the tabernacle of the congregation." The wood must be laid "in order upon the fire" (verse 7), and the different parts of the victim must likewise be placed "in order upon the wood" (verse 8).
To constitute a chaos round about the throne is to derogate from the homage a king inspires. It intimates his powerlessness, his want of intelligent forethought and present control. Law reigns everywhere throughout the dominions of Jehovah. The heavenly bodies speak of the symmetry he loves, and plants, animals, and minerals teach the same grand truth. "Order is Heaven"s first law." "God is not the author of confusion, but of peace." In the worship of the sanctuary order and decency are of pre-eminent importance. Whatever shocks a devout mind is likely to be offensive to him all whoso ways are perfect. Arrangement need not degenerate into formality. The Sunday dress, the preparation for God"s house, and the quiet attitude therein, are all important adjuncts to the spiritual education of the young.
Be it observed further that order means economy of space and time. Those who have no room nor leisure to be orderly do least and retain least. The laws of God are ever synonymous with the true interests of man.
V THE PURITY OF GOD OBLIGES THAT THE OFFERING BE CLEANSED FROM DEFILEMENT. Those parts of the victim naturally subject to defilement are to be washed in water, "the inwards and the legs." One might deem this a superfluous proceeding, since they were to be so soon burnt upon the altar. But this would mean an extremely erroneous view of the solemnity of a sacrifice. Those who have not time to serve God properly had better not try it at all. He who counts it a trouble to read and pray has little conception of the insult he offers to God. Before we bow before the Lord to render our tribute of adoration and praise, it were well to purify our hearts, to hallow the desires that may have become impure, to call home our wandering thoughts, and to loose the dusty sandals from the feet which have been treading in the ways of the world. The Almighty desires no part to be absent from the offering. The affections, the strength, the time, the money, that have been lavished on unworthy objects are not in themselves sinful, they are unclean and require the sanctifying influence of the blood of Christ, and the water of the Word, and then they are fit to be rendered unto God. and consumed in the fire that testifies his acceptance of the worshipper. S.R.A.
HOMILIES BY J.A. MACDONALD Vers. 1, 2. Sacrificature.
The Book of Exodus closes with an account of the entrance of the Shechinah into the tabernacle; with the manner in which that sacred structure was enveloped by the cloud of the Divine presence; also that in which, by rising from the tabernacle, God gave his order for his people to march, and, by resting upon it, to halt and encomp. The Book of Leviticus is concerned with the revelations which God gave to Israel from this habitation of his holiness, in which the laws published from Sinai were amplified. (comp. Lev_7:37, Lev_7:38) The text lays down broad principles upon the subject of sacrificature, which is considered first in order, because of its great importance to the Levitical system, and to that more glorious system of the gospel which it shadowed forth. We learn that
I SACRIFICATURE HAS GOD FOR ITS AUTHOR.
1. It existed before the time of Moses.
(1) Its prevalence amongst the nations argues its origin to be prior to the dispersion. (Gen_11:9) How else can this fact be explained?
(2) We read of it in patriarchal times. The Hebrew patriarchs offered sacrifices. (Gen_12:7, et al. freq. ) So did Job, who lived in the land of Uz, on the border-land between Idumea and Arabia, probably about the time of Joseph. (Job_1:5; see also Exo_18:12) So did Noah. (Gen_8:20)
(3) The first family had sacrifices which they presented when they appeared before the Shechinah, which flamed between the cherubic emblems set up eastward of Eden. (Gen_4:3, Gen_4:4)
2. It could not have been invented by man.
(1) It was, in the nature of the thing, most unlikely to have occurred to any finite mind.
(2) If it did so occur, would God have accepted it? Does he approve will-worship? (see Lev_10:1, Lev_10:2) What right has a sinner to propose terms of reconciliation to his Maker? His place is to throw himself absolutely upon the Divine mercy, and wait to, "hear what God the Lord may speak". (Psa_85:7, Psa_85:8)
3. Here we have it authorized by God.
(1) "And the Lord called unto Moses," etc.
(2) So we find God directing Abraham respecting the manner in which sacrifices should be ordered in his worship. (Gen_15:9; see also Gen_22:2)
(3) The "coats of skins" in which our first parents were clothed were presumably from animals offered in sacrifice. Animals were not in those days killed for food. (Gen_1:29; comp. with Gen_9:3) Since it was "the Lord God" who clothed them, the institution of sacrificature would date from that time, and be a revelation of mercy immediately from him. God is the Author of reconciliation. (Joh_3:16 Rom_5:8 1Jn_4:9)
II IT WAS PUBLISHED FROM HIS SANCTUARY.
1. There are revelations of God in nature.
(1) These are exhibited in our treatises on Natural Theology. Who can fail to see the Designer in the works of design?
(2) The Scriptures recognize this voice. (Psa_9:1 Psa_19:1, etc.; Act_14:17 Act_17:27 Rom_1:20)
2. But these are evident only after the hight of them is given.
(1) We have no innate ideas. The Namaquans and other African tribes were found by Moffat, Ridsdale, and other missionaries, without a glimmer of an idea of God or of immortality.
(2) The traditions of the Gentiles were originally from a pure source, but became corrupted in transmission.
(3) There are no "deists," i.e. , natural theologians, where the Bible has not been before them. They do not own the source from whence they derive the hints which guide them in their reasonings.
3. Sacrificature is not taught in nature.
(1) The book of nature was written too soon. The Creation preceded the Fall.
(2) That it is, is not presumed. Sacrificature is excluded from the creed of the deist.
(3) This subject belongs to the sanctuary. "And the Lord called Moses and spake out of the tabernacle of the congregation," etc. Even the Garden of Eden, where, we presume, it was first instituted, was "planted," and planted to be a temple for Divine worship.
(4) Yet without sacrificature there can be no acceptable worship. Cain, the deist, was rejected because he came before God without blood-shedding. (see Lev_17:11 Heb_9:22) Let no man think he acceptably serves God when he neglects the services of the sanctuary under the pretext of "worshipping the God of nature in the fields.
III THE SACRIFICES APPROVED ARE "FROM THE HERD AND FROM THE FLOCK.
1. They are selected from the animals that are clean.
(1) They have the marks of cleanness, viz. parting the hoof and chewing the cud. (Lev_11:3) But all clean creatures were not proper for purposes of sacrifice. Those of the "herd" (rqb, baker ) are distinguished as the bull heifer, bullock and calf. Those of the "flock" (ax, tson) as sheep and goats; for this word is used to describe these animals promiscuously (see verse 10).
(2) This reminds us of the purity of God, who can accept nothing that is polluted will in no wise clear the guilty who requires purity in his worshippers. (Psa_24:3, Psa_24:4)
(3) It points to the purity of the Great One sacrificed for us, covered in whose righteousness we are justified or accounted as just persons, and in whose atoning blood we are washed and made clean.
2. They are gregarious creatures.
(1) This feature is prominently noticed here "flock." Man is a social being. He is set in families, tribes, nations, and even internationally united. Solitary confinement is amongst the most horrible of punishments.
(2) Hence guilt and depravity become hereditary. And as we have been represented to our ruin by our common progenitor, so by the representation of the second Adam we have salvation.
(3) Sin is dissocializing. Consider its fruits Hatred variance strifes murders.
(4) True religion perfects the social principle, centres all union in God. A universe tan meet in him. A universe can hold communion in him. The genius of religion is love. The heaven of heavens is love. J.A.M.
HOMILIES BY W. CLARKSON Vers. 1, 2. God in special manifestation.
Always and everywhere God has been revealing himself. There is no time when, no place where, men might not have "seen him who is invisible." Nowhere has he left himself without witness. (Act_14:17) Always might "his eternal power and Godhead have been understood". (Rom_1:20) But the eyes of man were blinded, and his "foolish heart was darkened," so that by his own wisdom he knew not God. It is certain that he would have remained in ignorance but for those special manifestations of which the sacred Scriptures are the record. The text reminds us that these include
I HIS PECULIAR PEOPLE. Out of the human race God chose one people, "the congregation," "the children of Israel," to whom he would appear, by whom the knowledge of his nature and will should be retained, and through whom he should be made known to others. To this congregation "were committed the oracles of God;" and while surrounding nations were stumbling in the darkness, Israel was walking in the light of the Lord.
II HIS OWN HOUSE. "God spake out of the tabernacle," etc. This his dwelling-place in Israel had just been constructed, and there, in the most holy place, he had signified his presence by the glory-cloud. That was none other than the house of God, his abode in the midst of the congregation.
III HIS CHOSEN MINISTER. "The Lord called unto Moses." The experiences of Sinai had shown that there was need of mediation between the Majesty of heaven and the children of earth. God, therefore, chose to reveal his mind through the one man who was fittest for close access, and who would calmly receive and faithfully announce his will the courageous, devoted, magnanimous Moses.
IV HIS PARTICULAR DIRECTIONS. "Speak... and say... Then follow the instructions of this book of the Law: particular and precise regulations, by attention to which the congregation might worship with acceptance and live in holiness and righteousness before God.
In the dispensation in which we now stand we have analogous special manifestations.
1. The Church of Christ is now the congregation of the Lord, the "Israel of God;" not the members of any visible organization, but all those of every society who love and honour Christ, "both theirs and ours." To such "he manifests himself as he does not unto the world;" in them his Holy Spirit dwells; through them he works on the world without.
2. The Christian sanctuary is now the house of the Lord, the "place of his abode." There he makes his presence felt; there he causes us to behold his glory, the beauties of his character, the glories of his grace. At the table of the Lord, more especially, the risen Master meets with his true disciples, the Divine Host with his human friends and guests, to receive and return their love, to accept their vows, to impart his benediction and his blessing.
3. The Christian ministry is now the chosen channel of his communications. Not necessarily those ordained with human hands; these if sent by God, but only if sent of him; and beside these, all whose hearts he has touched, (1Sa_10:26) whose minds he has filled with spiritual understanding, (Col_1:9) and whose lips he has opened; (Psa_51:15) all those on whose soul there really rests the "burden of the Lord.
4. The New Testament now contains the Divine instructions. These are
(1) few in number;
(2) moral and spiritual rather than formal and mechanical in their nature;
(3) adequate to penetrate to the deepest springs of the soul, and to cover the widest particulars of the life.
It becomes us, in view of these special manifestations of God in Christ,
(a) to associate ourselves immediately with the recognized people of God;
(b) to seek, constantly and sedulously, his face and favour and the knowledge of his wilt, in his house;
(c) to hold ourselves ready to speak for him to others or to receive his message from others, as his Spirit shall prompt us or them;
(d) to master and foster those principles of righteousness which Christ has taught us, that we may cultivate our character and regulate our lives according to his holy will. C.
HOMILIES BY R.A. REDFORD Vers. 1-17. Law of the burnt offerings.
The object of worship, place, worshipper, offering, are all clearly set forth. The way of obedience made plain.
"And the Lord called unto Moses, and spake unto him out of the tabernacle of the congregation. This is the foundation on which the whole of positive religion is built up, the Divine voice speaking through a mediator, at an appointed place, and in a distinct, authoritative manner. Notice
I THE DIVINE VOICE. "The Lord," Jehovah, that is, the God of revelation and covenant.
1. The beginning of all true religion is the gracious manifestation of God. It is a very different spiritual structure which is built upon this foundation from that which is raised on men"s own thoughts. Compare the corruptions of traditionary religions, heathenism, with the Old Testament revelation; the vague and doubtful attempts of religions philosophy to provide an object of supreme reverence. The name Jehovah betokened a progress in special revelation. The Elohistic worship of the earliest ages, while resting, no doubt, on direct communications of God"s Spirit, without which there can be no living intercourse between the creature and the Creator, was elementary in its character, suited to the childhood of the world God revealed first as the God of creation, the object of reverential obedience in the sphere of natural life and the simplest laws of righteousness. As the relations of mankind to one another grew more numerous and complicated, the idea of religion enlarged; the object of worship was the God of a people, the God of families, the God whose name was distinctly named, as distinctly as the people"s, between whom and a certain portion of mankind there was a direct covenant, involving gracious vouch safements on one side, and faithful service on the other. This is the connection between the Book of Exodus and that of Leviticus, which the very opening words remind us is very close. In the former book we are in the presence of Jehovah. In this we are listening to his voice, a voice which speaks clearly and fully what are the ordinances of his will.
2. The invitation and summons. "The Lord called unto Moses." We must notice here the two elements of law and grace combined, which is the very essence of the book. All the regulations of the Mosaic economy were based upon the fact that Jehovah was in close fellowship with his people. Just as a made road brings the points between which it lies nearer, by opening the means of intercourse, so sacrifices were a token of covenant relation, and a perpetual call of Jehovah to his people to approach him. The Lord called that he might bestow his special grace on those who obeyed his call. He called with the voice of command and authority, that his people might henceforth know fully and without possibility of mistake what they had to do. So still there is a gracious call of the gospel, which invites freely and universally, but it is at the same time the proclamation of a new law of righteousness, as in the Sermon on the Mount, and in the whole revelation of duty in the Christian Church. Notice
II THE FACT OF MEDIATION. "The Lord called unto Moses, and spake unto him.
"The Law was given by Moses." "It was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator," through the instrumentality of an appointed servant, who should be between Jehovah and his people. Moses united in himself remarkably the three elements of the office the prophetic, as echoing the voice of God; the priestly, as the medium of offered service; the kingly, as the legislator and ruler, both proclaiming and administrating the Divine Law. We see also represented in the case of Moses the union of the two qualifications for the fulfilment of the office of mediator the personal merit and the Divine appointment. Moses stood apart from the people in his character and personal eminence. He was anointed to his office, and manifestly favoured of God with special communications. In all these respects he is the type of the perfect Mediator. Jesus Christ was in himself able to be between God and man. His mediation is fact, history.
III THE FACT OF MEDIATION WAS BASED UPON THE FACT OF COVENANT, THE RELATION BETWEEN THE PEOPLE AND JEHOVAH, THE GOD OF REVELATION, MUTUAL PLEDGE, AND PROMISE. The whole structure of the ceremonial law was built up on reciprocal obligation. Living intercourse between God and man is the spiritual reality which binds together all the details of this book of the Law. A development, therefore, of the first and greatest commandment, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God," etc. The acceptableness of religious worship lies in the fellowship of love.
IV THE PLACE OF MEETING BETWEEN GOD AND MAN. "Out of the tabernacle of the congregation," or "the tent of meeting." A temporary provision, afterwards superseded by a more permanent and elaborate structure, but in its external features betokening the dispensational character of the Law. The central fact was a gracious manifestation of God, a meeting-place inviting to intercourse, an appointed form of worship, the stepping-stone to a higher communion. "God dwelleth not in temples made with hands." The tabernacle was subsequent to the covenant. The life of fellowship preceded the act of fellowship. The people are God"s before they receive the Law. There are three elements in the tabernacle, representative of universal and abiding truth.
1. The Lord speaks out of it. Positive revelation the foundation of positive religion. The soul waits upon God. Gracious messages the beginning of Divine work in and for man. There were gropings of natural religion worth nothing in themselves. The Spirit of God calls the spirit of man to a higher life. The true faith rests on the Word, honours the ordinances, seeks the place where God speaks in the most distinct and emphatic manner. This finds illustration both individually and in the history of God"s people.
2. Tabernacle of the congregation. Fellowship an essential fact of the religious life. Man a moral being, only as he is in society. As it is the fruit of religion, so it is the seed from which springs the true life, both of nations and individuals. The tabernacle or temple the center of the Hebrew national existence. The tent of meeting also the palace-chamber of the Great King. Jehovah"s throne amongst his people the true source of all power and centre of all authority. All places of worship, as meeting-places of the congregation or Church, witness to the presence of Jehovah, of Jesus Christ, the Lord, in the midst of his people, and to the kingdom of God in the world. No doctrine of the Church consistent with this fact of Jehovah speaking out of the tabernacle of the congregation but that which recognizes the position of all believers as the same. "Where two or three are gathered together," etc.
3. The place of meeting was both the center to which offerings were brought and from which blessings were taken. A true religion must embrace both the passive and the active elements Mind, heart, will. Christianity did not abolish sacrifice and offerings, lifted up the lower into the higher, the local and temporary into the universal and perpetual. No material edifice, no priestly caste, no mere prescription of rites, can limit religious service. The temple of the Jews was destroyed, but in place of it we possess the risen glory of Christ, the spiritual presence of the Living One, the communion of saints, the ceaseless offering up of spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. The Law which was given on the mount from the lips of Jesus requires a higher righteousness than the righteousness of legalists. R.
The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Biblical Illustrator 1887 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 14 The Lord called unto Moses, and spake.
Lev_1:1
The Lord called unto Moses, and spake.
Read full note →
The origin and authority of Leviticus
These words evidently contain by necessary implication two affirmations: first, that the legislation which immediately follows is of Mosaic origin--The Lord spake unto Moses; and secondly, that it was not the product merely of the mind of Moses, but came to him, in the first instance, as a revelation from Jehovah--Jehovah spake unto Moses. And although it is quite true that the words in this first verse strictly refer only to that section of the book which immediately follows, yet, inasmuch as the same or a like formula is used repeatedly before successive sections--in all, no less than fifty-six times in the twenty-seven chapters--these words may with perfect fairness be regarded as expressing a claim respecting these two points, which covers the entire book. The words say nothing, indeed, as to whether or not Moses wrote every word of this book himself; or whether the Spirit of God directed and inspired other persons, in Moses time or afterwards, to commit this Mosaic Law to writing. They give us no hint as to when the various sections which make up the book were combined into their present literary form, whether by Moses himself, as is the traditional view, or by men of God in a later day. They simply and only declare the legislation to be of Mosaic origin and of inspired authority. Only, be it observed, so much as this they do affirm in the most direct and uncompromising manner. (S. H. Kellogg, D. D.)
God speaking
Leviticus is replete with the gospel of the grace of God. While it paints the blackness of sin, and the depths to which man has fallen, it paints likewise, in glowing colours, the amazing love of God, in the full, rich, and complete provision He has made to meet mans every need in Christ Jesus our Lord.
I. the lord . . . spake. So they are Gods words, not mans, to which we are called to listen in this deeply instructive book. Then let us give it attentive hearing (Mat_11:15). Moses here records the very words of God, and the Holy Spirit alone can bring to our apprehension His own teaching (Joh_14:26; Joh_16:13).
II. The lord spake unto moses. God had before spoken unto him, specially on two memorable occasions.
1. From the burning bush (Exo_3:1-22.), when He came down in grace to deliver His people Israel from bondage in Egypt--as now He delivers from the bondage of sin and Satan--revealing Himself as Jehovah, the self-existent I AM, able to destroy their enemies, and rescue them (Exo_6:1-30).
2. From Mount Sinai, after the deliverance from Egypt, when the people had rashly undertaken (apparently in their own strength) to do all that the Lord had spoken (Exo_19:8), God spake the words of His Holy Law, the fiery law (Heb_12:18-21; Exo_19:18-20; Rom_7:12; Deu_33:2). That law showed the exceeding sinfulness of sin, but provided no way of salvation for those who disobeyed it, therefore could only condemn (Rom_7:13; Rom_7:10-11), as all have sinned (Rom_3:23), and sin is the transgression of the law (1Jn_3:4), or lawlessness (R.V.); but in the passage before us--
III. The lord spake out of the tabernacle of the congregation; and this tells, not only of deliverance from bondage, but of the Lords dwelling in the midst of His people, as their Leader and Guide (Exo_13:21; Exo_40:38), meeting and communing with His servant Moses from the mercy-seat (Exo_25:22; Exo_30:6; Num_7:89), and establishing a medium for worship and access.
IV. god hath spoken unto us by his son, who is the Revealer of the Father (Joh_1:18). But even now, as we listen to the words of God out of the Tabernacle, it is God speaking to us by His Son; for the Tabernacle is a type of Jesus. The glory of the Lord filled the Tabernacle (Exo_40:34); Jesus is the Brightness, or outshining of Gods glory (Heb_1:3). He is the true Tabernacle, For in Him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily (Col_2:9). God was in Christ reconciling, &c. (2Co_5:19). Christ is the manifestation of the Fathers love (1Jn_4:9-10). He brings untold glory to God in the salvation of sinners (Joh_17:4); and the saved ones He will take to share His glory hereafter (Luk_9:30-31), as the blessed result of His decease.
V. The Lord would speak by the church, also typified by the Tabernacle. It was sprinkled . . . with blood (Heb_9:21); the Church of God was purchased with His own blood (Act_20:28). The Tabernacle was anointed with holy oil (Exo_30:25-26; Exo_40:9); the Church has an unction from the Holy One (1Jn_2:20). The Lord dwelt in the Tabernacle (2Sa_7:6); the Church is builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit (Eph_2:21-22). The Spirit reveals the deep things of God, the things of Christ (1Co_2:10-12; Joh_16:14-15); the Church is the fulness of Him that filleth all in all (Eph_1:23); hence it is Gods purpose that unto the . . . might be made known through the Church the manifold wisdom of God (Eph_3:10, R.V.).
VI. God would speak through each member of the Church. First He speaks to, and then by them. He spake to Moses, that he might speak unto the children of Israel. In like manner He acts now: Have we received blessing to our soul? If so, God would have us help others (Mar_5:19). (Lady Beaujolois Dent.)
The Tabernacle of the congregation.
The way of access to God
I. In our approach to god nothing is left to human invention.
1. There are conditions to our acceptable approach.
2. There are minutely revealed conditions for our approach.
II. For our rightful approach to him, God has made full and gracious provision.
1. A place for meeting God.
2. A sacrificial basis of acceptance.
3. A mediatorial ministry.
III. By such arrangements for our acceptable approach, God has laid us under most solemn obligations to seek him.
1. Shall God wait in vain within the Holy Place, and none draw near?
2. Can sinful man despise the sacrifice of Jesus offered for his propitiation?
3. With such a Priest within the Holy Place, have we no mediation to ask, no sins to confess, no offerings to bring? (W. H. Jellie.)
The essential significance of the Tabernacle
The essential significance of the Tabernacle may be inferred from the names customarily given to it. These names may be divided into three classes:
1. Those which, like house, tent, dwelling, dwelling of the testimony, convey the general idea of a place of Divine residence (Exo_23:19; Exo_25:9; Exo_26:36; Exo_38:21).
2. Those which, like tent of meeting, or tent-house of meeting, express the idea of a meeting-place for God and man (Exo_27:21; Exo_39:32).
3. Those which, like sanctuary, draw attention to holiness as an attribute of the place itself (Exo_25:8). Now a house where God was, or was supposed to be, must be a place for worship, and a place for Divine worship must of necessity be holy ground; thus one fundamental idea lay at the root of all these appellations, viz., that the Tabernacle was a meeting-place between Jehovah and His covenant people. There Jehovah was to be thought peculiarly present, and therefore peculiarly approachable. By the Jew the Lord God Almighty was not to be sought in woods or fountains or valleys, but in this house which He had appointed . . . It must be remembered, however, that approach to Jehovah was conditioned by the terms of the Sinaitic revelation. Whilst, therefore, the Tabernacle as the dwelling-place of the Most High, was by the Divine condescension a place where God and the Jew might come together, that contact was arranged in accordance with the characteristics of the Mosaic dispensation. The whole structure was a place of meeting where man and God could congregate; but it was in the court only that the common Israelite could approach Jehovah, and that by mediation in the person of the appointed priestly representatives; in the Holy Place, to which the priests alone had access, the worshippers also approached the throne of Deity by mediation, being admitted, so to speak, to the anteroom of the Divine audience-chamber by the adoration of their chief; whilst to the high priest alone, and that after solemn preparation, was it permitted on one day in the year to pass within the veil, and gaze unhindered upon that mercy-seat, aglow with gold, where rested the shadowy cloud of the Shechinah. Further, if the Tabernacle was the appointed sanctuary where man might meet with God on the fulfilment of certain conditions, be it noted that the several altars were, so to speak, the points at which those conditions could be best fulfilled. Every square inch of the sacred enclosure was a place of meeting between Jehovah and His people, according to the terms of the Divine revelation: but it was at the altar of burnt-offering in the court that the non-priestly worshippers approached most nearly to their God; it was at the golden altar in the Holy Place that the priests were admitted to closest access; and it was as he approached most directly the space beneath the outstretched wings of the cherubim that the high priest drew nearest to the throne of intercession. The several altars were the shrines, so to speak, of the several sanctuaries, in which their essence was concentrated, and from which their power radiated. The essential significance of the peculiar sanctuary of Judaism lay, then, in the fact that, being the visible dwelling-place of Jehovah, it testified to the possibility of human approach to God so long as the conditions of the related laws were observed--these conditions being, so far at least as the theocratic status of the worshippers was concerned, that the Israelite might come near to God in the person of His priests in the court, and especially at the altar of burnt-offering; that in the Holy Place, and especially at the altar of incense, the priesthood might do homage to Jehovah as enshrined behind the veil; and that in the Holy of Holies, and especially at the high altar of the mercy-seat, the high priest might, by careful obedience to the prescribed conditions, occasionally regard that cloud by which the Almighty condescended to reveal and at the same time to conceal His presence. (A. Cave, D. D.)
God known in the Tabernacle; or, redemptive relations
The redeemed people of God only know God in the Tabernacle; and none, who belong not to that Tabernacle on earth, can belong to God in heaven. All who are of faith--all who have fed on the Passover Lamb, belong to the Tabernacle; but Egypt is the type of the position of all besides. How important to remember this, when so many efforts are being made to destroy the distinctions which redemption has constituted, and to speak of mans natural condition as having in it the elements of saving relation to God! Men wish to sweep, as it were, from the earth the Tabernacle and its lessons, and to sanctify Egypt in the name of God. Israel themselves knew nothing of the Tabernacle whilst in Egypt: it was a gift reserved for them after they had entered the wilderness. They were led into the wilderness not merely to learn its solitude and its sorrows, but to become acquainted with God--His service and His ways. The holy vessels of the Tabernacle, the inner curtains of blue, and purple, and scarlet, the priest robed in garments of glory and beauty, stood in strange contrast with the waste and howling scene around them; yet faith has still to know the same contrast, whilst learning here respecting Christ and the various relations in which we stand to God and to Him. The heart that lingers in Egypt, and refuses, as it were, to enter the wilderness, will little learn the lessons of the Tabernacle; hut all who recognise how truly redemption has separated them for ever from that land of nature and of curse, will find, in the knowledge of the Tabernacle, their daily solace, till the hour comes for them to enter into the abiding rest. In the Tabernacle we typically learn the relations of God to His redeemed people. We are there taught respecting the sacrifice provided for us in Christ--its fulness, its various relations to God and to ourselves. There we learn the ground on which we worship and serve Him, meeting Him in the blessings of peace through redemption. (B. W. Newton.)
God found in His sanctuary
But when the Lord had arranged a tent of meeting with His people, He spoke to Moses out of the tent of meeting. It is all very well for the man who is in the wilderness or on the mountain-top, in the line of duty, to listen for the sound of the Lords voice there; but when a man can find his way into the sanctuary there is where he may expect to be spoken to by the Lord. If he leaves the sanctuary to wander among the thorn-bushes, or to clamber the mountain peaks, with the idea that it is in Natures temples that he is to find the God of nature, he will miss a meeting with the covenant-making and covenant-keeping God in the place of meeting. There is no more likely place to find God than where God says He may be found; no more hopeful place for meeting God than in Gods meeting-place. Thy way, O God, is in the sanctuary! Help us to find Thee there! (H. C. Trumbull.)
The pardoning presence of Jesus
The Tabernacle was a figure of Christ, and was intended to teach us some important lessons respecting Him. We have in the Tabernacle a beautiful illustration of one of the precious names of Jesus our Saviour. Just before He came into our world, the angel Gabriel was sent to Joseph, His reputed father, to tell him about that wonderful Child that was to be born unto Mary his wife. And this is what the angel said: They shall call HIS name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us (Mat_1:23). This name is wonderful. It is full of meaning. But many find it difficult to understand its meaning. And so God ordered the Tabernacle to be built in the wilderness, that in it He might dwell among the people, and thus be a figure, or illustration to them of the way in which Jesus now dwells in the hearts of His people by faith. The Tabernacle was a definition of this name--Emmanuel. As God was present with the Israelites in the wilderness, in the Tabernacle, so Jesus is present with His people in this world. And as we study the different parts of this Tabernacle we are taught much that is interesting and profitable concerning the presence of Jesus with His people. The Tabernacle taught that there was to be pardon connected with His presence. The brazen altar, or the altar of burnt sacrifice, was the part of the Tabernacle that taught this lesson. That was the first thing one would see on entering the court of the Tabernacle. Here the daily sacrifice was offered. Here the blood of the slain animals was shed, that it might be sprinkled both on the priests and on the people. No one was allowed to enter the Tabernacle or to worship God there till he had first been to this brazen altar, and had the blood of the sacrifice sprinkled upon him. And the great blessing represented by the shedding and sprinkling of the blood was the pardon of sin. There was no power in the blood of those animals to put away sin, or to procure pardon. But it pointed to the blood of Christ, through which alone all pardon comes. And this is what the Apostle Paul teaches us, when he says that, without the shedding of blood there is no remission (Heb_9:22), or no pardon. If Jesus had not shed His precious blood there never would have been any pardon for sin. But that blood was shed. And now there is pardon for all who repent and believe in Him. His presence with His people is a pardoning presence. He has power on earth to forgive sins (Mat_9:6). There is nothing that we need more than pardon. We are born in sin. We sin every day, and we are always needing pardon. And it is a blessed thing to know that we can have this pardon at any time by seeking it in the right way. Jesus is--ready to forgive (Psa_86:5). His promise is that--He will abundantly pardon (Isa_55:7). Here is an illustration of the pardoning power of Jesus. It was told by a sailor who witnessed it, who was made a Christian by it, and afterwards became a chaplain. Our vessel lay at anchor, said he, off the coast of Africa. The yellow fever had broken out on board, and several of the men had died. It was my duty every morning to go through that part of the vessel used as a hospital, and see if any of the men had died during the night. One morning as I was passing through this sick ward, a poor fellow lying there took hold of me with his cold, clammy hand. I knew him very well. He was an old shipmate, and one of the wickedest men on board. I saw in a moment that he had not long to live. Oh, Jim, he said, for Gods sake, let some one come and read the Bible to me before I die! None of the sailors had a Bible; but at last I found that there was one on board belonging to the cabin-boy. I told him to get his Bible, and bring it into the sick ward, and went back there myself. Presently the boy came with a small Bible in his hand. In the meantime a number of the Kroomen, or native Africans, who were working on board, gathered round the sick man, not to see him die, but, as one of them said, to see what de good book do for poor Massa Richie. I told the boy to read a chapter. He sat down by the sick man, and, opening at the third chapter of St. John, he began to read. The poor fellow fixed his eyes on the reader, and listened most earnestly to every word he spoke. Presently the boy came to the beautiful words in the sixteenth verse, God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life I I watched the face of the dying man as these words were read. I never saw such earnestness and anxiety in any face as were in his. The boy was going on with the next verse, when the sick man exclaimed, Stop my boy, stop! Bead that verse again, and read it slowly. The boy repeated the verse, and was going on again. But he was interrupted a second and a third time with the earnest cry, Stop, my boy, stop! Read that verse again. And when he had done so a number of times, the dying man said, Dont read any more. Thats enough. And then, as he grew fainter and fainter, we heard him, in a low voice, repeating to himself those wonderful words, and making his own remarks on them, Whosoever--that means anybody. That means me. Whosoever believeth. I do believe this. Well, what then? Whosoever believeth shall not perish. No, not perish, but have everlasting life. Not perish--not perish--but have everlasting life. These were his last words. With these upon his lips, he passed away, and entered into heaven--one pardoned sinner more, saved through the precious Mood of Christ. The presence of Jesus which the Tabernacle illustrates is--a pardoning presence. (Richard Newton, D. D.)
The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Expositor's Bible 1887 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 5, 6 "And the Lord called unto Moses, and spake unto…
INTRODUCTORY
"And the Lord called unto Moses, and spake unto him out of the tent of meeting."- Lev_1:1
Read full note →
PERHAPS no book in the Bible presents to the ordinary reader so many and peculiar difficulties as the book of Leviticus. Even of those who devoutly believe, as they were taught in their childhood, that, like all the other books contained in the Holy Scriptures, it is to be received throughout with unquestioning faith as the very Word of God, a large number will frankly own in a discouraged way that this is with them merely a matter of belief, which their personal experience in reading the book has for the most part failed to sustain; and that for them so to see through symbol and ritual as to get much spiritual profit from such reading has been quite impossible.
A larger class, while by no means denying or doubting the original Divine authority of this book, yet suppose that the elaborate ritual of the Levitical law, with its multiplied, minute prescriptions regarding matters religious and secular, since the Mosaic dispensation has now long passed away, neither has nor can have any living relation to present day questions of Christian belief and practice; and so, under this impression, they very naturally trouble themselves little with a book which, if they are right, can now only be of special interest to the religious antiquarian.
Others, again, while sharing this feeling, also confess to a great difficulty which they feel in believing that many of the commands of this law can ever have been really given by inspiration from God. The extreme severity of some of the laws, and what seems to them to be the arbitrary and even puerile character of other prescriptions, appear to them to be irreconcilable, in the one case, with the mercy, in the other, with the dignity and majesty, of the Divine Being.
With a smaller, but, it is to be feared, an increasing number, this feeling, either of indifference or of doubt, regarding the book of Leviticus, is further strengthened by their knowledge of the fact that in our day its Mosaic origin and inspired authority are strenuously denied by a large number of eminent scholars, upon grounds which they claim to be strictly scientific. And if such Christians do not know enough to decide for themselves on its merits the question thus raised, they at least know enough to have a very uncomfortable doubt whether an intelligent Christian has any longer a right to regard the book as in any true sense the Word of God; and - what is still more serious-they feel that the question is of such a nature that it is impossible for anyone who is not a specialist in Hebrew and the higher criticism to reach any well-grounded and settled conviction, one way or the other, on the subject. Such persons, of course, have little to do with this book. If the Word of God is indeed there, it cannot reach them.
With such mental conditions so widely prevailing, some words regarding the origin, authority, purpose, and use of this book of Leviticus seem to be a necessary preliminary to its profitable exposition.
THE ORIGIN AND AUTHORITY OF LEVITICUS
As to the origin and authority of this book, the first verse presents a very formal and explicit statement: "The Lord called unto Moses, and spake unto him." These words evidently contain by necessary implication two affirmations: first, that the legislation which immediately follows is of Mosaic origin: "The Lord spake unto Moses"; and secondly, that it was not the product merely of the mind of Moses, but came to him, in the first instance, as a revelation from Jehovah: "Jehovah spake unto Moses." And although it is quite true that the words in this first verse strictly refer only to that section of the book which immediately follows, yet, inasmuch as the same or a like formula is used repeatedly before successive sections, -in all, no less than fifty-six times in the twenty-seven chapters, -these words may with perfect fairness be regarded as expressing a claim respecting these two points, which covers the entire book.
We must not, indeed, put more into these words than is truly there. They simply and only declare the Mosaic origin and the inspired authority of the legislation which the book contains. They say nothing as to whether or not Moses wrote every word of this book himself; or whether the Spirit of God directed and inspired other persons, in Moses time or afterward, to commit this Mosaic law to writing. They give us no hint as to when the various sections which make up the book were combined into their present literary form, whether by Moses himself, as is the traditional view, or by men of God in a later day. As to these and other matters of secondary importance which might be named, the book records no statement. The words used in the text, and similar expressions used elsewhere, simply and only declare the legislation to be of Mosaic origin and of inspired authority. Only, be it observed, so much as this they do affirm in the most direct and uncompromising manner.
It is of great importance to note all this: for in the heat of theological discussion the issue is too often misapprehended on both sides. The real question, and, as everyone knows, the burning Biblical question of the day, is precisely this, whether the claim this book contains, thus exactly defined, is true or false.
A certain school of critics, comprising many of the greatest learning, and of undoubted honesty of intention, assures the Church and the world that a strictly scientific criticism compels one to the conclusion that this claim, even as thus sharply limited and defined, is, to use plain words, not true; that an enlightened scholarship must acknowledge that Moses had little or nothing to do with what we find in this book; that, in fact, it did not originate till nearly a thousand years later, when, after the Babylonian captivity, certain Jewish priests, desirous of magnifying their authority with the people, fell on the happy expedient of writing this book of Leviticus, together with certain other parts of the Pentateuch, and then, to give the work a prestige and authority which on its own merits or over their own names it could not have had, delivered it to their countrymen as nearly a thousand years old, the work of their great lawgiver. And, strangest of all, they not only did this, but were so successful in imposing this forgery upon the whole nation that history records not even an expressed suspicion of a single person, until modern times, of its non-Mosaic origin; that is, they succeeded in persuading the whole people of Israel that a law which they had themselves just promulgated had been in existence among them for nearly ten centuries, the very work of Moses, when, in reality, it was quite a new thing.
Astonishing and even incredible as all this may seem to the uninitiated, substantially this theory is held by many of the Biblical scholars of our day as presenting the essential facts of the case; and the discovery of these supposed facts we are called upon to admire as one of the chief literary triumphs of modern critical scholarship!
Now the average Christian, whether minister or layman, though intelligent enough in ordinary matters of human knowledge, or even a well-educated man, is not, and cannot be, a specialist in Hebrew and in the higher criticism. What is he then to do when such a theory is presented to him as endorsed by scholars of the highest ability and the most extensive learning? Must we, then, all learn Hebrew and study this higher criticism before we can be permitted to have any well-justified and decided opinion whether this book, this law of Leviticus, be the Word of God or a forgery? We think not. There are certain considerations, quite level to the understanding of everyone; certain facts, which are accepted as such by the most eminent scholars, which ought to be quite sufficient for the maintenance and the abundant confirmation of our faith in this book of Leviticus as the very Word of God to Moses.
In the first place, it is to be observed that if any theory which denies the Mosaic origin and the inspired authority of this book be true, then the fifty-six assertions of such origin and authority which the book contains are unqualifiedly false. Further, however any may seek to disguise the issue with words, if in fact this Levitical ritual and code of laws came into existence only after the Babylonian captivity and in the way suggested, then the book of Leviticus can by no possibility be the Word of God in any sense, but is a forgery and a fraud. Surely this needs no demonstration. "The Lord spake unto Moses," reads, for instance, this first verse; "The Lord did not speak these things unto Moses," answer these critics; "they were invented by certain unscrupulous priests centuries afterwards." Such is the unavoidable issue.
Now who shall arbitrate in these matters? who shall settle these questions for the great multitude of believers who know nothing of Hebrew criticism, and who, although they may not well understand much that is in this book, have yet hitherto accepted it with reverent faith as being what it professes to be, the very Word of God through Moses? To whom, indeed, can we refer such a question as this for decision but to Jesus Christ of Nazareth, our Lord and Saviour, confessed of all believers to be in verity the only-begotten Son of God from the bosom of the Father? For He declared that "the Father showed unto Him," the Son, "all things that He Himself did"; He will therefore be sure to know the truth of this matter, sure to know the Word of His Father from the word of man, if He will but speak.
And He has spoken on this matter, He, the Son of God. What was the common belief of the Jews in the time of our Lord as to the Mosaic origin and Divine authority of this book, as of all the Pentateuch, everyone knows. Not a living man disputes the statement made by a recent writer on this subject, that "previous to the Christian era, there are no traces of a second opinion" on this question; the book "was universally ascribed to Moses." Now, that Jesus Christ shared and repeatedly endorsed this belief of His contemporaries should be perfectly clear to any ordinary reader of the Gospels.
The facts as to His testimony, in brief, are these. As to the Pentateuch in general, He called it {Luk_24:44} "the law of Moses"; and, as regards its authority, He declared it to be such that "till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away from the law, till all be fulfilled". {Mat_5:18} Could this be truly said of this book of Leviticus, which is undoubtedly included in this term, "the law," if it were not the Word of God, but a forgery, so that its fifty-six affirmations of its Mosaic origin and inspired authority were false? Again, Christ declared that Moses in his "writings" wrote of Him, -a statement, which, it should be observed, imputes to Moses foreknowledge, and therefore supernatural inspiration; and further said that faith in Himself was so connected with faith in Moses, that if the Jews had believed Moses, they would have also believed Him. {Joh_5:46-47} Is it conceivable that Christ should have spoken thus, if the "writings" referred to had been forgeries?
But not only did our Lord thus endorse the Pentateuch in general, but also, on several occasions, the Mosaic origin and inspired authority of Leviticus in particular. Thus, when He healed the lepers {Mat_8:4} He sent them to the priests on the ground that Moses had commanded this in such cases. But such a command is found only in this book of Leviticus. {Lev_14:3-10} Again, in justifying His disciples for plucking the ears of corn on the Sabbath day, He adduces the example of David, who ate the shew bread when he was a hungered, "which was not lawful for him to eat, but only for the priests"; {Mat_12:4} thus referring to a law which is only found in Leviticus. {Lev_24:9} But the citation was only pertinent on the assumption that He regarded the prohibition of the shew bread as having the same inspired authority as the obligation of the Sabbath. In Joh_7:32, again, He refers to Moses as having renewed the ordinance of circumcision, which at the first had been given to Abraham; and, as usual, assumes the Divine authority of the command as thus given. But this renewal of the ordinance of circumcision is recorded only in Leviticus. {Lev_12:3} Yet once more, rebuking the Pharisees for their ingenious justification of the hard-hearted neglect of parents by undutiful children, He reminds them that Moses had said that he who cursed father or mother should be put to death; a law which is only found in the so-called priest code, Exo_21:17 and Lev_20:9. Further, He is so far from merely assuming the truth of the Jewish opinion for the sake of an argument, that He formally declares this law, equally with the fifth commandment, to be "a commandment of God," which they by their tradition had made void. {Mat_14:3-6}
One would suppose that it had been impossible to avoid the inference from all this, that our Lord believed, and intended to be understood as teaching, that the law of Leviticus was, in a true sense, of Mosaic origin, and of inspired, and therefore infallible, authority.
We are in no way concerned, indeed, - is it essential to the argument, - to press this testimony of Christ as proving more than the very least which the words fairly imply. For instance, nothing in His words, as we read them, any more than in the language of Leviticus itself, excludes the supposition that in the preparation of the law, Moses, like the Apostle Paul, may have had co-labourers or amanuenses, such as Aaron, Eleazar, Joshua, or others, whose several parts of the work might then have been issued under his endorsement and authority; so that Christs testimony is in no wise irreconcilable with the fact of differences of style, or with the evidence of different documents, if any think that they discover this, in the book.
We are willing to go further, and add that in the testimony of our Lord we find nothing which declares against the possibility of one or more redactions or revisions of the laws of Leviticus in post-Mosaic times, by one or more inspired men; as, e.g., by Ezra, described {Ezr_7:6} as "a ready scribe in the law of Moses, which the Lord, the God of Israel, had given"; to whom also ancient Jewish tradition attributes the final settlement of the Old Testament canon down to his time. Hence no words of Christ touch the question as to when the book of Leviticus received its present form, in respect of the order of its chapters, sections, and verses. This is a matter of quite secondary importance, and may be settled any way without prejudice to the Mosaic origin and authority of the laws it contains.
Neither, in the last place, do the words of our Lord, carefully weighed, of necessity exclude even the possibility that such persons, acting under Divine direction and inspiration, may have first reduced some parts of the law given by Moses to writing; or even, as an extreme supposition, may have entered here and there, under the unerring guidance of the Holy Ghost, prescriptions which, although new as to the letter, were none the less truly Mosaic, in that by necessary implication they were logically involved in the original code.
We do not indeed here argue either for or against any of these suppositions, which were apart from the scope of the present work. We are only concerned here to remark that Christ has not incontrovertibly settled these questions. These things may be true or not true; the decision of such matters properly belongs to the literary critics. But decide them as one will, it will still remain true that the law is "the law of Moses," given by revelation from God.
So much as this, however, is certain. Whatsoever modifications may conceivably have passed upon the text, all work of this kind was done, as all agree, long before the time of our Lord; and the text to which He refers as of Mosaic origin and of inspired authority, was therefore essentially the text of Leviticus as we have it today. We are thus compelled to insist that whatever modifications may have been made in the original Levitical law, they cannot have been, according to the testimony of our Lord, such as in any way conflicted with His affirmation of its Mosaic origin and its inspired authority. They can thus, at the very utmost, only have been, as suggested, in the way of legitimate logical development and application to successive circumstances, of the Levitical law as originally given to Moses; and that, too, under the administration of a priesthood endowed with the possession of the Urim and Thummim, so as to give such official deliverances, whenever required, the sanction of inerrant Divine authority, binding on the conscience as from God. Here, at least, surely, Christ by His testimony has placed an immovable limitation upon the speculations of the critics.
And yet there are those who admit the facts as to Christs testimony, and nevertheless claim that without any prejudice to the absolute truthfulness of our Lord, we may suppose that in speaking as He did, with regard to the law of Leviticus, He merely conformed to the common usage of the Jews, without intending thereby to endorse their opinion; any more than, when, conforming to the ordinary mode of speech, He spoke of the sun as rising and setting, He meant thereby to be understood as endorsing the common opinion of men of that time that the sun actually passed round the earth every twenty-four hours. To which it is enough to reply that this illustration, which has so often been used in this argument, is not relevant to the case before us. For not only did our Lord use language which implied the truth of the Jewish belief regarding the origin and authority of the Mosaic law, but He formally teaches it; and-what is of still more moment-He rests the obligation of certain duties upon the fact that this law of Leviticus was a revelation from God to Moses for the children of Israel. But if the supposed facts, upon which He bases His argument in such cases, are, in reality, not facts, then His argument becomes null and void. How, for instance, is it possible to explain away the words in which He appeals to one of the laws of Exodus and Leviticus {Mat_15:3-6} as being not a Jewish opinion, but, instead, in explicit contrast with the traditions of the Rabbis, "a commandment of God"? Was this expression merely "an accommodation" to the mistaken notions of the Jews? If so, then what becomes of His argument?
Others, again, feeling the force of this, and yet sincerely and earnestly desiring to maintain above possible impeachment the perfect truthfulness of Christ, still assuming that the Jews were mistaken, and admitting that, it so, our Lord must have shared their error, take another line of argument. They remind us of what, however mysterious, cannot be denied, that our Lord, in virtue of His incarnation, came under certain limitations in knowledge; and then urge that without any prejudice to His character we may suppose that, not only with regard to the time of His advent and kingdom, {Mat_24:36} but also with respect to the authorship and the Divine authority of this book of Leviticus, He may have shared in the ignorance and error of His countrymen.
But, surely, the fact of Christs limitation in knowledge cannot be pressed so far as the argument of such requires, without by logical necessity nullifying Christs mission and authority as a religious teacher. For it is certain that according to His own word, and the universal belief of Christians, the supreme object of Christs mission was to reveal unto men through His life and teachings, and especially through His death upon the cross, the Father; and it is certain that He claimed to have, in order to this end, perfect knowledge of the Father. But how could this most essential claim of His be justified, and how could He be competent to give unto men a perfect and inerrant knowledge of the Father, if the ignorance of His humiliation was so great that He was unable to distinguish from His Fathers Word a book which, by the hypothesis, was not the Word of the Father, but an ingenious and successful forgery of certain crafty postexilian priests?
It is thus certain that Jesus must have known whether the Pentateuch, and, in particular, this book of Leviticus, was the Word of God or not; certain also that, if the Word of God, it could not have been a forgery; and equally certain that Jesus could not have intended in what He said on this subject to accommodate His speech to a common error of the people, without thereby endorsing their belief. It thus follows that critics of the radical school referred to are directly at issue with the testimony of Christ regarding this book. It is of immense consequence that Christians should see this issue clearly. While Jesus taught in various ways that Leviticus contains a law given by revelation from God to Moses, these teach that it is a priestly forgery of the days after Ezra. Both cannot be right; and if the latter are in the right, then-we speak with all possible deliberation and reverence-Jesus Christ was mistaken, and was therefore unable even to tell us with inerrant certainty whether this or that is the Word of God or not. But if this is so, then how can we escape the final inference that His claim to have a perfect knowledge of the Father must have been an error; His claim to be the incarnate Son of God, therefore, a false pretension, and Christianity, a delusion, so that mankind has in Him no Saviour?
But against so fatal a conclusion stands the great established fact of the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead; whereby He was with power declared to be the Son of God, so that we may know that His word on this, as on all subjects where He has spoken, settles controversy, and is a sufficient ground of faith; while it imposes upon all speculations of men, literary or philosophical, eternal and irremovable limitations. Let no one think that the case, as regards the issue at stake, has been above stated too strongly. One could not well go beyond the often cited words of Kuenen on this subject: "We must either cast aside as worthless our dearly bought scientific method, or we must forever cease to acknowledge the authority of the New Testament in the domain of the exegesis of the Old." With good reason does another scholar exclaim at these words, "The Master must not be heard as a witness! We treat our criminals with more respect." So then stands the question this day which this first verse of Leviticus brings before us: In which have we more confidence? in literary critics, like a Kuenen or Wellhausen, or in Jesus Christ? Which is the more likely to know with certainty whether the law of Leviticus is a revelation from God or not?
The devout Christian, who through the grace of the crucified and risen Lord "of whom Moses, in the law, and the prophets did write," and who has "tasted the good word of God," will not long hesitate for an answer. He will not indeed, if wise, timidly or fanatically decry all literary investigation of the Scriptures; but he will insist that the critic shall ever hold his reason in reverent subjection to the Lord Jesus on all points where the Lord has spoken, Such everywhere will heartily endorse and rejoice in those admirable words of the late venerable Professor Delitzsch; words which stand almost as of his last solemn testament:-"The theology of glory, which prides itself upon being its own highest authority, bewitches even those who had seemed proof against its enchantments; and the theology of the Cross, which holds Divine folly to be wiser than men, is regarded as an unscientific lagging behind the steps of progress But the faith which I professed in my first sermons, remains mine today, undiminished in strength, and immeasurably higher than all earthly knowledge. Even if in many Biblical questions I have to oppose the traditional opinion, certainly my opposition rests on this side of the gulf, on the side of the theology of the Cross, of grace, of miracles! By this banner let us stand; folding ourselves in it, let us die!" To which truly noble words every true Christian may well say, Amen!
We then stand without fear with Jesus Christ in our view of the origin and authority of the book of Leviticus.
THE OCCASION AND ORDER OF LEVITICUS
Before proceeding to the exposition of this book, a few words need to be said regarding its occasion and plan, and its object and present use.
The opening words of the book, "And the Lord said," connect it in the closest manner with the preceding book of Exodus, at the contents of which we have therefore to glance for a moment. The kingdom of God, rejected by corporate humanity in the founding of the Babylonian world power, but continuing on earth in a few still loyal souls in the line of Abraham and his seed, at last, according to promise, had been formally and visibly reestablished on earth at Mount Sinai. The fundamental law of the kingdom, contained in the ten commandments and certain applications of the same, had been delivered in what is called the Book of the Covenant, amid thunders and lightnings, at the holy mount. Israel had solemnly entered into covenant with God on this basis, saying, "All these things will we do and be obedient," and the covenant had been sealed by the solemn sprinkling of blood.
This being done, Jehovah now issued commandment for the building of the tabernacle or "tent of meeting," where He might manifest His glory and from time to time communicate His will to Israel. As mediators between Him and the people, the priesthood was appointed, their vestments and duties prescribed. All this having been done as ordered, the tent of meeting covering the interior tabernacle was set up; the Shekinah cloud covered it, and the glory of Jehovah filled the tabernacle, -the manifested presence of the King of Israel!
Out of the tent of meeting, from this excellent glory, Jehovah now called unto Moses, and delivered the law as we have it in the first seven chapters of the book of Leviticus. To the law of offerings succeeds (chapters 8-10) an account of the consecration of Aaron and his sons to the priestly office, and their formal public assumption of their functions, with an account of the very awful sanction which was given to the preceding law, by the death of Nadab and Abihu before the Lord, for offering as He had not commanded them.
The next section of the book contains the law concerning the clean and the unclean, under the several heads of food (chapter 11), birth defilement (chapter 12), leprosy (chapters 13, 14), and unclean issues (chapter 15); and closes (chapter 16) with the ordinance of the great day of atonement, in which the high priest alone, presenting the blood of a sin offering in the Holy of Holies, was to make atonement once a year for the sins of the whole nation.
The third section of the book contains the law of holiness, first, for the people (chapters 17-20), and then the special laws for the priests (chapters 21, 22). These are followed, first (chapter 23), by the order for the feasts of the Lord, or appointed times of public holy convocation; then (chapter 24), by a historical incident designed to show that the law, as given, must, in several respects noted, be applied in all its strictness no less to the alien than to the native-born Israelite; and finally (chapter 25), by the remarkable ordinances concerning the sabbatic year, and the culmination of the sabbatic system of the law in the year of jubilee.
As a conclusion to the whole, the legislation thus given is now sealed (chapter 26) with promises from God of blessing to the nation if they will keep this law, and threats of unsparing vengeance against the people and the land, if they forsake His commandments and break the covenant, though still with a promise of mercy when, having thus transgressed, they shall at any time repent. The book then closes with a supplemental chapter on voluntary vows and dues (chapter 27).
THE PURPOSE OF LEVITICUS
What now was the purpose of Leviticus? In general, as regards Israel, it was given to direct them how they might live as a holy nation in fellowship with God. The keynote of the book is "Holiness to Jehovah." More particularly, the object of the book was to furnish for the theocracy set up in Israel a code of law which should secure their physical, moral, and spiritual well being. But the establishment of the theocracy in Israel was itself only a means to an end; namely, to make Israel a blessing to all nations, in mediating to the Gentiles the redemption of God. Hence: the Levitical laws were all intended and adapted to train and prepare the nation for this special historic mission to which God had chosen them.
To this end, it was absolutely necessary, first of all, that Israel should be kept separate from the heathen nations. To effect and maintain this separation, these laws of Leviticus were admirably adapted. They are of such a character that obedience to them, even in a very imperfect way, has made the nation to this day to be, in a manner and degree perfectly unique, isolated and separate from all the peoples in the midst of whom they dwell.
The law of Leviticus was intended to effect this preparation of Israel for its world mission, not only in an external manner, but also in an internal way; namely, by revealing in and to Israel the real character of God, and in particular His unapproachable holiness. For if Israel is to teach the nations the way of holiness, in which alone they can be blessed, the chosen nation must itself first be taught holiness by the Holy One. A lesson here for every one of us! The revelation of the holiness of God was made, first of all, in the sacrificial system. The great lesson which it must have kept before the most obtuse conscience was this, that "without shedding of blood there is no remission of sin"; that God therefore must be the Most Holy, and sin against Him no trifle. It was made, again, in the precepts of the law. If in some instances these seem to tolerate evils which we should have expected that a holy God would at once have swept away, this is explained by our Mat_19:8 by the fact that some things were of necessity ordained in view of the hardness of mens hearts; while, on the other hand it is certainly quite plain that the laws of Leviticus constantly held before the Israelite the absolute holiness of God as the only standard of perfection.
The holiness of God was further revealed by the severity of the penalties which were attached to these Levitical laws. Men often call these harsh, forgetting that we are certain to underestimate the criminality of sin; forgetting that God must, in any case, have rights over human life which no earthly ruler can have. But no one will deny that this very severity of the law was fitted to impress the Israelite, as nothing else could, with Gods absolute intolerance of sin and impurity, and make him feel that he could not trifle with God, and hope to sin with impunity.
And yet we must not forget that the law was adapted no less to reveal the other side of the Divine holiness; that "the Lord God is merciful and gracious, and of great kindness." For if the law of Leviticus proclaims that "without shedding of blood there is no remission," with equal clearness it proclaims that with shedding of blood there can be remission of sin to every believing penitent.
And this leads to the observation that this law was further adapted to the training of Israel for its world mission, in that to every thoughtful man it must have suggested a secret of redeeming mercy yet to be revealed. Every such one must have often said in his heart that it was "not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sin"; and that as a substitute for human life, when forfeited by sin, more precious blood than this must be required; even though he might not have been able to imagine whence God should provide such a Lamb for an offering. And so it was that the law was fitted, in the highest degree, to prepare Israel for the reception of Him to whom all these sacrifices pointed, the High Priest greater than Aaron, the Lamb of God which should "take away the sins of the world," in whose person and work Israels mission should at last receive its fullest realisation.
But the law of Leviticus was not only intended to prepare Israel for the Messiah by thus awakening a sense of sin and need, it was so ordered as to be in many ways directly typical and prophetic of Christ and His great redemption, in its future historical development. Modern rationalism, indeed, denies this; but it is none the less a fact. According to the Apostle, {Joh_5:46} our Lord declared that Moses wrote of Him; and according to Luke, {Luk_24:27} when He expounded unto the two walking to Emmaus "the things concerning Himself," He began His exposition with "Moses" and (Luk_24:44) repeated what He had before His resurrection taught them, that all things "which were written in the law of Moses" concerning Him, must be fulfilled. And in full accord with the teaching of the Master taught also His disciples. The writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews, especially, argues from this postulate throughout, and also explicitly affirms the typical character of the ordinances of this book; declaring, for example, that the Levitical priests in the tabernacle service served "that which is a copy of the heavenly things"; {Heb_8:5} that the blood with which "the copies of the things in the heavens" were cleansed, prefigured "better sacrifices than these," even the one offering of Him who "put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself"; {Heb_9:2-6} and that the holy times and sabbatic seasons of the law were "a shadow of the things to come." The fact is familiar, and one need not multiply illustrations. Many, no doubt, in the interpretation of these types, have broken loose from the principles indicated in the New Testament, and given free rein to an unbridled fancy. But this only warns us that we the more carefully take heed to follow the intimations of the New Testament, and beware of mistaking our own imaginings for the teachings of the Holy Ghost. Such interpretations may bring typology into disrepute, but they cannot nullify it as a fact which must be recognised in any attempt to open up the meaning of the book.
Neither is the reality of this typical correspondence between the Levitical ritual and order and New Testament facts set aside, even though it is admitted that we cannot believe that Israel generally could have seen all in it which the New Testament declares to be there. For the very same New Testament which declares the typical correspondence, no less explicitly tells us this very thing: that many things predicted and prefigured in the Old Testament, concerning the sufferings and glory of Christ, were not understood by the very prophets through whom they were anciently made. {1Pe_1:10-12} We have then carefully to distinguish in our interpretation between the immediate historical intention of the Levitical ordinances, for the people of that time, and their typical intention and meaning; but we are not to imagine with some that to prove the one is to disprove the other.
THE PRESENT DAY USE OF LEVITICUS
This very naturally brings us to the answer to the frequent question: Of what use can the book of Leviticus be to believers now? We answer, first, that it is to us, just as much as to ancient Israel, a revelation of the character of God. It is even a clearer revelation of Gods character to us than to them; for Christ has come as the Fulfiller, and thus the Interpreter, of the law. And God has not changed. He is still exactly what He was when He called to Moses out of the tent of meeting or spoke to him at Mount Sinai. He is just as holy as then; just as intolerant of sin as then; just as merciful to the penitent sinner who presents in faith the appointed blood of atonement, as He was then.
More particularly, Leviticus is of use to us now, as holding forth, in a singularly vivid manner, the fundamental conditions of true religion. The Levitical priesthood and sacrifices are no more, but the spiritual truth they represented abides and must abide forever: namely, that there is for sinful man no citizenship in the kingdom of God apart from a High Priest and Mediator with a propitiatory sacrifice for sin. These are days when many, who would yet be called Christians, belittle atonement, and deny the necessity of the shedding of substitutionary blood for our salvation. Such would reduce, if it were possible, the whole sacrificial ritual of Leviticus to a symbolic self offering of the worshipper to God. But against this stands the constant testimony of our Lord and His apostles, that it is only through the shedding of blood not his own that man can have remission of sin.
But Leviticus presents not only a ritual, but also a body of civil law for the theocracy. Hence it comes that the book is of use for today, as suggesting principles which should guide human legislators who would rule according to the mind of God. Not, indeed, that the laws in their detail should be adopted in our modern states; but it is certain that the principles which underlie those laws are eternal. Social and governmental questions have come to the front in our time as never before. The question of the relation of the civil government to religion, the question of the rights of labour and of capital, of land holding, that which by a suggestive euphemism we call "the social evil," with its related subjects of marriage and divorce, -all these are claiming attention as never before. There is not one of these questions on which the legislation of Leviticus does not cast a flood of light, into which our modern lawmakers would do well to come and walk.
For nothing can be more certain than this; that if God has indeed once stood to a commonwealth in the relation of King and political Head, we shall be sure to discover in His theocratic law upon what principles infinite righteousness, wisdom, and goodness would deal with these matters. We shall thus find in Leviticus that the law which it contains, from beginning to end, stands in contradiction to that modern democratic secularism, which would exclude religion from government and order all national affairs without reference to the being and government of God; and, by placing the law of sacrifice at the beginning of the book, it suggests distinctly enough that the maintenance of right relation to God is fundamental to good government.
The severity of many of the laws is also instructive in this connection. The trend of public opinion in many communities is against capital punishment, as barbarous and inhuman. We are startled to observe the place which this has in the Levitical law: which exhibits a severity far removed indeed from the unrighteous and undiscriminating severity of the earlier English law, but no less so from the more undiscriminating leniency which has taken its place, especially as regards those crimes in which large numbers of people are inclined to indulge.
No less instructive to modern lawmakers and political economists is the bearing of the Levitical legislation on the social question, the relations of rich and poor, of employer and employed. It is a legislation which, with admirable impartiality, keeps the poor man and the rich man equally in view; a body of law which, if strictly carried out, would have made in Israel either a plutocracy or a proletariat alike impossible. All these things will be illustrated in the course of exposition. Enough has been said to show that those among us who are sorely perplexed as to what government should do, at what it should aim in these matters, may gain help by studying the mind of Divine wisdom concerning these questions, as set forth in the theocratic law of Leviticus.
Further, Leviticus is of use to us now as a revelation of Christ. This follows from what has been already said concerning the typical character of the law. The book is thus a treasury of divinely-chosen illustrations as to the way of a sinners salvation through the priestly work of the Son of God, and as to his present and future position and dignity as a redeemed man.
Finally, and for this same reason, Leviticus is still of use to us as embodying in type and figure prophecies of things yet to come, pertaining to Messiahs kingdom. We must not imagine with some that because many of its types are long ago fulfilled, therefore all have been fulfilled. Many, according to the hints of the New Testament, await their fulfilment in a bright day that is coming. Some, for instance, of the feasts of the Lord have been fulfilled; as passover, and the feast of Pentecost. But how about the day of atonement for the sin of corporate Israel? We have seen the type of the day of atonement fulfilled in the entering into heaven of our great High Priest; but in the type He came out again to bless the people: has that been fulfilled? Has He yet proclaimed absolution of sin to guilty Israel? How, again, about the feast of trumpets, and that of the ingathering at full harvest? How about the Sabbatic year, and that most consummate type of all, the year of jubilee? History records nothing which could be held a fulfilment of any of these; and thus Leviticus bids us look forward to a glorious future yet to come, when the great redemption shall at last be accomplished, and "Holiness to Jehovah" shall, as Zechariah puts it, {Zec_14:20} be written even "on the bells of the horses."
William Robertson Nicoll, ed., The Expositor's Bible (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1887–1910) — public domain. 65 of 66 books (1 Corinthians is not separately keyed, as that volume carries no machine-parseable verse references); section-level commentary keyed to the opening verse. Introductory and overview sections not keyed to a specific passage are excluded.
The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary 1892 · Public Domain On v1 The Law of the Burnt Sacrifices
The Law of the Burnt Sacrifices
SUGGESTIVE READINGS
Read full note →
Lev_1:1.—Lord called … and spake. From within the Tabernacle: God’s first habitation among men. Never before had He “dwelt with men on the earth”; He speaks now for the first time from His holy tent in Israel’s midst. It foreshadowed the “Word tabernacling among us” (Joh_1:14). “The Lord called” is a phrase specially used when important communications were to follow; as from the burning bush (Exo_3:4), and from Sinai’s heights (Lev_19:3-20). The law of commandments was given to Moses amid flames and thunder, as being condemnatory of man’s sin. Now, the law of sacrifice is given in gracious communication through Moses, as revealing God’s plan of mercy. For us, in these Christian times, the gentler teachings of the Mount of Beatitudes form our law of duty and of life.
Lev_1:2.—If any man of you bring. God assumes—
(1) That men would seek Him; would draw near to Him in the sacred tent, wherein He had come so near to men. If so, surely more readily and gratefully we should seek Him in Jesus. “God was in Christ,” etc. (2Co_5:19).
(2) That men will seek Him, bringing offerings; some presentation as a token of homage and gratitude for His gifts to them; or some propitiation as a lament over their sin and an appeal to His mercy. God still looks for offerings as we “come before His presence”; what shall we render? what worthiest presentation can we take?
Lev_1:3.—A burnt sacrifice. This expressed the offerer’s surrender of himself unto God as “a living sacrifice” (Rom_12:1). The victim must have no blemish, must be the choicest product of his pastures; for God asks, and will only receive, our best (Mal_1:14). It must be offered “of his own voluntary will,” or rather “for his own acceptance,” expressing his great concern to win God’s gracious regard; and indeed, we ought to concern ourselves supremely for this; “in Thy favour is life.” And he must offer it “at the door of the tabernacle,” as being unworthy to enter. With humility and reverence, and a lowly sense of demerit, we should venture near God.
(a) Christ is herein typified; our Sacrifice “without blemish,” offered for man’s “acceptance,” ere He “entered the holy place” (Heb_9:12-24).
(b) The Christian is prefigured; “yielding himself alive unto God,” “holy and acceptable,” ere he is admitted into covenant privileges within the Church now, and finally into God’s presence in heaven.
Lev_1:4.—Put his hand upon the head. An act of transfer: threefold; signifying transference of his right of possession in the victim, his sense of sin to the victim, and his substitution for suffering of the victim. Thus the Christian gives up all rights of self-possession (“Ye are not your own”): thus also the sinner lays all his sin, and the believer all his hope, on Christ his sacrifice and substitute. It must be the individual’s own act, none can do it for another; every one must himself lay “his hand” on Christ.
Lev_1:5.—He shall kill the bullock. Thereby he identified himself with the victim designated to die, and thereby claimed the “atonement” effected by its sacrificial substitution. To be saved we must also be identified with Christ in His death, and thereby inherit His atonement. “The priest shall bring the blood,” not the offerer; for the priestly offices of Christ are essential; man must let Jesus do all the work of propitiation. “Sprinkle the blood round about upon the altar”; attesting thereby that life had been given up in sacrificial Buffering unto God. Christ’s death is the sinner’s death, and “the blood of sprinkling” testifies that “He made His soul an offering for sin.” Diffused “round about upon the altar,” the blood is the memorial of an accomplished atonement, the seal of an accepted sacrifice.
Lev_1:6-9—Fire upon the altar … an offering made by fire. Once lighted, that fire was never more to go out (ch. Lev_6:13). Yet every part of the victim must be “washed” faultlessly clean before being placed on the altar: only the absolutely clean can be acceptable to God. And then the entire victim, every part thereof, must ascend in sacrificial fire unto God. Thus
(1) Christ our atonement-offering must Himself be “holy, harmless, undefiled”; and must also be completely sacrificed for man’s sin. And
(2) Christian life must likewise be both thoroughly sanctified and wholly devoted unto God. “Therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s” (1Co_6:20).
A sweet savour unto the Lord. The very virtue and essence of the offering ascended by fire from the altar on earth to God in heaven. Duly offered by fire, the sacrifice was “a sweet savour” to the Lord. Christ’s sacrifice was: “He gave Himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet smelling savour” (Eph_5:2). Christian self-consecration is: “For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ” (2Co_2:15). Christian life perpetuates on earth and yields continually to heaven the incense of a pure offering, “an odour of a sweet smell, a sacrifice acceptable, well-pleasing to God” (Php_4:18).
Lev_1:10-13.—A burnt sacrifice of the flocks. Only the wealthier offerers could bring the oostlier sacrifice “of the herd” (Lev_1:3). God equally provides for the less opulent among the people; gives directions for their sacrifices just as specific, denoting that He valued their presentation as much as the costlier offering. Our straitened lot does not release us from God’s claims, neither is our humbler gift depreciated by God. But He requires entirety in all our sacrifices, that we devote to Him our utmost, our all. “Bring it all and burn it upon the altar.”
Lev_1:14-17—A burnt sacrifice of fowls. Thus God, with minute care, arranges for the poorest, that none may feel God’s requirements too heavy for them to meet, or deem their poverty a disqualification for approaching Him acceptably. In this instance, however, the priest was to bring the bird to the altar and slay it (Lev_1:15), thereby giving peculiar importance to the poor man’s offering as worthy special attention; for God has always put honour on the sacrifices of the poor, as our Lord did on the widow’s mite. Yet insignificant as was the offering of the poor, it must as fully denote entire self-devotion to God. He prizes the love which shows itself in our casting in “all our living” (Mar_12:44).
INTRODUCTORY HOMILIES
(A). THE LEVITICAL RITUAL
That Moses was the author of this Book is acknowledged by most competent scholars. The events of the Book cover only about a month of time, i.e., from the erection of the tabernacle to the numbering of the people, and they relate to the establishment of sacrificial worship among the Hebrews in the wilderness of Sinai.
I. Although the words of Leviticus were written by Moses, they were dictated by the Lord.
The first verse of the Book decides this point, Moses records the utterances that proceeded from the tabernacle. So far then as Leviticus is concerned, we have the thoughts of God in the words of God, and, as such, they deserve our reverent attention, as indicating Jehovah’s desire for our acceptable approach to Him.
Note that
(1) the pure ethical teaching of the Levitical ritual could not have been invented by a people so perverse and prone to corruption as Israel;
(2) and they would not voluntarily have put themselves under such restrictions if they could. The revelation of God to Israel, through His servant Moses, was the outcome of the Divine disposition to communicate to and commune with man, of His deep concern for human holiness and happiness; this the basis and spring of all revelation and blessing to our race. [See Illustrative Addenda, p. 18, Revelation.]
II. Although the rites of Leviticus have been superseded, its moral teaching has not been abrogated.
If read in connection with the Epistle to Hebrews (which is its best commentary) lessons upon Christian work, worship, witnessing may be gathered. Christ came not to destroy the law, but to give it a fuller and deeper significance, to exemplify and enforce the principles therein taught. The perfect ethics of the Gospel have their germs and roots in the law, both enjoin holiness to the Lord.
III. Although the sacrifices of Leviticus have been discontinued, the one offering of Christ abideth for ever.
We need no material altar or sacrifice; and, therefore, no human priest. Christ finished His atoning work upon the Cross—appears now as “Lamb in the midst of the throne,” showing that while He was once a victim (“Lamb”) He is now a victor (“throne”). The law is our schoolmaster to lead us to Christ. Except read in light of the New Testament, Leviticus becomes a form without power, shadow without substance. With joy we may draw water out of these wells of salvation. In its typical rites we may apprehend Him who hath obtained eternal redemption for us.—Rev. F. W. Brown.
(B). COMMUNION WITH GOD BY A REDEEMED PEOPLE THROUGH ALTAR OFFERINGS
The Exodus sacrifices, those offered by the children of Israel while in Egypt, i.e., the paschal lamb and unleavened bread, had reference and significance wholly to their redemption: deliverance from death and bondage. The Levitical sacrifices were those of a saved people, and were appointed for their acceptable approaches to God their Saviour. Instead, therefore, of seeing Christ as redeeming us, we see Him in His work for those already redeemed; bringing them into fellowship with God and restoring them when they fail or fall. To hold communion with God they need Christ both as Offering and Mediator, Sacrifice and Priest; thus He appears in the tabernacle services. Gathering all the tabernacle offerings into one view, remark that:
I. Altar offerings and tabernacle ministries all reach their completion in Christ.
He is the Burnt Offering, Meat Offering, Peace Offering, Sin Offering, Trespass Offering for His people. “When He said, sacrifice and offering and burnt offering and offering for sin Thou wouldst not, neither hadst pleasure therein, which are offered by the law; then said He, Lo I come to do Thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that He may establish the second” (Heb_10:8-9). By the one oblation of Himself He has stood in all those relations; relations precious to God, needful to His Church.
1. In each offering three distinct objects are present: the offering, the priest, the offerer. Christ is each of and all these. So manifold are the relations in which Christ has stood for man and to man that all types are required to represent His fulness. First He comes as Offerer; but we cannot see the Offerer without the offering; and the Offerer is Himself the Offering; and He who is both Offerer and Offering is also the Priest.
(1) As offerer, we see Him our Substitute, “fulfilling all righteousness.”
(2) As priest, we see Him our Mediator, ministering between God and Israel.
(3) As offering, He is seen the Innocent Victim, a sweet savour to God, yet bearing the sin and dying for it.
(1) The offerer sets forth Christ in His Person; who became man to meet God’s requirements.
(2) The offering presents Him in His character and work, as the victim by which atonement was ratified.
(3) The priest shows Him in His official relation as the appointed intercessor.
2. The difference in the several offerings asks notice; the Burnt, the Meat, the Peace offerings, etc. They represent different aspects of Christ’s offering. [For their different meaning compare Homilies on each.]
3. The offerer himself also reflects Christ in His diverse aspects. The faithful Israelite stands, in one instance, as a sinless offerer, presenting a “sweet smelling savour” for acceptance with God, not propitiating for sin; in another as a convicted sinner, offering an expiatory sacrifice which bears the pain and penalty of his transgressions.
The offering of Christ was but one, and but once offered; but as Christ’s fulness and relations are so manifold, all aspects are needful to represent Him in those manifold relations and His various work for us.
4. The different grades in the various offerings is equally significant; the bullock, the lamb, the dove. And these denote the different estimates and apprehensions formed of Christ by His people. Christ’s work is so complete that each aspect may be differently apprehended according to the measure of light in the believer. Some never go beyond the conception of Christ as their Paschal Offering, securing their redemption from Egyptian bondage and death. Others, however, see Him as their Burnt Offering, wholly devoted to God for them; while to others He is as the passive Lamb silent and submissive in affliction; and to others the mourning Dove gentle and sorrowful in His innocency.
II. Altar offerings and tabernacle ministries were designed for Israel’s acceptable communion with God.
The types of Leviticus, in distinction from the types of redemption or deliverance from doom, give us the work of Christ in its bearing on worship and communion.
1. They meet the needs of a ransomed people in providing for their access to God. If they come for consecration they bring the burnt offerings: if for grateful acknowledgment of Divine bounty and graciousness, they bring the food offerings; if for reconciliation after ignorant misadventure or neglect of duty or temporary transgression, they bring their peace or trespass offering, &c. But they all provide a basis for access to and acceptance with God.
How thoroughly all these qualities unite in the one offering of Jesus is manifest; so that we, redeemed by Him, come before God with His merits and graces, and are accepted in Him. “Therefore, being justified by faith, we have peace with God, through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand.… and not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement” (Rom_5:1-2; Rom_5:11).
2. Christ’s work as connected with the communion of His people, must be viewed under manifold representations. The Offering first: for His one oblation
“Provides for those who come to God
An all-prevailing plea.”
Yet how few believers enter earnestly into the manifold aspects and alms of Christ’s one offering represented in the various victims and the arrangements for their sacrifice. They read of Him as the Sin Offering, the Burnt Offering, &c., but no corresponding thought is suggested to them by this distinction. It is enough for them that the blood of the Paschal Lamb has been sprinkled on their door post and they are saved: they inquire not more concerning Him. But they who would know the joy of communion must go from strength to strength in the knowledge of the grace and work of Jesus. Have they known Him as the Paschal Lamb? They will then seek to know Him as the offering within the Tabernacle. Have they learnt Him in His different relations as offering? They will then seek to know Him in His Offices as Priest: His ministrations for us within the Holy Place: His grace and acceptableness as our Mediator at the altar: His free entrance on our behalf into the presence of God.
Thus, redemption being known, the Levitical sacrifices relate to the access of a chosen people to God: and show Christ as He is discerned by one who already knows the certainty of redemption; Christ the Priest, the Offerer, the Offering: Christ as meeting all that a sinner saved needs in approaching to God: Christ for the believer, and all that Christ is to the believer as keeping up his daily communion with God, meeting his needs in his access to Jehovah.—Homiletically arranged by Editor from “Jukes on the Offerings.”
SECTIONAL HOMILIES
Topic.—WORSHIP BY SACRIFICE (Lev_1:1-9)
A great change had now occurred in the conditions of worship. God had hitherto declared His will amid terrible manifestations. The people had stood afar off in fear. Only through Moses, as a daysman betwixt them, had God spoken to men, or men approached Him. Now the Lord had commanded, “Build Me a tabernacle that I may dwell among them” (Exo_25:8). Within their camp was a smoking altar, whose incense was a voiceless but constant prayer; and a Holy of Holies, in whose mysterious recesses dwelt the unseen Jehovah. To Him all the people were to approach, presenting their sacrificial offerings to Him for propitiation and consecration.
I. ACCEPTABLE WORSHIP MUST BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH DIVINE DIRECTION.
1. Many approach God with the feeling that He is glad to have the attention of men, and will welcome them under any circumstances. But He has made conditions for acceptable worship. It must be with
(a) An obedient spirit. “Not every one that saith, Lord, Lord, etc., but he that doeth the will of My Father.”
(b) A reverent spirit. “Put thy shoes from off thy feet.”
(c) Faith. “He that cometh to God must believe,” etc.
The people who had been so awestricken by the voice from the Mount that “they entreated that the word should not be spoken to them any more” would not venture to approach Jehovah unless called, nor in any way than the appointed. God has a right to prescribe the methods by which He shall be worshipped, and it is a proof of His mercy that He entered into minute details.
2. In any way that God commands, worship is a priceless privilege.
Here He appoints approach through sacrifices. Origin of sacrifice seems to have been man’s feeling of sin and need, and conviction of obligation to God. First recorded sacrifice is Abel’s offering. From that time sacrifice became a common method of worship. God took this method of expressing religious feelings and thoughts, and taught the people to use it in approaching Him, but in elevated and refined forms. It was figurative and symbolic.
3. God’s appointed way for the approach of men to Him has always been by sacrifice. The object of sacrifice was to awaken and maintain reverence for God, and express men’s feelings towards Him. Not now by the blood of bulls and goats, but the blood of Christ is the sacrifice by which we come to God. “He taketh away the first that He may establish the second.” But except through sacrifice no man may draw near. True religion is a revealed way of approach to God.
II. SACRIFICIAL WORSHIP WAS ORDAINED AS EXPRESSIVE OF THE WORSHIPPER’S VOLUNTARY AND ENTIRE DEDICATION TO GOD.
The burnt offering was the oldest symbol by which was sought communion with God. Its Hebrew name means “an ascending.” They declared by it
(a) Their aspiration after Him; (b) Their desire to do His will; (c) Their self-surrender to Him.
It was this devotion of soul which made the offering a “sweet savour unto Him.” Therefore the worshipper took prominent part in the act of sacrifice. Laid his hand on the victim to make it his representative. Then slew it. Priest dashed its blood against the altar, then cut it up and burned it. Blood signified the life, that by which life is supported. The word used for “blood” in earliest Old Testament times was “soul.” Blood was “holy”; never to be taken as food; was symbol of the immaterial and immortal. It meant, when dashed against the altar, that the real inward life must be devoted entirely to God; that the sacrificer offered himself, soul and body, in submission to God’s will.
III. SYMBOLIC WORSHIP BY SACRIFICE FINDS ITS FULL ELUCIDATION IN CHRISTIAN WORSHIP.
1. The burnt offering suggests the holiness of God. All Jewish sacrifices express the feeling from which a religious life flows as its source, the sense of sin and of the divine holiness. That ritual is pervaded with this recognition of holiness. The tabernacle, vessels, garments, the priests who minister and the people who worship, all must be holy. But in the burnt offering this was concentrated. Infinite holiness claims the life of men. Mounting upwards towards God by self-sacrifice; that is His will. That is the central idea of Christian living—“present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy,” etc.
2. The burnt offering suggests the spirit of acceptable Christian worship. It must be pure; and we are not pure. It is sacrilege to offer a polluted object in sacrifice to a holy God. New purposes, good resolutions, good acts, do not fit one already stained by sin to offer himself as an acceptable sacrifice. The burnt offering was always preceded by a sin offering. And “Christ has offered Himself a sacrifice for sins for ever”; we may therefore offer ourselves as living sacrifices, acceptable to God.
3. The burnt offering suggests the character of the acceptable Christian worshipper. He is indebted to Christ for access to the throne of grace; he knows that all his hope is in the sacrifice of Jesus. His only return, therefore, is the offering of himself as the sign and expression of the love of his heart. This offering of ourselves is (a) a whole self sacrifice; (b) a continual sacrifice—breathing life out in voluntary consecration. Such a breathing forth of self to Christ requires a constant kindling of spirit in love and devotion; a strong faith, and a habit of regarding one’s self, in all relations, as created to live for His glory.
All the solemnity of the temple, all the significance of its worship, and all the glory of the Divine presence in it, are realised in every consecrated life.
“For man the living temple is:—
The mercy-seat and cherubim
And all the holy mysteries,
He bears with him.”—Rev. Albert E. Durning.
Topic: A SWEET SAVOUR FOR ACCEPTANCE (Lev_1:9; Lev_1:13; Lev_1:17)
Thrice reiterated: “It is a burnt sacrifice, an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the Lord.”
Notable differences between the burnt offerings and the sin offerings: Burnt offerings were (a) sweet savour offerings (b) for acceptance; whereas sin offerings were (a) not of a sweet savour, and (b) were required as an expiation for guilt. (a) The sweet savour offerings, i.e., the burnt, the meat, and the peace offerings, were offered on the brazen altar, which stood within the court of the tabernacle. (b) The unsavoury offerings, i.e., the sin and trespass offerings, were not consumed on the altar, some being burnt on the earth without the camp, others were sprinkled by blood and ate by the priest. (a) In the “sweet savour” offerings sin is not seen or thought of; it is the faithful Israelite giving a pleasant offering to Jehovah. (b) In the sin offerings it is the reverse, it is a sacrifice charged with the sin of the offerer. Thus: in the “sweet savour” offerings the offerer comes for acceptance as a worshipper; whereas in the sin and trespass offerings he comes as a sinner to pay the penalty of guilt. Therein is suggested and pictured
I. A HOLY WORSHIPPER, PRESENTING BEFORE GOD A PERFECT AND PLEASANT OFFERING.
Not that the offerer himself is holy; but his offering, which God accepts in his stead, is a representative of perfectness, and its quality of perfection is transferred to the offerer. The act typifies a perfect man, in his approach to God, standing the test of fire, i.e., God’s searching holiness, accepted as a fragrant savour; the offering all ascending as a sweet offering to Jehovah.
1. The transaction represents man giving to God what truly satisfies Him. It is not a transaction symbolic of a sinner bearing his sin (that appears in the sin offering), but of man giving to God an offering so pleasing to Him that the “sweet savour” of it satisfies and delights Him. With our experience of what man is, it seems wondrous that he should ever perfectly perform his part. But in Christ man has so performed it; His offering was “a sweet savour unto the Lord.” Hence we are in the burnt sacrifice brought to consider, not Christ as the Sin Bearer, but
2. Christ, as man in perfectness, meeting God in holiness. The work of Jesus here is not “God hath made Him to be sin for us”; but rather, “He loved us, and gave Himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God of a sweet-smelling savour” (Eph_5:2). He appears in the burnt offering for us as man offering to God something which is most precious and most pleasing to Him.
Here note:
(a) The altar is “the table of the Lord” (Mal_1:12); whatever was put thereon was “the food of God.” Here, therefore, God finds that which suffices His longings; an offering which satisfies Him.
(b) The fire from heaven, emblem of God’s holiness, consumes the offering; and it all ascends as sweet incense before Him; betokening that all was worthy His acceptance, without fault.
(c) The victim was “without blemish”; and because of Christ’s unblemished sacrifice, His perfect spotlessness and devotedness was a sweet feast to the God of heaven.
II. A PERFECT AND PLEASANT OFFERING OFFERED TO GOD FOR HIS GRACIOUS ACCEPTANCE.
In itself “a sweet savour,” the burnt offering was presented “for acceptance” [the words in Lev_1:3 “of his own voluntary will” should read “to be accepted”; and are so rendered in the Sept. Vulgate, Targum, etc.]. It was offered to God to secure the acceptance of the offerer. Observe now Christ’s position as Offerer. He stood as Man for man under the law; hence:
1. His acceptance depended upon His perfectness. God made man upright; he erred and fell. God gave him opportunities and aids, for age after age, that he might again render himself acceptable to God: but in vain his efforts. The law then came; it taught him the conditions of righteousness; but none could fulfil it, and “there was none righteous, no not one.” How then could man be brought to meet God’s requirements? One way only remained (Rom_8:3-4): the Son of God undertook it for us. As man’s representative, He took our place; and there offered a perfect obedience, “a sacrifice without blemish,” for our “acceptance”; and thus answered the question and demand, Could Man bring an offering so acceptable as to satisfy God? He offered Himself; and His offering was accepted (Tit_2:14).
2. His complete acceptance guarantees His people’s also. And that it was completely accepted is assured by its being “all burnt on the altar”; nothing rejected, nothing left remaining. God gathered it all up in the incense of fire, as welcome and pleasant to Him; so that He received it all. All the virtue of that satisfactory offering is transferred from the offering to the offerer. And the believer is the offerer; his faith identifies him with Christ; he lays the hand of identifying trust on the Lord Jesus. Hence “by one offering He hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified” (Heb_10:14). “We are sanctified by the offering of the body of Jesus once for all” (Heb_10:10). Christ’s “atonement” was the satisfaction God receives for the perfectness which the offerer presents to Him. Christ only ever did this perfectly, and was accepted for us; and we are “complete in Him.”—Developed from “Jukes on the Offerings.”
Topic: SIGNIFICANCE OF THE BURNT OFFERING (Lev_1:3-9)
Probably we see the meaning of the Mosaic ritual more clearly than Hebrews did, for we look at it in the light of New Testament elucidation. Those who offered the sacrifices in the tabernacle knew only in part, and saw as through a glass darkly; now that the Great Sacrifice has been offered, we look at those rites face to face.
Among the Jews the burnt offering was the oldest and most significant, and announced, every day, truths of transcendent importance. Such sacrifices were symbolic of the kind of worship God requires of the human race. Notice:
I. THE NATURE OF THE BURNT OFFERING. Neither valueless nor unclean creatures were to be presented, but living, wholesome, sound, and valuable gifts; the pride and prime of the flocks and herds, “a male without blemish.” So God demands, as well as deserves, the first and best of all that we possess. He will not accept the refuse and dregs of our time and talents. Youth, strength, worth, and beauty are to be ungrudgingly, unreservedly given.
II. THE CHARACTER OF THE BURNT OFFERING.
(a) Voluntary. “He shall offer it of his own voluntary will.” Though commanded, it was not extorted; obedience was to be willing, not compelled. God treated Israelites as men, not machines; as servants, not slaves. Men have always been allowed to “choose whom they would serve”; it is so still, we may accept or reject the Great Sacrifice; we must present ourselves voluntarily to the Lord, none other is acceptable service.
(b) Vicarious. “And he shall put his hand upon the head of the burnt offering, and it shall be accepted for him, to make atonement for him.” This act indicated the identification of the offerer with the offering, and the transference of his guilt to it. The perfect suffered for the imperfect, the guiltless for the guilty. So Christ suffered in our stead, and bore our sins, “the just for the unjust, to bring us to God.” As we lay our hand, by faith, upon the spotless Lamb of God, we become identified with Him, and our guilt is transferred to Him. [See Addenda, p. 19 Propitiation.]
III. THE MANNER OF THE BURNT OFFERING. Not only strict injunction about what to be offered, and when, and where, but how the offering was to be presented.
(a) Orderly. “Order Heaven’s first law.” Minute directions given even to washing inwards and legs of victim, the plucking away of the crops of the pigeons and doves. Thus obedience was enjoined, resignation taught, and respect paid to Divine sovereignty. Voluntaryism was not to be latitudinarianism; God still requires order in our worship; forms may exist without frigid formality; and method, without mechanical monotony. Unrestrained religious fervour is only fanaticism or “will worship” and “strange fire.”
(b) Openly. “At the door of the tabernacle of the congregation,” not secretly in the tent, not away from open gaze in some hidden place, but publicly. Thus the worshipper became a witness and confessor before God and man. Witnessing for God, confession of Christ still required of all who profess to believe and worship. Our light is to “shine before men,” we are to be “living epistles known and read of all men.”
(c) Devoutly. “Before the Lord.” This expression repeated to remind the offerer he was observed and judged by the searching Eye that looks into the secrets of the heart. Consciousness of being “before the Lord” would beget humility, sincerity, solemnity. Let us remember that all we think and say and do is in the light of God. “All things are naked and opened unto the eyes of Him with whom we have to do.”
(d) Cheerfully. “A sweet savour unto the Lord.” As the fragrant flame ascended from the sacrifice, gladness and gratitude were symbolised, indicative of a joyful heart, and willing mind. God still requires sincerity and truth in the inward parts, and in the hidden parts we need to know wisdom. The holocaust thus taught the need of ardent love, aspiring desire, entire surrender, as the first essentials of real religion. In the self-sacrificing life and love of Christ those features meet in harmony and perfection. Though we are exempted from repeating the burnt offerings, we may present to God the sacrifice of a broken and contrite heart with the assurance it will not be despised.—F. W. Brown.
Topic: VARIETY IN SACRIFICE (Lev_1:10-17)
He who had, in Egypt, appointed for every household the one sacrifice of the Passover, now directs sacrifices of a wider and various order, graduated to the personal ability, and spiritual condition of each worshipper. These sacrifices which are to be brought to the Lord to propitiate His graciousness to them, are themselves the appointment of His graciousness to them. So absolute are His decrees concerning what is to be presented, and how, when and by whom to be presented, that to vary them at any suggestion of priest or priests, under any impulse of devotion, gratitude or fear, or through sense of dread and distress, would be to commit one of these transgressions which the sacrifices themselves were provided to meet. [See Maurice, Doctrine of Sacrifice.]
I. THE CONSCIOUSNESS OF SIN AND NEED FOR PROPITIATION PERVADES THE VARIED RANKS OF HUMAN SOCIETY.
Guilt is universal. “Rich and poor meet together,” in sense of personal transgression and necessity for a sacrifice. Hence the wealthy who could offer “sacrifice of the herd,” the middle class who could only bring “offering of the flocks,” and the poorest whose impecuniosity compelled them to bring an “offering to the Lord of fowls,” are all provided for in God’s arrangements for propitiatory sacrifices. [See Addenda, p. 19, Sacrifices of the Poor.]
1. The condition and history of every people showed the desire for sacrifice; that it could only be stifled when the strongest and deepest convictions of humanity were stifled. But where there was sense of guilt, dependence, obligation, thankfulness, there sacrifices were offered.
2. The entire Jewish people, irrespective of social gradation, had experienced God’s redeeming mercy, which constrained them all to seek Him with offerings. The Lord had ransomed them all, and was now drawing them into privileged relationship with Himself. He was “no respecter of persons”: all alike were within Divine grace. And equally “the grace of God which bringeth salvation hath appeared unto all men” (Tit_2:11).
3. In every human heart there dwells the condemnation for sin and the promptings to seek propitiation with God.
For though each man bears his own special sin, and each class in society carries its own distinctive transgression; yet all know that “all have sinned,” and that God requires of every “wicked man that he forsake his way and return unto the Lord” (Isa_55:7).
II. DIVINE PROVISION FOR PROPITIATION IS VARIED TO SUIT ALL GRADATIONS OF HUMAN SOCIETY.
In no demand He makes does He “exact more than our iniquity deserveth” Nay, He relieves the weight of requirement that none should find the yoke other than easy, and the burden light.
1. The resources and ability of the offerer are considered. God is no “hard taskmaster.” None can be discouraged by sense of inability.
2. No one is exempted from the demand of a propitiatory offering. The poorest are included in God’s arrangement equally with the wealthiest.
3. Liberty of choice is allowed that each may prove his sincerity by bringing his utmost and best. God tests us thus.
4. Humblest offerings were as acceptable with God as the costliest: evidenced in the minuteness of God’s directions for the poor man’s offering of the fowls.
5. Supreme importance was attached to the spirit in which the offering was brought (Lev_1:3). Thus “let us draw near with a pure heart” (Heb_10:22).
III. AMID ALL VARIETY IN SACRIFICES THE ONE QUALITY OF PROPITIATION WAS CONSPICUOUS AND INHERENT.
1. The quality of the offering, as faultless, was specified, indicating that substitution could only be effective as giving to God a sinless victim in place of a sinful offerer.
2. The identifying act of the offerer denoted his sense of deserving the fate of the victim about to die.
3. His being detained at the door of the tabernacle until the sacrifice was offered impressed the truth that God was too holy for sinful man to approach until propitiated by sacrifice.
4. By the process of cleansing, flaying, and burning, a typical foreshadowing was enacted of the atoning sufferings of Christ, as the world’s atonement, the “propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the whole world” (1Jn_2:2). And in that all-inclusive sacrifice every variety of the human family has a share; none too poor to be excluded, none too wealthy to be exempted; for “all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.”
OUTLINES ON VERSES
Lev_1:1.—Theme: GOD WITHIN THE TABERNACLE. “And the Lord spake unto him out of the tabernacle of the congregation.”
The tabernacle was erected in the midst of a people supernaturally separated from the rest of mankind to be the recipients and mediators of a revelation which Jehovah would make of Himself to the world. In it a constant worship was to be maintained by the priests in the name of the holy nation.
I. Within the sanctuary God makes His presence known.
He may do it by “calling” men to Him there, or by “speaking” to them in messages of truth and life. Many have found, who entered the sanctuary, “surely God is in this place.” He is there—
1. Invisible. Moses saw not God; but “no man hath seen God at any time.” He is the “King immortal, invisible.” Yet there are solemn realities which eye hath not seen. The material world has in it many invisible facts: forces and agencies hidden from physical sight. Life also is crowded with invisible activities, energies of vast influence which elude vision. Holy places are not void scenes, an Unseen Presence is there.
2. Recognised. A solemn symbol dwelt in the tabernacle: the shekinah cloud. We have no visible sign; but none the less God makes His presence realised in His tabernacles now. He has spiritual resources for attesting that He is amidst “the congregation” still.
3. Gracious. Not as on Sinai, too awful for men to bear the sight; but gently dwelling above the mercy-seat. How graciously the Lord reveals Himself in His holy place now; to arouse the heedless, allure the sinful, heal the stricken, reveal His compassion, cleanse the contrite, save the trustful soul.
II. Within the tabernacle God sends His messages of redemption to the congregation.
Here the Lord sent directions for sacrifices which should be for an “atonement.” The messages through Moses contained a system of religious truth answering all the spiritual necessities of Israel, revealing:
(1) The nature and character of God.
(2) The covenant relation between Him and them.
(3) Provision for the pardon and restoration of the penitent transgressor.
(4) The condemnation of the wilfully and persistently disobedient.
In these Christian times He sends tidings and offers of redemption unto His people; gracious messages of salvation in Christ to the congregations who gather.
1. By His minister and representative: as by Moses.
2. Based upon the merits of atoning sacrifice.
3. Requiring man’s response and cooperation.
III. Within the sanctuary God is willing to meet every soul who will seek Him.
“If any of you,” etc. No restriction. True we may meet the Lord elsewhere than in His sanctuaries now; yet none but may find Him there. Only in order to meet Him acceptably, now as then, each must
1. Come with sacrificial offering: i.e., resting on the atonement of Christ.
2. With thorough earnestness of desire. Not perfunctorily, not in alien mind, but “of his own voluntary will,” i.e., with personal effort to meet Him acceptably, and in His own way.
3. With self-dedication. Suggested in the burnt offering. Lay yourself before God, He will “receive you graciously.”
Lev_1:2.—Theme: REVELATION OF PROPITIATION. “Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, Ye shall bring your offering of the herd and of the flock”.
I. The Author of Divine Revelation—God. “The Lord called unto Moses.”
God could reveal: He knew what man needed: would not remain silent, and let man perish for want of light additional to that of Nature.
II. The Medium of Divine Revelation—Man. To a representative and brother of our race Divine communications came. Most reasonable and appropriate vehicle. Glorifying to God: dignifying to man.
III. The Scene of Divine Revelation—Tabernacle. Sacred place fitted to be audience chamber with Deity. Revelations given in sacred spots, as well as to select persons.
IV. The Means of Divine Revelation—Speech. The Lord “spake” unto Moses, used human speech, though imperfect; other language would have been unintelligible and useless.
V. The Purpose of Divine Revelation—Redemption. To sanctify from guilt, to save from consequences of bin, to recover holiness in man here and for ever. Such redemption
(1) Mediatorial—through priest;
(2) Sacrificial—through oblations.—F. W. B.
Lev_1:2.—Theme: THE WAY OF ACCESS TO GOD. “If any man of you bring an offering unto the Lord, ye shall bring your offering of the cattle, even of the herd, and of the flock.”
Human liberty is here recognised, but it is a liberty emphatically restricted. Any man might bring an offering if he desired; but if he did, he must bring it according to absolute directions. In our dealings with God there must be acceptance of a Will beyond our own will; obedience to commands; reverent and humble observance of Divine authority. “Who art thou that repliest against God?” “Hath not the potter power over the clay?” etc. “Whatsoever He saith unto thee, do it.” “If ye be willing and obedient,” etc.
I. In our approach to God nothing is left to human invention.
1. There are conditions to our acceptable approach. Therefore, he who would draw nigh should pause and ask solemnly: “Wherewith shall I come before the Lord, or bow before the high God?” Do not “rush in where angels fear to tread.” Think Whom you approach, and inquire how to draw near aright.
2. There are minutely revealed conditions for our approach. Neither priest nor people might take one step except as directed (Lev_8:36; Lev_9:6-7). We may be sincere and even devout in spirit when adopting methods and ideas of our own in spiritual behaviour; but God will not have our way, but His way. It must be according to the revelation of God.
II. For our rightful approach to Him God has made full and gracious provision.
1. A place for meeting God (Lev_1:1). Within the sanctuary; at the mercy-seat; in the “secret place of the tabernacle of the Most High” God asks us apart. “Having boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus.” Israel had a “worldly sanctuary,” because then “the way into the holiest was not yet made manifest while as the first tabernacle was yet standing.” Now there is no outer court for the people and inner temple for the priest; all may meet God in “heavenly places, in Christ, Jesus”—drawing near God in blessed privacy.
2. A sacrificial basis of acceptance.
Being guilty man needs propitiatory sacrifice. “Without shedding of blood there is no remission.” This basis of a propitiatory sacrifice constituted Israel an acceptable people with God. The atonement of Christ is the guarantee of our welcome also. “Through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all” we may approach “in full assurance of faith.”
3. A mediatorial ministry “The priests shall bring the blood” (Lev_1:5). “We have such a High Priest … a minister of the sanctuary,” etc (comp. Heb_8:1-2). Jesus represents us there continually; “in the presence of God for us”; and He presents to God our sacrifices and gifts; “by Him, therefore, let us offer the sacrifice,” etc. (Heb_13:15)
III. By such arrangements for our acceptable approach, God has laid us under most solemn obligations to seek Him.
1. Shall God wait in vain within the holy place, and none draw near? He says, “Seek ye My face.” Surely our “hearts shall say to Him, Thy face, O Lord, will I seek.”
2. Can sinful man despise the sacrifice of Jesus offered for his propitiation? Nay! “My soul looks backs to see,” etc.
3. With such a Priest within the Holy Place, have we no mediation to ask, no sins to confess, no offerings to bring?
Lev_1:3.—Theme: NECESSITY OF SACRIFICE. “If his offering be a burnt sacrifice.”
The fall of man necessitated “the republication of the religion of Nature (as Butler says) with additional truths and additional proofs.” Man required to be taught how depraved he had become, and how he might be delivered from the guilt and consequences of that fallen state. The burnt offering was eminently calculated to impress upon worshippers in the tabernacle services
I. The heinous nature of sin.
II. The wickedness of idolatry.
III. The oneness of Israel’s nationality.
IV. The duty and privilege of Divine worship.
V. The need of substitutionary sacrifice in order to salvation.
VI. The sovereign claim of Jehovah upon His people’s life and love.
The doctrine of mediation and vicarious sacrifice is taught in Nature, we get the principles there; but the eternal and spiritual truths, which those principles illustrate, are presented in the Levitical Ritual; and pre-eminently in the Redemption wrought by Jesus Christ. The directions concerning the burnt offering show that the recognition of the existence of sin and the need of its removal in order to acceptable service lies at the foundation of the Mosaic and Christian economies.—F. W. B.
Lev_1:3.—Theme: VOLITION IN WORSHIP. “He shall offer it of his own voluntary will.”
As expressive of our Saviour’s act in devoting Himself to be man’s sacrifice, it accords with the grand statement, “Lo I come to do Thy will, O God; Thy law is within My heart.” And as expressive of the soul’s act in coming before God with his own offerings of love and service, or with the free exercise of trust in Jesus’ atonement, it suggests the right state in which to seek God. The offering is not the chief thing in the transaction, but the spirit of the man occupied in it.
I. True worship springs from the soul. Should be—
1. Spontaneous. As a joy, not constrained, not reluctant.
2. Grateful. Recognising the privilege, seizing the gracious opportunity.
3. Earnest. With a whole heart in the act.
II. Acceptable worship depends on the offerer’s will. On—
1. The thoroughness of his purpose. Christ asks, “What wilt thou?” and makes His answer wait upon our desire.
2. The ardour of his approach. Come with intensity of aim, ask large things, cry, “I will not let Thee go except Thou bless me.”
3. The individuality of his suit. Every man must be himself in worship, not echo others’ prayers, not repeat others’ acts, but stand before God as a worshipper, having something which is “his own”—to repent of, to ask for, to offer
III. Sacrificial worship is the transgressor’s personal transaction.
1. The victim must be one which the offerer himself brings. We must “bring” our sacrifice now, come before God with the mention and merits of Christ.
2. The offerer must exert his own faith in the act of substitution. Claiming Christ’s merit, identifying himself with the atonement of Calvary by his appropriating faith.
3. The transaction must be wholly one of volition. God does not force us unwilling. We must act with a prompt and earnest spirit, or miss the precious benefits of the Redeemer’s sacrifice.
Note: Faith, when real, acts eagerly. Love is always swift in volition. Misery (as over sin) goes willingly to the Lord with its “sacrifice of a broken heart,” or with trust in the redemption of the Cross.
IV. Self dedicatory worship draws its virtues from the free will which prompts it.
1. Only thus is it sincere. Yet some offer themselves to God moved by example, induced by companions, under transient excitement, agitated by alarm, but void of full, and earnest, and determined action of the will.
2. Only thus is it pleasing to God. He “loveth a cheerful giver.” Whatever we bring, it should be with enentirety, resoluteness.
3. Only thus can it gain us spiritual benefit. “With what measure we mete it shall be measured to us.” If we are heedless and heartless in going to God, He will return leanness to our souls. But He has “abundant pardon,” “plenteous redemption,” “abounding grace,” for earnest souls.
They who give themselves wholly and voluntarily to the Lord, He “receives graciously and loves freely.” [See Addenda, p. 19, Consecration.]
Lev_1:4.—Theme: ACCEPTANCE WITH GOD. “And he shall put his hand upon the head of the offering.”
This book might be called the Gospel according to Leviticus, for it exhibits the gospel in its spirit, though under figurative rites. One of the fathers says that every syllable of this book contains a mystery, and Paul tells us that “the law was a shadow of good things,” etc.
If a man happen to find a monument of antiquity with inscriptions of old letters and characters, how anxious is he to decipher the meaning and reveal the hidden mystery! Much more should we be anxious to examine and investigate the figures of this book. Every sacrifice was a kind of silent sermon presented to the eye, indicating the nature of Christ’s office and the design of His death. And by such visible signs the gospel was preached; just as when John said, “Behold the Lamb of God.”
I. That God alone is competent to reveal the nature of the sacrifice and the method of our acceptance.
He strongly resents every neglect of His prescribed institutions and every invasion of His prerogative.
“The Lord called to Moses and spake unto him,” etc. In the setting up of the tabernacle, every particular is closed with “As the Lord commanded Moses.” Learn, then, how sweet commanded obedience is. “In vain do ye worship by tradition.”
If none of the outward offices were left to human invention, how much less able is man to originate the terms of acceptance with God! None but God knew the evil of sin, the value of the soul, the conditions of worthy approach, etc. God prescribes a method of acceptance and worship for all classes. All stand in equal need of an interest in the atonement; all must seek it on the same terms, by God’s prescribed rule; all shall derive the same benefit. The rich were to present a bullock; but where the ability differed the offering differed. Those next in degree were to present a sheep or goat, and those poorer still were to present turtle doves or young pigeons.
It should be remembered that the offering of the Virgin Mary at the birth of our Lord was not a costly, but a simple, one—the humblest; no more than a turtle dove and two young pigeons. To put honour on humble poverty Jesus was born in a borrowed manger, and was buried in a borrowed grave. “Foxes have holes.” “God dwells with the poor in spirit.”
II. That God prescribes not only the offering itself but the spirit in which it should be presented.
1. It was to be a bullock, to show that the best of our possessions are to be offered to the Lord; and without blemish. God condemns those who brought the blind and lame. And it intimates, too, the purity of the appointed sacrifice. “Such an High Priest became us,” etc. The excellency and perfection of Christ had much to do with the efficacy of His sacrifice. “A lamb without blemish or spot.” “Who through the Eternal Spirit,” etc.
Some are desirous of a cheap religion, but when God provided a sacrifice it was the most costly; “not silver and gold, but precious blood.” As God deemed nothing too precious for us, we deem nothing too precious for Him.
2. It was to be freely offered. “Of His own voluntary will.” To show that God does not accept constrained service. “The people offered willingly.” “Thy people shall be willing in the day of Thy power.” “With my whole heart have I sought Thee.” “I beseech you,” etc. (Rom_12:1).
3. It was to be openly presented—to show that we publicly confess Christ before men. “At the door of the congregation.” “I am not ashamed of the gospel.” “Whosoever is ashamed.” A public avowal—for the good of others and for the glory of God.
4. The offerer must take a distinct personal part in the transaction. “He shall put his hand upon the head of the burnt offering,” to show that he was deeply sensible of his need of mercy; to show that he fully concurred in the appointed sacrifice, that he was anxious to transfer all his guilt to the victim, and derived all his hope from it. “My faith would lay her hand.”
Our devout affections must centre in Christ; our only trust be reposed in Him. “We receive the atonement.” Not merely driven by the stress of necessity, but a hearty concurrence.
5. Not only was the victim slain, but the blood sprinkled.
6. The whole was to be presented by the priest. Not only at the altar, but within the veil.
III. That God has left us in no doubt of our acceptance when thus approaching Him in faith and prayer. “It shall be accepted for him, to make an atonement for him.”
1. The substitutionary offering is allowed by God to stand in the sinner’s stead—“accepted for him.”
2. The provision of the substitute is even a more welcome arrangement than that the sinner should bear his own punishment. “It shall be accepted.” God “desires not the death of a sinner,” is well pleased that we find escape by laying our hand on the Sacrifice of Calvary.
3. It effects a full “atonement” for the soul, satisfies the Divine requirements, and secures the justification of the believer. “There is, therefore, now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus.”
4. It makes the offerer himself an object of pleasure in God’s regard Not merely is our substitutionary offering “accepted” by God, but we become ourselves beloved for the sake of our trust in the Sacrifice. “I will accept you, saith the Lord God” (Eze_43:27).
Lev_1:9.—Theme: THE ALTAR FIRE “An Offering made by Fire.”
The flame devours. The victim is consumed. Seek the truth reflected from the altar fire. The Cross flashes it out vividly. The fire consumes the sacrifice.
I. That fire tells what is sin’s due.
It portrays what the guilty must bear. Look on the consuming blaze, and think how the “fire shall be ever burning, it shall never go out.” Remember Christ’s picture of the sinner’s doom—“everlasting fire”; “where their worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched.” Ponder, therefore, sin’s sure doom!
II. That fire suggests the anguish of Christ.
Type of the Cross is that altar; and of the sufferings of Jesus, that burning fire. “He made His soul an offering for sin.”
“O, the pangs His soul sustained!”
His anguish was as a “consuming fire,” it raged within Him as a scorching blaze. It was as though God’s wrath was hot and devastating upon Him. Mark, therefore, the Saviour’s redeeming grace!
III That fire portrays the fervour of Christian consecration.
With burning devotion, and flaming seal, and self-consuming love, ardent, glowing, manifest. Shall Christ’s “zeal consume Him,” and ours lack intensity? The entire life of a Christian should be one continuous blaze of flaming love and ardent devotion. [See Addenda: p. 19, Consecration.]
Lev_1:9.—Theme: THE SPIRIT’S EFFICACY. “An offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the Lord.”
The Holy Spirit is symbolised by fire. All the grace and virtue of sacrifices depend upon the Spirit
I. Altar sacrifices were consecrated by the element of Divinely kindled fire.
The fire came from heaven (comp. Lev_9:24): and any fire Lot thus supernaturally originated was offensive (comp. Lev_10:1). That fire coming “out from before the Lord” symbolises the Holy Ghost, which came as fire from God on the Pentecost. Only through the Spirit’s sanctifying could those offerings have become holy.
II. Christ’s sacrifice was rendered efficacious through the energy of the Holy Spirit.
He suffered in the spirit. “Who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God.” That Divine fire burned within the soul of Jesus: the Spirit was given without measure unto Him; and His sacred unction consecrated the sufferings of Jesus to be a perfect atonement for human sin.
III. Spiritual sacrifices depend for their sanctity on the Spirit s grace.
Of Jesus it was declared “He shall baptise you with the Holy Ghost and with fire.” Is not that the “Spirit of burning” which rendered “holy” everyone “written among the living in Jerusalem “? [See Isa_4:3-4.] This “manifestation of the Spirit” (1Co_12:7; 1Co_12:11) is the occasion of all Christian sanctity and of all acceptable sacrifice and service. His glowing grace and energy within the soul constrains and seals our devotions; and “the unction from the Holy One” (1Jn_2:20) makes our lives and offerings “a sweet savour unto the Lord.”
IV. All sacrifices sanctified by the Spirit rise as a delightful incense unto God.
When Noah, saved by the ark, burned his sacrifice of gratitude upon the altar he reared, “the Lord smelled a sweet savour” (Gen_8:21).
So from the holocaust in the tabernacle there arose “by fire a sweet savour unto the Lord.” The ransomed Israelites, brought again from captivity to God’s “holy mountain,” should once more offer their oblations, and God would “accept them with their sweet savour” (Eze_20:41). Supremely the Lord Jesus Himself was “an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet smelling savour” (Eph_5:2). And we, whom God “causeth to triumph in Christ,” are “unto God a sweet savour of Christ” (2Co_2:15).
Every sacrifice which is the out-flowing of our love and zeal for the Lord, becomes, through the virtue of the Spirit consecrating our gifts, “an odour of a sweet smell, a sacrifice acceptable, well pleasing to God” (Php_4:18).
The Holy Spirit is the sacred fire in the Christian life, by whose gracious influences our offerings ascend in sweetness and acceptableness “unto the Lord.” “Quench not the Spirit.” [See Addenda p. 19, The Ascending Fire.]
Lev_1:11. Theme: A LIFE-OFFERING. “He shall kill it on the side of the altar.”
I. Its substitutionary significance.
1. That the offerer deserved to forfeit his life.
2. That he sought escape from the penalty of his sinfulness.
3 That he believed God would accept the victim in lieu of himself.
4. That substitution not alone sufficed Jehovah, but was more acceptable to Him than the sinner’s death.
II. Its practical interpretation.
1. Life peculiarly belongs to God: it is supremely His part in creation. Lower things He gives to man; but life is His.
2. Representing thus His olaim on His creatures, it stands as the emblem of what we owe Him. What we owe we ought to pay. We should give our life to God. It is our duty.
3. It denotes that what is most precirus in us, and forms the supremely valuable element in our being, should all and wholly be the Lord’s. Not the inferior part, not the less essential qualities, not “part of the price,” but everything in us of worth: our life.
III. Its Gospel foreshadowing.
1. The body of Jesus is the offering pourtrayed. “A body hast Thou prepared Me.”
2. He yielded to God man’s duty: the dutiful life man had failed to surrender to Him.
3. He gave life in its perfectness to God. In Himself perfect, He offered Himself wholly and absolutely and perfectly to God: and the perfectly obedient Man then “seeing that all things were now accomplished, cried, It is finished, and gave up the ghost.”
Lev_1:13.—Theme: COMPLETENESS IN SELF DEVOTION. “The priest shall bring it all, and burn it on the altar.”
1. In this particular the Burnt offering differed from the Meat offering and Peace offering; for in these only a part was burnt with fire.
2. It differed also from the Sin offering, which though wholly burnt, was not burnt “on the alter.”
I. Man’s duty to God is the absolute surrender of all.
Not of one faculty or several; but the entirety.
1. This accords with Christ’s summary of the first commandment: which demands all the mind, all the soul, all the affection, all the strength. “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all,” etc. (Mat_22:37).
2. The minute and all-inclusive devotion of the victim affirms the same truth. The “head,” the “fat,” the “legs,” the “inwards” all are enumerated. Symbolic: “head” of thoughts; “fat” of vigour; “legs” of walk, conduct; “inwards” of affections and emotions.
II. Christ’s performance of Man’s duty to God was characterised by absolute surrender of all.
1. Jesus reserved nothing; He gave up all. Had there been but one thought in the mind of Christ not perfectly given to God, one affection in His heart not yielded to His Father’s will, one step in the walk of Jesus not taken for God but for His own pleasure, then He would not have offered Himself, or been accepted, as “a whole burnt offering” to Jehovah. But all was offered, and all was consumed on the altar.
2. From first to last, in Jesus, self had no place. So entirely was His whole life devoted to His Father that it almost seems He could have had no will of His own. Everything He did or said was for God. His first recorded words were, “I must be about My Father’s business”; His last, “It is finished.” Yet as perfect man, He had a human will, and human affections. But no one hour was spent, nor act performed for His own advancement or gratification; all was given in entire devotedness to God.
III. Christian self devotion will attempt to re produce Christ’s absolute surrender of all.
1. True, this is a conception of life repudiated by the world. “Men will praise thee when thou doest well to thyself” (Psa_49:18).
2. Few Christians exhibit such self devotion to God. Our thoughts are for self, our ease, our interest, etc. But if David resolved “Neither will I offer burnt offerings unto the Lord of that which doth cost me nothing”; if Ananias was punished for grieving the Spirit by “keeping back part of the price”; surely we whom “the love of Christ constraineth” should rise to highest devotion of our all to God; and, like our Lord who “gave Himself” (Eph_5:2) in all His perfectness, “yield ourselves unto God.”
ILLUSTRATIVE ADDENDA TO CHAPTER 1
Revelation. Varro, a Roman writer of the first century B.C., states, that in his day he had been at pains to collect the various opinions on the question “What is the true object of human life?” and had reckoned up as many as three hundred and twenty different answers. How much we need “the wisdom which is from above,” teaching from God! He reveals what we need to know for our truest good on earth, our acceptance with Him now, and our entrance at last into His presence. We are to listen to Him, and obey His word.
“ ’Tis revelation satisfies all doubts,
Explains all mysteries except her own,
And so illuminates the path of life
That fools discover it, and stray no more.”
—Cowper.
Dr. Taylor of Norwich once said to me (wrote John Newton), “Sir, I have collated every word in the Hebrew Scriptures seventeen times, and it is very strange if the doctrine of the atonement you hold should not have been found by me.” “I am not surprised at this” (John Newton answered); “I once went to light my candle, and could not, for the extinguisher was on it. Now prejudice, from education, learning, etc., often proves an extinguisher; it is not enough that you bring the candle, you must remove the extinguisher.”
The Ascending Fire. “The symbolism of this combustion (upon the altar) is manifest. It was a sending of the gift to God. After arranging the divided or the selected portions of the carcase in the heaven-born fire, which had issued forth from the Divine presence at the consecration of the tabernacle, they were burned, that is to say, they were etherialised and they rose to heaven as ‘a sweet savour.’ To burn was to effectually present.”—Principal Cave.
Sacrifices of the Poor. The Jews at Jassy still bring offerings of the fowls. “In one house” records those who were observers of the incident, “we came to the window of the house and saw distinctly what was going on within. A little boy was reading the prayers, and his widowed mother stood over him with a white hen in her hands. When he came to a certain place in the prayer, the mother lifted up the struggling fowl, and waving it round her head, repeated these words: ‘This be my substitute, this be my exchange: this fowl shall go to death and I to a blessed life.’ This was done three times over, and then the door of the house was opened, and out ran the boy carrying the fowl to the shocket, or slayer, to be killed by him in the proper manner.” This occurred on the eve of the Day of Atonement.
“Sacrifice is the first element of religion, and resolves itself in theological language into the love of God.”—Froude, “Short Stories.”
Propitiation. Cowper, the poet, speaking of his religious experiences, says, “But the happy period which was to shake off my fetters, and afford me a clear opening of the free mercy of God in Christ Jesus, was now arrived. I flung myself into a chair near the window, and seeing a Bible there, ventured once more to apply to it for comfort and instruction. The first verse I saw was the 25th of the 3rd of Romans: ‘Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in His blood, to declare His righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God.’ Immediately I received strength to believe, and the full beams of the Sun of Righteousness shone upon me. I saw the sufficiency of the Atonement He had made, my pardon sealed in His blood, and all the fulness and completeness of His justification. In a moment I believed and received the Gospel.”
Consecration. “And here we offer and present unto Thee, O Lord, ourselves, our souls and bodies, to be a reasonable, holy and lively sacrifice unto Thee,” etc.—Communion Service.
“From henceforth thou shalt learn that there is love to long for, pureness to desire, a mount of consecration it were good to scale.”—Jean Ingelow.
On the seal of the Baptist Missionary Society is the figure of an ox, standing patiently, with a plough on one side, and an altar on the other, with the inscription beneath: “Ready for either,” to serve or suffer.
Calvin’s motto was: “I give Thee all; I keep back nothing for myself.”
The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary (gen. ed. Joseph S. Exell; Funk & Wagnalls, c. 1892) — public domain (pre-1929). A full-Bible homiletical/sermon-outline anthology covering 65 of 66 books (2 John is absent from the source module). Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Sermon Bible 1900 · Public Domain On v1 Lev 1:1-6
Lev 1:1-6
I. The very same voice which proclaimed the commandments on Sinai is here said to announce the nature of the sacrifices, and how, when, and by whom they are to be presented. The unseen King and Lawgiver is here, as everywhere, making known His will. Those sacrifices which it was supposed were to bend and determine His will themselves proceeded from it.
Read full note →
II. These words were spoken to the children of Israel out of the tabernacle. The tabernacle was the witness of God’s abiding presence with His people, the pledge that they were to trust Him, and that He sought intercourse with them.
III. The tabernacle is represented as the tabernacle of the congregation. There, where God dwells, is the proper home of the whole people; there they may know that they are one.
IV. "Say to the children of Israel, If any of you bring an offering to the Lord." The desire for such sacrifice is presumed. Everything in the position of the Jew is awakening in him the sense of gratitude, of obligation, of dependence. He is to take of the herd and the flock for his offering. The lesson is a double one. The common things, the most ordinary part of his possessions, are those which he is to bring; that is one part of his teaching. The animals are subjects of man; he is to rule them and make use of them for his own higher objects; that is another.
V. The victim was taken to the door of the place at which all Israelites had an equal right to appear; but the man who brought it laid his own hand upon the head of it. He signified that the act was his, that it expressed thoughts in his mind which no one else could know of.
VI. The reconciliation which he seeks he shall find. God will meet him there. God accepts this sign of his submission. He restores him to his rights in the Divine society.
VII. Now it is that we first hear of the priests, Aaron’s sons. If there was to be a congregation, if the individual Israelites were not to have their separate sacrifices and their separate gods, then there must be a representative of this unity. The priest was consecrated as a witness to the people of the actual relation which existed between them and God.
F. D. Maurice, The Doctrine of Sacrifice Deduced from the Scriptures, p. 67.
References: Lev 1:1.—Parker, vol. iii., p. 126. Lev 1:1-9.—Ibid., pp. 13, 21, 29. Lev 1:4.—Spurgeon, Evening by Evening, p. 104. Lev 1:4, Lev 1:5.—Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xxx., No. 1771. Lev 1:5.—Ibid., No. 1772; Parker, Christian Chronicle, Jan. 22nd, 1885. Lev 1:9.—J. Fleming, The Gospel in Leviticus, p. 46. Lev 1-7.—J. Monro Gibson, The Mosaic Era, p. 171; Preacher’s Monthly, vol. ii., pp. 309, 311. Lev 2:1, Lev 2:2.—J. Fleming, The Gospel in Leviticus, p. 96. Lev 2:12-16.—Parker, vol. iii., p. 35. Lev 3—Ibid., pp. 42, 126. Lev 4—Ibid., p. 53. Lev 4:2, Lev 4:3.—J. Fleming, The Gospel in Leviticus, p. 107. Lev 4:3.—Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xiii., No. 739; Parker, vol. iii., p. 46. Lev 4:6, Lev 4:7.—Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xxx., No. 1780. Lev 4:27-31.—Ibid., vol. xviii., No. 1048. Lev 4:29.—Spurgeon, My Sermon Notes, p. 39. Lev 5—Parker, vol. iii., p. 59. Lev 5:15.—Ibid., p. 127. Lev 5:17, Lev 5:18.—Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xxiii., No. 1386. Lev 6:1-7.—Parker, vol. iii., p. 67. Lev 6:2, Lev 6:5.—J. Fleming, The Gospel in Leviticus, p. 114. Lev 6:9.—Parker, vol. iii., p. 128. Lev 6:12.—J. Fleming, The Gospel in Leviticus, p. 20. Lev 6:13.—W. Spensley, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xix., p. 344; Spurgeon, Morning by Morning, p. 197; Parker, vol. iii., p. 74; Homiletic Quarterly, vol. ii., p. 120. Lev 7:1.—Parker, vol. iii., p. 128. Lev 7:11-18.—Preacher’s Monthly, vol. ii., p. 313. Lev 7:27.—Parker, vol. iii., p. 130. Lev 7:29-31.—J. Fleming, Gospel in Leviticus, p. 74. Lev 7:37, Lev 7:38.—Homiletic Quarterly, vol. iv., p. 529. Lev 7—Parker, Christian Chronicle, May 22nd, 1879.
The Sermon Bible, ed. William Robertson Nicoll (1888–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
F. W. Grant 1903 · Public Domain On v1 Subdivision 1. (Lev 1:1-17; Lev 2:1-16; Lev 3:1-17; Lev…
Subdivision 1. (Lev 1:1-17; Lev 2:1-16; Lev 3:1-17; Lev 4:1-35; Lev 5:1-19; Lev 6:1-7.)
The offerings themselves.
Read full note →
In the first subdivision, then, we have the offerings in themselves, five in number, of which one, the meat, or as the Revised Version puts it, the meal-offering, is not a sacrifice, as no blood is shed in it, no atonement made; the other four are sacrificial: and here again two, -the burnt- and the peace-offering, -are of sweet savor, the last two not -the sin- and trespass-offerings -though here also the offering of the fat is distinguished from the rest, and is in one case (Lev 4:31) expressly stated to be for a sweet savor.
In the order of application to the need of man, that which we have here is reversed; the meal-offering being also in general the appendage of the burnt-offering -"the burnt-offering and its meal offering." It is very evident, therefore, that which we have here is the divine order, the other the human. Here, as we may say, the ladder of divine grace is let down from heaven; in the other case it is raised up to heaven. This last is also the order of the gospels in which we find again these four offerings, in Matthew the trespass-, in Mark the sin-, in Luke the peace-, and in John the burnt-offering. All this will come up for more examination as we go on with the book.
But there is a doctrine to which we are now brought in connection with these offerings which we must examine briefly before we enter upon the detailed exposition of them. It is the doctrine of the
Atonement.
We have had the thought presented to us in Exodus, just as we have had the offerings before us already; but it is in Leviticus that we come to the development of these. They could not have been treated of before without anticipating largely what we have now come to in the regular order of Scripture, always perfect and to be adhered to if we are to have proper apprehension of the truth it reveals.
In Genesis we had at the outset the effect of sacrifice in the acceptance of Abel. "He obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts" (Heb 11:4). In the Lord’s words to Cain an offering for sin is plainly stated to be God’s way of acceptance for the sinner. In Noah the altar first comes openly in sight, and God smells the sweet savor and will not curse. In Abraham’s offering of Isaac we learn other most precious truths. In Exodus, at the passover, the blood first assumes importance, and God declares, "When I see the blood, I will pass over you." They feed too upon the lamb. In confirmation of the first covenant at Mount Sinai, the blood is sprinkled upon the people, but the character of the covenant itself necessarily affects the significance of this. Not till we come to the twenty ninth chapter of Exodus do we find the word "atonement" used, which in Leviticus comes into such frequent use as nearly to equal in occurrence all the rest of the Old Testament.
The word used for making atonement is kahphar in its Piel or intensive form. "The correctness of the generally accepted radical significance, ’to cover,’ ’to cover up,’" says Kurtz, "is fully established from the related dialects." When however we ask in what sense we are to understand this "covering" there are conflicting views. Thus Kurtz again says, "Whether the word be understood in the sense of withdrawing from view, or of protecting from danger, the use of the word in other connections seems to show that neither of these interpretations can be sustained." Why should there not be however a use large enough to allow of different implications in different connections, as the idea of "covering" naturally would? It is safer at least to be content with this idea, and not insist upon a difference which may lead us astray.
To the idea of "covering," however, we must add the thought of "propitiation" -a "propitiatory covering." Thus Keil says, "The meaning ’to make atonement’ lies at the foundation in every passage in which the word is used metaphorically, such as Gen 32:20, where Jacob seeks to expiate the face of his angry brother, i.e., to appease his wrath with a present; or Pro 16:14, The wrath of a king is as messengers of death, but a wise man expiates it,’ i.e., softens, pacifies it; Isa 47:11, ’Mischief (destruction) will fall upon thee, thou wilt not be able to expiate it,’ that is to say, to avert the wrath of God which has burst upon thee in the calamity, by means of an expiatory sacrifice. Even in Isa 28:18, ’And your covenant with death is disannulled’ (annihilated) the use of the word is to be explained from the fact that the guilt which brought the judgment in its train could be cancelled by a sacrificial expiation; so that there is no necessity to resort to a meaning which is altogether foreign to the word, viz., that of covering up by blotting over. . . . The meaning of expiation which properly belongs to the verb kipper, is not only retained in the nouns kippurim and kapporeth, but lies at the root of the word kopher, as we may clearly see from Exo 30:12-16, where the Israelites are ordered to pay a kopher at the census, to expiate their souls."
To this may be added that the Septuagint uniformly translates the verb kahphar in its primary application by exilaskomai, to "propitiate," a word which in the New Testament is taken up (only dropping the intensive ex) when we are told that Christ was "a merciful and faithful High-Priest to make propitiation for the sins of the people." (Heb 2:17, R.V.) Moreover, in their translation of kapporeth, the mercy-seat, they have set the example of dropping the "ex" and speak of it (more literally than our common English word) as the hilasterion, or "propitiatory." (Heb 9:5.) Thus the inspired Greek confirms the meaning of the Hebrew.
In general, as we may see by Keil, the modern writers prefer to render "expiate," rather than "propitiate," though not refusing the latter. In fact both thoughts are in the word. As Dr. Wilson says, "This word conveys the idea both of pacification of wrath and of the covering of transgression." Three of the texts referred to by Keil are better rendered "propitiate" than "expiate." And the Greek word adopted in the New Testament is used with "sins" as its object, just as in the Septuagint, although the force of the word is to "propitiate." The Revised Version gives, well enough, "make propitiation for sins," but it necessarily disguises the fact that "sins" is the direct object of the verb. If we say to "expiate sins" we make less direct and positive the force of propitiation in the word. The only complete rendering would be "to make propitiation for sins by expiation."
The thought in the Hebrew word then is that of "propitiatory covering." Dr. Wilson adds to what was just now quoted from him, that it "does not seem to express of itself the full and adequate satisfaction for sin." But this is surely implied in the fact that as the covering for sin it really propitiates. It must really in the sight of God cover, -cover, so that God is propitiated by it: how far does that differ from making "full and adequate satisfaction"?
To proceed: -atonement is by an offering; even where, as in Num 16:1-50, incense was used, or where in the case of extreme poverty a meal-offering was substituted for the true offering for sin, this character is always found. The need of insisting upon this arises from the contention that what is called propitiation is only reconciliation, and that man, not God, is the object. This is true, if we speak of reconciliation; false, with regard to propitiation: the two, although often confounded, are not the same. No doubt, our word "atonement" even had originally the force (according to its derivation) of "setting at one" or reconciling. That cannot be allowed to settle its present force, much less to dictate as to the Scripture doctrine, which assuredly is a doctrine of propitiation. The offering is to God -the propitiation Godward.
It is true that from the primitive meaning of kipper, God could not be the formal object. It is sin that is covered, or the sinner, and not God. It is not sin however that is propitiated or the sinner: if the thought of propitiation be in the word at all, the object of propitiation must be God.
And when we come to the New Testament, out of the only two occurrences of the verb hilaskomai, one expresses the very thought. The publican, praying in the temple, is made by our Lord to cry, convicted of his sin, "God be propitiated toward me the sinner!" The translations in general give "be merciful," but it is hard to understand why, when "be propitiated" is the natural force of the words, and the place in which the publican is represented to be is so necessarily suggestive of propitiation. In the temple went up constantly the smoke of sacrifice; the kapporeth, or mercy-seat, God’s throne ideally, though for their sins not actually now, and to which his eyes were directed, spoke of it, as we have seen. And if the difference is insisted on as by some it is, between the thought and language of the heathen in this respect and that of Scripture, the more this difference and the importance of it are dilated on, the more impossible is it to suppose the lips of absolute truth putting into the prayer of an accepted sinner, words in their natural sense so plainly suggestive of a thought alien and derogatory to God, as they say this is of propitiating Him!
But if we are seeking things rather than words, the Old Testament is even from the beginning plain enough. "Put on incense and go quickly unto the congregation, and make an atonement for them," says Moses to Aaron, "for there is wrath gone out from the Lord; the plague is begun. . . . And he put on incense, and made atonement for the people; and he stood between the dead and the living: and the plague was stayed" (Num 16:1-50.) How vain to say that here there was no appeasal of the wrath, no propitiation of God!
When upon the numbering of the people by David, "God was displeased with this thing, and smote Israel," and when David cried to God in view of the angel’s drawn sword stretched over Jerusalem, the "angel of the Lord commanded Gad to say unto David, that David should go and set up an altar unto the Lord in the threshing floor of Ornan the Jebusite. . . . David built there an altar unto the Lord, and offered burnt-offerings and peace-offerings, and called upon the Lord; and he answered him from heaven by fire upon the altar of burnt-offering. And the Lord commanded the angel, and he put up again his sword into the sheath thereof." (1Ch 21:1-30.)
The facts of Scripture thus abundantly illustrate its doctrine.
This, then, is the essential meaning of atonement or propitiation: we need not further anticipate what the offerings will now show us abundantly. What is in God’s sight a "propitiatory-covering" and why it is this, will be apparent as we go on with the picture-lessons of the book of Leviticus.
1. The Burnt-offering comes first here, and the meaning suggested by its numerical place is evident. It is the only offering which altogether goes up to God upon the altar. "Burnt-offering" is more literally the "offering that goes up." It is the offering that is all offering,* -the typical offering, -GOD’S in the most eminent way: and correspondingly His delight is shown in it; the altar derives its name from it; the fire of it is never allowed to go out; it is the basis of the peace-offering (Lev 3:5), and that with which and in proportion to which, the meal- and the drink-offering are directed to be offered. Every thing marks this as indeed and in the fullest sense, the first of the offerings.
{*So much so that twice (Deu 33:10; Psa 51:19) kahlil, which means "whole," is given for it.}
As connected with this it was, in contrast with the sin- and trespass-offerings, though not with others, and not at all times, a free-will offering. The common version of verse three must not, however, be quoted for this: the translation should be as it is generally agreed, not "he shall offer it of his own voluntary will," but "he shall offer it for his acceptance." Nor did it always depend upon his free-will, being in many cases prescribed, as in general following a sin-offering, and in other cases. Still, however this might be, the thought of a free-will offering is certainly what the burnt-offering presents. Nothing could make it so precious and acceptable to God as it being significant of full and entire devotedness. It could not have been else a whole offering -nothing kept back. It is thus what the burnt-offering psalm expresses: "Sacrifice and offering Thou wouldest not; mine ears hast Thou digged: burnt-offering and sin-offering hast Thou not required; then said I, Lo, I come, in the volume of the book it is written of Me, I delight to do Thy will, O My God" (Psa 40:6-8.) Here indeed Christ replaces all the legal sacrifices with his own marvelous obedience; and "by the which will," says the apostle, "we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once." (Heb 10:10.)
This unreserved devotedness, and to death, nothing bringing Him on earth, with nothing therefore to do on earth, no motive for action except the will of God, -this is what the burnt-offering expresses. How beautifully is it said therefore of the burnt-offering as of no other, "he shall offer it for his acceptance!" The exhaustion of wrath in the sin-offering might put away his sin; he might be free from every charge on this account: blessed as that is, it is not all that God has for us in what He calls "acceptance." This must be not a mere negative -nothing against, but identification with the glorious perfection of that obedience unto death of which He Himself says, "Therefore doth My Father love Me because I lay down My life, that I might take it again." Thus our acceptance -the favor in which we stand -is "in the Beloved." (Eph 1:6.)
Now to look at the details of the offering: the usual burnt-offering was of the cattle -of the herd or of the flock. It was not to be a hunted, wild animal, but one which offered itself (so to speak) "at the door." The "pigeon" which was also permitted, was also domesticated, while the nests of the turtle-dove were all around in gardens and olive-yards (of course when in the land.) The offering must not be far to seek, or requiring craft or toil to secure it; it would not in that case truly represent the blessed Victim. If of the herd, it must be a male, unblemished, presented before the Lord with the offerer’s hand upon its head, to be accepted for him.
There has been much dispute as to the meaning of the "laying on of hands." Its importance may be noticed from the place the apostle gives it in the "foundation" of Judaism, "the word of the beginning of Christ" (Heb 6:1.) The margin is here evidently right, for no one could be exhorted to "leave" "the principles of the doctrine of Christ," -that is Christianity. Christianity on the other hand is the "perfection" to which, in contrast with the "shadow" of it in the law, Paul is exhorting the Hebrews to "go on." Accordingly in this "foundation" which they are not to lay again, nothing distinctive of Christianity is found. Christ Himself, the true foundation, is not named, but only "repentance from dead works, and faith toward God, and resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment." These are things that remain of course as true for Christians as for Jews, but Christ as come and His work for sinners are not named. Thus as the apostle goes on to show -(Heb 9:1-28), the conscience of the Jew was never perfected. Instead of the reality of what puts away sin, they had but the symbols, and it is of these we read in connection with, the plain present truths of repentance and of faith in God, and the truths of future resurrection and judgment. Between them, just where we need the knowledge of sin put away to confirm and fill out the first, and to enable us to meet in peace and confidence the future, the Jew found what? -a "teaching" -not "doctrine’’ -"of baptism and of laying on of hands."
It is "teaching," rather than "doctrine," for it is not of the underlying truth in these things he is speaking, but that in place of the full soul-enfranchising reality itself; there were taught ordinances -"baptisms" and "laying on of hands." The "baptisms" are again referred to and explained in Heb 9:10; Heb 9:13. The laying on of hands is only here. Both were sacrificial, the purgings by blood, but which could not satisfy the conscience; the "laying on of hands," by which the offerer dedicates the victim solemnly as for himself. It is his need, his faith, that is expressed in it. Hence, though there is not in this case any open confession or transference of sin, we see that it is implied; and when over the scape-goat the sins of the people are confessed and put upon its head, we recognize at once that that is only a voice given to the act.
It may be, and has been asked, however, why only then should expression be given thus to it? would it not be rather against the thought of imputation of sin being elsewhere expressed by it? Thus it has been urged that the goat "was not even put to death, but sent alive into the desert; in fact it was not a sacrifice at all, and proves nothing with regard to the ritual of sacrifice." To which Kurtz adds, "that a verbal explanation was thought necessary as an accompaniment to the act itself, is a proof that here, and nowhere else, the imposition of hands was to be regarded as a laying on of sin."
This seems, however, to be a lack of discernment. Rather is it that the exceptional treatment of the scape-goat, which is distinctly said to be (in connection with the goat which is Jehovah’s lot) for a sin-offering, necessitates the explanation. We need to be plainly told that the laying on of hands in this exceptional case means what it means elsewhere, and accordingly this is openly declared to us. The meaning of the scape-goat must, of course, wait for exposition till we reach the "day of atonement."
The victim thus presented is then accepted as the atoning offering for him who brings it. We see that it is not only the sin- or the trespass-offering that makes atonement, but the burnt-offering also. And although so much is not directly said of the peace-offering, yet it is implied: for "the life of the flesh is in the blood," we are told later (Lev 17:11,) "and I have given it you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls." We need not quote the rest of the verse, as the meaning is contested, and here it is not the place to examine it; but it is plain by this that wherever the blood is put upon the altar, it is for atonement. Thus all the sacrifices are atoning.
But for this the offering must be slain: for "without shedding of blood is no remission." (Heb 9:22.) The very word here used for the killing (shachat) is sacrificial. In opposition to Delitzsch, who asserts that the killing "was merely the means of procuring the blood and offering the sacrifice, and hence it was not called killing, but slaughtering,’" Kurtz says: "This thought, however, is derived, not from the Hebrew, but from the German idiom, where the notion of slaughtering has certainly received such an application. And the fact that the word shachat is never used in ordinary life to denote a literal slaughtering for the purpose of cooking the flesh (tabach is the word generally used ought to have created some distrust of this attempt to define shachat. Moreover, we actually find this word applied to the slaying of a man, where there could not have been any other object than to put him to death, viz., for a crime that was thought worthy of death (e.g., Num 14:16; Jdg 12:6, etc.) . . . Its primary meaning was probably to throw down, to strike to the ground, to destroy, to lay in ruins. In the more developed stage of the language it became a technical term for the killing of an animal; from that it settled down into a special term belonging to the sacrificial worship, and thus acquired so definite and fixed a meaning, that people were afraid to apply it to the slaughtering of an animal for the ordinary purposes of life."
It is striking and blessed to see how God has fenced round this institution of sacrifice from the mistakes which nevertheless even those who are at bottom orthodox are falling into. Here the emphasis laid upon the slaying of the victim corresponds to the emphasis put on the "shedding of blood" by the apostle. It is killed in one appointed place, and expressly "before Jehovah." why insist upon this, if there were no special significance attaching to what is thus marked out as concerning Him and taken notice of by Him?
Indeed, if the eye were not off Christ, who is the substance of these shadows, how would it be possible to misinterpret in this way? That is above all the failure of those German theologians, who with their indefatigable research and abundant learning are leading so many at the present day: even the very best of them fail strangely, signally, in most important points; and that because, though they see Him in the types, He is not the central and sufficient explanation of them. At the best, they reason up to Him, not down from Him, and thus continually lose the very One they seek for. May He keep us from this, -our eyes ever and first of all upon Himself!
If we see Christ in the burnt-offering, how is it possible to say of His death, that it had no special significance? How the Old Testament itself rebukes the unholy thought! "For He was cut off out of the land of the living; for the transgression of My people was He stricken; . . . when thou shalt make His soul an offering for sin, He shall see His seed, He shall prolong His days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in His hand. . . . Therefore will I divide Him a portion with the great, and He shall divide the spoil with the strong: because He hath poured out His soul unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors, and He bare the sin of many." (Isa 53:8; Isa 53:10; Isa 53:12.)
It is this slighting of the death of the victim which has opened the way for much strange teaching as to the true meaning of atonement, and even to the denial of it altogether, as in the Swedish heresy of Dr. Waldenström. The meaning of the blood is separated from the thought of death, and turned by degrees into its opposite, because the "blood is the life." So it is, and yet the out-poured and sprinkled blood are not the types of life, but of death. This we must almost immediately consider.
The New Testament is abundantly plain. It speaks of the blood of Jesus fully and with emphasis as the type before us does; but it speaks also of the death of the Lord in the most distinct and definite relation to atonement, and as fundamental to it. Even Caiaphas’ unconscious prophecy declared "that Jesus should die for the nation." (Joh 11:51). The Lord expands this and emphasizes it in the next chapter: "Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone; but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit." (Joh 12:24.) The apostle Paul tells us that "in due time Christ died for the ungodly," (Rom 5:6,) yea, that He "died for our sins, according to the Scriptures" (1Co 15:3); and in Hebrews, the great storehouse of New Testament interpretation as to all this service, that "He was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, that He by the grace of God should taste death for every man," and that "for this cause He is the Mediator of the New Testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions which were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance." (Heb 2:9; Heb 9:15.)
Is it possible that this could be forgotten in the type, so that the death of the victim should be meaningless, except as a means of furnishing the blood? On the contrary, the blood itself is only the witness and commentary upon the precious death which indeed has furnished it, and is thus fundamental to it.
But it is said, the death of the victim is not at the hand of the priest but of the offerer -although there might be, and were, cases in which the offerer and the priest were one. The fact is so, and deserves consideration; but the meaning is not, we may be sure, in the least a contradiction to the testimony of Scripture elsewhere.
It has been the thought of some, that Christ being both offerer and victim, the offerer slaying the victim speaks Of Christ laying down His own life for men. It seems, however, as if in that case it should be the priest, rather than the offerer. For he who brings his substitutionary victim to make atonement for him can hardly be a figure of Christ at the same time. Rather would it seem that the offerer in this act confesses himself as needing death for atonement; which the priest then takes up to exhibit in its relation to God, as being the one who can draw near to God for others, the mediator. He it is who now developes and presents to God -of course, for our instruction, -the value of this precious offering.
The offerer’s work is thus the text, of which the priest’s work is the sermon: and this explains very simply what follows, and puts death and the blood in their true relation to one another. "And the priests, Aaron’s sons, shall present the blood, and sprinkle the blood round about upon the altar which is at the entrance of the tent of meeting."
We must now anticipate what is only formally declared in the seventeenth chapter, but which has been already partially quoted, and must be fully, in order that we may be able to realize what is here before us: "For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it to you upon the altar, to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul." This is according to the common version, but there are some changes called for in it that we must consider before we have title to use it for our purpose.
And first, we have to remember that "life" and "soul" are the same word in Hebrew, and the German interpreters in general read "soul" all through. Says Oehler, "The real covering, that which atoned for the souls of the people, needed to be soul itself . . . for the unclean and sinful soul of the worshiper, God substituted the soul of a clean and guiltless animal." But there are insuperable objections to this view of the matter: it is too theological, too little scriptural. For while it is true that the Old Testament distinctly speaks of the soul of the beast, it never speaks of "clean and guiltless" as if they were qualities of the beast’s soul, or could affect it, and never of covering the soul of man with the soul of beast.
"Clean" the beast was to be, and "guiltless" it necessarily was; but these are in different orders of thought, and not thus to be associated. The cleanness and the unblemished condition of the beast were both bodily, not soul-conditions, and in that way simply and evidently typical, not moral. Typically, they do not suggest the soul of a beast, but spiritual qualities such as could have no place in it. It is the eye that is addressed, taught by what can be put before the eye, and the soul is not that.
But the result of these views is, to ignore, or diminish to nothing, the death of the victim. If the soul of man is to be covered by the soul of beast (strange covering for it!), then some way, in the blood sprinkled on the altar, the soul of the beast must be supposed still to survive; And to justify this, we are reminded of the expressions "living water" and "living flesh" (in distinction from cooked meat -1Sa 2:15). As Oehler asks, with Kurtz’s distinct approval, "Can it be surprising, then, that the fresh, steaming, and still fluid blood should be regarded as blood with life and soul in it still?" And this is sought to be maintained by the rendering of the last part of the verse -"’for the blood expiates through the soul,’ -that is, in virtue of the fact that the soul is in it."
Substituting "life" for "soul," for the reasons given, there can be no objection to translating with the R.V., "For it is the blood that maketh atonement by reason of the life." The blood is the life of the body, and so represents it, and he that ate blood would be therefore cut off: -not merely "fresh, steaming blood," as these views would suppose, but blood in any way. The blood poured out is thus the life poured out -the symbol of death, not of existing life.
This, then, instead of separating in meaning death and the blood, brings them together, and the whole ritual into entire agreement and simplicity. The blood means death, and, as presented to God upon the altar, atones; for the altar, according to its meaning in the Hebrew, is just "the place of sacrifice;" and thus the death is declared to be and accepted as a sacrificial death.
On the other hand, Dr. Waldenström has carried out the separation between the blood and the death of the victim to the uttermost. "Notice," he says, "that the atonement is not ascribed to the blood by reason of the suffering or death which the shedding of it had caused, but by reason of (or through) the life that is or was in it . . . Not by the shedding of the blood was atonement made, but by the sprinkling of the blood. But what did this sprinkling signify? It signified cleansing or purging from sin, as the apostle says, ’Almost all things are by the law purged with blood.’" Strange it is that the very verse that he appeals to, if he had not stopped short before its close, would have been his sufficient refutation: -"and without shedding of blood is no remission." (Heb 9:22.) Here it is evident that for him the apostle emphasizes the wrong point, and that he himself has confounded two entirely different things -the sprinkling upon the altar, as in Lev 17:1-16, and the sprinkling upon the person, as when God entered into covenant with the people at Mount Sinai, or in the case of the leper. The "cleansing" he has in mind is an internal cleansing by a communication of life to the soul, (which he enters into at length elsewhere, as what is meant by it,) but the sprinkling upon the altar is incompetent to convey this thought; it is a cleansing from guilt that results from this, God accepting the propitiation made by the sacrifice.
Let us keep together what God has joined together, and all these errors are avoided, while the typical meaning of the ritual gains an absolute simplicity, which is itself a confirmation of its truth. The blood on the altar is just the witness of the character and power of the death which has taken place, and which is the central point in the whole ritual.
And this is still more evident as we go on to consider that from which the burnt-offering gains, as we have seen, its special significance -the burning of the entire animal upon the altar. Here, with those whose views have been before us, it is no longer in any sense Christ that is represented, but the person of the offerer himself; and the burning is the action of the Holy Spirit, by which he is sanctified to God! The two parts of the offering are related to one another, they tell us, as justification and sanctification.
Kurtz allows that by this interpretation the "unity of idea" in the sacrificial ritual "appears unquestionably" to be destroyed. It is so indeed; and we need not consider the reasons he advances nevertheless for this inconsistency. We have a sure guide to the right thought in the apostle’s words, that "Christ loved us and gave Himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling savor." (Eph 5:2.) Now it was just this burning upon the altar, by which the sweet savor was produced.
It is surely a strange thought that the fire should typify the action of the Spirit of God. On the other hand it is clearly not of necessity a type of wrath. The incense and the meat-offering went up in fire, and the word for burning is the same word that is used for the incense, a different word from that which is used for the sin-offering, where the judgment upon sin is the prominent feature. Here, too, it is intimated, for the death of the substitute of necessity implies it, but this is not developed; rather, here in the place of sin is found that wonderful display of an obedience which, tried with fire, yielded to the testing of perfect holiness nothing but sweet savor. It should be plain that in this it is still the death of the victim which is the text of all this commentary here. Preceding this altar-burning, the offering is flayed and cut -not into pieces merely, but into its pieces. There is to be no hacking, -no disfigurement, but part distinguished from part, all opened to the light, the inward parts and legs, -the heart and inward affections, no less than the practical life, -washed with water to be the figure of the absolute cleanness according to the Word, which was then brought out in sweet savor as submitted to the fire.
Little can we speak of such things; yet may they not be lost upon us! may we with holy reverence consider this unique thing upon earth, the wonder and joy of heaven: the obedience of One who did not owe obedience, perfect in leaving His natural place where another would have been apostate, and whose obedience led Him into depths of unequalled suffering, through utter darkness into the light and glory of God. To us it is the pattern of that to which we are sanctified, but in the value of which we are also before God.
The gospel of John it is, as already said, that gives us this side of the glory of the cross. First, He delivers Himself up, when those who came to take Him had all fallen on the ground before Him: it is the Father’s cup He takes, and no man taketh His life from Him. The word that is written of Him, this is what is supreme in His heart: at the entrance upon His ministry, when tempted in the wilderness, unmoved by bodily need to put forth the power which He had to make bread of stones, He proclaims the principle of His life, "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God shall man live." On the cross He proclaimed His thirst, using indeed no miraculous power to release it, but yet as if to invite the compassion of the hostile throng around Him? No; it is not so: the principle of His life it is that prompts and sustains Him to the end. In the midst of concentrated sufferings He is master of Himself and of the circumstances; conscious that the predicted course is just at its end, but that there remains one thing yet unaccomplished, Jesus, "that the Scripture might be fulfilled, saith, ’I thirst.’" Then when He has received the vinegar He says, "It is finished." The glorious work is fulfilled: triumphant in the conviction, He has but to bow His head and render up His spirit.
Then we hear of a mandate which could not be executed upon Him: there could be no outward disfigurement even of His perfection; "howbeit one of the soldiers with a spear pierced His side, and straightway flowed there out blood and water." The blood is witness of death, not life; but life in the power of atonement -"justification of life" -proclaims for men the acceptance of this precious death.
(2) We have yet to look at the grades of the burnt-offering presented here: grades they are clearly, and not, as might be thought, equal presentations of it from different sides. The bullock stands by itself in the first grade: not only is it the largest offering, but it is also that which typically most fully develops the thought of the burnt-offering. According to the apostle’s interpretation (1Co 9:9-10), the ox is the type of the laborer for God. The sheep speaks, as is well-known, of self-surrender: "He is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so He openeth not His mouth." (Isa 53:7.) The goat, on the other hand, as the type of the sinner, in our Lord’s familiar parable, can only be the figure here of the Substitute for sinners. All these convey some true thought as to the great Sacrifice, and so it is with every grade of every offering. Nothing could be permitted any where but what was true and worthy; while yet some views may be more complete, and in the connection in which they are found bring out more or less fully the mind of God. Now that is apparently the case here. "The Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world" is so before our minds as the sufficient picture of the Lord’s sacrificial work that there may be natural jealousy of the thought that there could be any higher type. We shall see perhaps more definitely before we leave the offerings to what specific form the expression links itself; but it may be easily seen that it is the effect in blessing that is spoken of in it, and that in what appeals most or first to man as a sinner, the removal of sin; and this is not properly the burnt-offering. The ox and the sheep differ in the thought associated with them in this way, that the latter shows us Christ as in the world meeting the evil in it that assailed Him, and overcoming it by patient goodness; the former carries us back to the thought of His entrance into the world as the fulfiller of the eternal counsels. It is evident which thought most connects itself with the type of the burnt-offering.
The goat again is very distinct from either of these. It expresses nothing that could be attributed to the Lord personally, any more than does the serpent lifted up by Moses in the wilderness. It speaks of the substitutionary character of the cross, which the burnt-offering has in it also, as we have seen; yet how far is it from expressing what is conveyed under the thought of "sweet savor"! Its association naturally is with the sin-offering, for which alone it is definitely prescribed, though only emphasizing what is a necessary character of every sacrifice: except as vicarious the cross could have no worthy or holy significance.
(3) When we come to the birds in connection with the burnt-offering, we are made to see clearly that it is fitness of relation rather than the character of the type in itself that gives it its grade in connection with these offerings. Here, for example, we have in the birds -the "birds of heaven," as they are commonly called in Scripture -the type of the Lord as a heavenly being: yet they come in as a lower grade, and evidently a smaller offering. Beautiful types they are, the turtle-dove and the pigeon, though it may not be easy to distinguish between them. The latter is the word most commonly rendered "dove," being the rock-dove or rock-pigeon (Son 2:14; Jer 48:28.) It is the bird of love and sorrow (Isa 38:14; Isa 59:11; Eze 7:16,) and fittingly therefore characterizes the Spirit of Him whose love made Him a man of sorrows in an alien world. Its wings are again referred to in the sixty-eighth Psalm: "Though ye have lain among the pots, yet shall ye be as the wings of a dove, covered with silver, and her feathers with yellow gold." The sense of the first part is disputed, yet the reference is surely to Israel in her defilement, now redeemed from her misery and degradation: silver wings speak of redemption; redeeming love has come in for them, and in the silver is the gleam of gold -the glory of God therein displayed.
Why then should this heavenly visitant be but so poor an offering in this case? In general, it seems plain, at least, that it is that which is permitted to poverty (Lev 5:7; Lev 12:8; Lev 14:22,) or where the case is that of minor defilement (Lev 12:6; Lev 15:14; Lev 15:29; Num 6:10,) and usually a pair are commanded, one not being enough. There is indeed in the case of the leper an exceptional offering of two birds (here "sparrows," or small birds, not even doves,) but for a special reason into which we must inquire in its place; and this can hardly affect the matter. Why, then, is what is in itself so blessed here comparatively of less esteem? Is it not because in fact with us there is so little competency to prevent the very glory of the Saviour’s Godhead from blurring to our eyes the full truth of His manhood, when His suffering, His conflict, or even the perfection of His obedience, is before them? And therefore, while God puts here His seal upon the truth, in itself so needful and so blessed, that the Second Man is from heaven," (1Co 15:47,) He yet would caution us by the very place assigned to the offering here, that we must not allow this truth to take a place which is not its right place -to confuse what should be clear, to dull a glory which it should only intensify.
We cannot but gain some understanding here why the bird is not divided into its parts as with the former offerings. We cannot know the Son apart from the humanity in which He came to tabernacle among us; and here is just the warning of how for us the fullness of His manifestation may be dimmed. On the other hand the notice of the rejection of the crop and what pertains to it, may perhaps illustrate how the types themselves begin to fail us here. On the mount with God, the children of Israel saw "no similitude." (Deu 4:15.)
2. The "Meat-offering" of the common version has been changed in the late revision to meal-offering, a change which is here preserved on account of its slightness in form, and yet sufficiency for the purpose of avoiding a difficulty resulting from the change in meaning of the first word of this compound term. In fact neither "meat" nor "meal" is in the Hebrew minchah, which means simply "gift" or "offering," and is used of Abel’s offering as well as Cain’s; but in the law is restricted to bloodless offerings, and often in fact to that part of it which consisted of meal. We may in these cases accept the term.
It is at least doubtful whether the meal-offering proper could ever be offered independent of an animal sacrifice. The refusal of Cain’s offering would argue against it, and no example beside can be appealed to. The worshiper never came before God as one fit without atonement for His presence. If also on the other hand it may be said that the burnt-offering or peace-offering was not to be offered without a meal-offering, yet the relation of these to one another is clearly intimated in the expression often used, -"the burnt-offering and its meal-offering," which is never, and could never be reversed. The meal-offering is thus the appendage to the animal-offerings, and explicitly to the burnt-offering; and this apparently is the first point that its numerical place indicates.
The value of this we shall realize when the meaning of the meal-offering is ascertained; and this cannot be difficult. Christ’s own words as to the "bread of life," -a truth perpetuated for us by the symbols of the Lord’s Supper, -of necessity come into our mind as we think of what is the ordained portion of the priests of God. Moreover, as in the sixth of John the "flesh" is associated with the blood of Christ, so the cup which is the blood of the New Covenant is associated with the bread which we break at the table of the Lord. Thus the connection between the meal- and the other offerings is maintained in these, although not in the same sense offerings: they speak of the human, as the offerings do (though not exclusively) of the divine side. Thus the bread and the meal-offering present alike the "flesh" (or humanity) of Christ, and that in contrast with His "blood" or death. therefore Christ in all that was manifest in Him in His life on earth: His humanity, apart from death.
He is thus as presented to God the Second Man, essentially in contrast (though true Man) with other men, -with the world by which He was surrounded, and in which He was, as the result of this, the Man of sorrows. This among these offerings could not lack expression, -could not be merged and lost even in the amazing self-surrender of His soul to death. These two things also -His life and His death -are thus seen in their essential distinctness from, and at the same time in their relation to, each other. For, just because of what He was, Man, but the Second Man, in whom under whatever trial there was only and perfectly a sweet savor to God, there could be for us no part in Him, except through His sacrificial death. His own testimony is, "Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone, but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit." The doctrine so prevalent of union with man in incarnation is thus stamped as false, even fundamentally. It is used in fact every where for the purpose of obscuring the true character and glory of the cross. It is not true that in incarnation Christ became "flesh of our flesh and bone of our bone." It is not true that He became one with all men by becoming man. It is we who by His precious death for us, and in the new place which He has assumed (not in the world, but outside it), become flesh of His flesh and bone of His bone.
Thus the numerical place is most important. That only through participation in His death can we be partakers in Him, is its voice to us; while on the other hand those who are partakers in the value of His death find thus their place before God in Him, who as the Second Man is also the last Adam, Head and Representative of His people. Christ in the whole value of what He is and has done, is ours, the sweet savor in which we are accepted before God.
(1) The number intimates distinctly to us also this Second Man, in contrast with the first and with the world sprung from him; and this we shall find the characteristic teaching of the meal-offering. There are as usual different forms of it, the difference consisting not in the fine flour itself; but in the accompaniments and mode of preparation.
The fine flour has been characterized by another thus: —
"This meat-offering of God, taken from the fruit of the earth, was of the finest wheat; that which was pure, separate and lovely in human nature was in Jesus under all its sorrows, but in all its excellence, and excellent in its sorrows. There was no unevenness in Jesus, no predominant quality to produce the effect of giving Him a distinctive character. He was, though despised and rejected of men, the perfection of human nature. The sensibilities, firmness, decision (though this attached itself also to the principle of obedience), elevation and calm meekness, which belong to human nature, all found their perfect place in Him. In a Paul I find energy and zeal; in a Peter, ardent affection, in a John, tender sensibilities and abstraction of thought, united to a desire to vindicate what he loved which scarce knew limit. But the quality we have observed in Peter predominates and characterizes him. In a Paul, blessed servant though he was, he did not repent, though he had repented. . . . In him in whom God was mighty toward the circumcision, we find the fear of man break through the faithfulness of his zeal. John, who would have vindicated Jesus in his zeal, knew not what manner of spirit he was of and would have forbidden the glory of God, if a man walked not with them.
"But in Jesus, even as man, there was none of this unevenness. There was nothing salient in His character, because all was in perfect subjection to God in His humanity, and had its place, and did exactly its service, and then disappeared. God was glorified in it, and all was in harmony. When meekness became Him He was meek; when indignation, who could stand before His overwhelming and withering rebuke? Tender to the chief of sinners in the time of grace; unmoved by the heartless superiority of a cold Pharisee (curious to judge who He was); when the time of judgment is come, no tears of those who wept for Him moved Him to other words than ’Weep for yourselves and for your children,’ -words of deep compassion, but of deep subjection to the due judgment of God. The dry tree prepared itself to be burned. On the cross, when His service was finished, tender to His mother, and entrusting her in human care, to one who (so to speak) had been His friend, and leaned on His bosom; no ear to recognize her word or claim when His service occupied Him for God; putting both blessedly in their place, when He would show that, before His public mission, He was still the Son of the Father, and though such, in human blessedness, subject to the mother that bare Him, and Joseph His father as under the law; a calmness which disconcerted His adversaries; and in the moral power which dismayed them at times, a meekness which drew out the hearts of all not steeled by opposition. . . . Such was Christ in human nature." (J. N. Darby, Synopsis.)
Upon this fine flour of the offering there was poured oil, the symbol of the anointing of the Spirit which, coming upon Him because of what He was, declared His perfection. It is thus the Lord Himself cites it as proof that there was no corruptible element in that which was given nevertheless to be the food of man: "Labor for the meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of Man shall give unto you: for Him hath God the Father sealed." (Joh 6:27.)
But there was another side also to this picture: "upon the flour frankincense also was to be put, the white gum of a tree that yields it to incision and requires no preparation to fit it for use." These are all features which seem significant; and the frankincense, all of which was claimed by God, and went up in the fire to Him, clearly points to a life lived to God, and fragrant with His praise.
Of this offering, a handful of the flour, with all the frankincense, was burnt upon the altar for a "memorial" -a word only used beside this of the very similar showbread (Lev 24:1-23) and of the jealousy offering (Num 5:1-31.) A beautiful word in relation to this one perfect life on earth: will God ever forget it? Tried by the fire of God’s holiness it was nothing but sweet savor. The rest became the portion of the priest, -the worshiper.
(2) In the flour, then, we have had the perfect humanity of Christ, at unity with itself. This first view of it is apart from its surroundings and the opposition of the world. It was fitting that we should first see Christ so: not as if it was mere comparison with others that made Him excellent; such indeed is mere human excellence, such was not the Lord’s. Yet for this precious Bread of Life the world was what in the preparation of our food, the oven and the frying-pan and the cauldron are. As flour simply man could scarcely feed upon it: and so Christ even for us could hardly suffice us, if we could know Him apart from that concrete life of His which the gospels give, and in which the trial and sorrow which were His intimates, the heat of hatred, the fire of persecution, make sweet to our taste and satisfying to our souls the fruit of God’s precious Wheat-corn.
There are three forms of the meal-offering in this way, each with its lesson for us. First, that which was baked in the oven, -as it is thought, a large earthen pot or jar, which would at least make the figure a more striking one. For the sufferings that are indicated here seem, as indeed in the other cases, to be from the world, in which He was as it were shut up; not open sufferings, -not from the hand of violence, but from the heated atmosphere of a place of strife and wars of the lusts which strive in the members, and of the will of the flesh at enmity with God. How terrible a place for the Son of God! And here, again, we find two forms: thick cakes, pierced, it is said, and mingled or made up with oil, and thin beaten-out wafers, anointed with oil. Whatever else is difficult in this, it seems plain that we have in the first, Christ as born through the power of the Spirit of God; and in the second, Christ anointed of the Spirit, -that is, as the holy One, the Son of God, or as the Christ, the anointed One, the minister of God. In both ways we can understand (though how little!) that there was intensity of suffering: perhaps the greater intensity, as brought nearer to it, may be pictured in the last case in the thinner "wafer," which the heat would more completely penetrate, although in the former also there would be special lines of more direct access indicated by the piercing of the cake.
Next, the pan seems to speak of open suffering, the outbreak of enmity against the Lord; and here the mingling with oil and anointing are both found: for it was undoubtedly when He came forward with the open claim to be what He was, that the hostility of the world became fully manifest.
The cauldron again speaks of the action of water, though the fire is of course outside; and here sufferings of another kind seem indicated, and, according to the usual meaning of water, from the Word of God. Doubtless the Word which guided his footsteps ever led Him on through paths of ordained sorrow, until the cup was taken from His Father’s hand. "For I say unto you, that this which is written must yet be accomplished in Me, ’And He was numbered among the transgressors.’" "Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to My Father, and He shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels; but how then should the Scripture be fulfilled, that thus it must be? "
We have then the presentation of the memorial to the Lord enjoined as before, and that the remainder is for the priest (the worshiper) as a most holy thing.
Leaven and honey are both forbidden to be put into any offering made by fire unto Jehovah. Leaven we have seen already to be always characterized as evil, the "leaven of malice and wickedness," the ferment of the lust of the flesh, -the human will in revolt from God. Honey is a different thing, and not in itself evil, -the sweetness of nature, which may be tasted but which must not be yielded to, -readily producing fermentation also. In the loaves of the first-fruits presented at Pentecost there was leaven in what was offered, and on that account a sin-offering was offered with them: but on that account also they could not be burnt as a sweet savor on the altar. They are the similitude of the Church and not of Christ.
Salt was in meaning the very opposite of leaven, the symbol of that which opposes corruption, the type, therefore, of what endures, of the holiness which the "covenant of God" implies. A holy God can only go on with what is holy, and therefore salt is the "salt of His covenant." This was never to be lacking, therefore, in any offering.
(3) The meal-offering of first fruits stands by itself in a third section of the chapter, and must present some characteristic difference, and that it is first-fruits must imply the difference, which the number of the section, the resurrection-number, confirms. The first-fruits represent the new harvest, the revival of the buried seed, and the fruitfulness of death stooped to for victory over it.
It is Christ also who is before us still. The Church as we have seen, could only be pictured by leavened loaves, which could not therefore be burnt upon the fire; but this is burnt upon the altar. As in the first case it is anointed with oil, and frankincense is put to it, and there are beside peculiar features which speak distinctly of Christ. The green ears of corn roasted in the fire, recall the Lord’s words to the women that bewailed Him: "if they do these things in a green tree, what shall be done in the dry?" He alone was the green tree full of the sap and vigor of true spiritual life; man was dead, as shown in his alienation from the Life. Yet though green, the ears were to be "full ears," -no coming short could be admitted: they must be as unblemished as the lamb of sacrifice.
It is Christ, then, as the first-fruits, and yet not in resurrection here. The wave-sheaf after the Passover is that, -for that reason simply waved, and not burned upon the altar: all the significance of this would be lost if it could be applied to a type of actual resurrection.
There remains, therefore, but one explanation that seems possible at all, -that it is Christ who is seen, though down here, the representative of the harvest of blessing to come in through Him, but for which He must suffer! God gives us here to see what he saw in Christ in His path of sorrow and necessary separation upon earth: not simply the Second Man, in His own personal perfection, but as the beginning of the new race of men in whom shall be found His likeness, -the fruit so precious to Him of the travail of His soul.
3. The Peace-offering speaks of peace with God accomplished, on man’s part reconciliation, salvation realized, the theme of the third gospel. Hence, as characteristic of it, the offering, instead of all going up to God as with the burnt-offering, or being simply given to the priest, as with the meal-offering, furnishes, as it were, a table at which God, the priest, and the offerer meet together. For if we have peace with God, it cannot be merely peace: God in the work of salvation satisfies His own heart and brings ours to Him. Thus the peace-offering is also the praise-offering, and more perhaps than any other the expression of the free-will of the offerer, while it is (along with the burnt- and meat-offering) a sweet savor to God.
In this chapter, indeed, it is only what the offering is to God that is spoken of; it is reserved for the law of the offerings to show us the priest’s and the offerer’s part in it; while all that constitutes it an offering is in the three grades of it, given three times over, with little variation, for He cannot weary of His Beloved.
It is upon the blood and the fat that emphasis is laid: the blood sprinkled upon the altar is (according to the canon in Lev 17:11) for propitiation, although the word is not mentioned, the character of the victim’s death being thus declared. The fat we have seen to speak of the energy of a will devoted to God, here specially emphasized as the food of the offering made by fire unto Jehovah -easily intelligible as what the flame would fasten on above all.
(1) The first grade here is as usual the offering from the herd. We have already seen its significance, and have nothing to add to it. It was to be burnt upon the altar upon the burnt-offering: acceptance in Christ is the foundation of communion with God, and this can have, therefore, no narrow range.
(2) The second grade seems to include both the lamb and the goat under the head of peace-offerings of the flock: there seems no difference except in the animal, whether lamb or goat, and the meaning of these has been also before us.
As has been said, Luke is without doubt the peace-offering gospel: it is that in which we find salvation realized, and man brought into the presence of God, as in the story of the prodigal so familiar and so dear to us. Upon the cross this character is manifest, where the prayer, "Father, forgive them," is the Lord’s first utterance, and the thief is accepted and assured of paradise. "Salvation," "peace," and "grace," are key-words in the book; and the praise and worship of glad hearts ring throughout it.
4. The Sin-offering fills the fourth place among these offerings. The number speaks, as we know, of failure, and it is strictly for failure that it is provided: "If a soul sin through inadvertence." And on the other hand it is said in connection with this provision of atonement, "But the soul that doeth aught presumptuously . . . that soul shall be cut off from among his people: because he hath despised the word of Jehovah, and hath broken His commandment, that soul shall be utterly cut off; his iniquity shall be upon him." (Num 15:30-31.)
This lack of power to atone for the gravest sins has been urged against the vicarious character of atonement as set forth in the Levitical sacrifices. Thus Dr. Waldenström declares, "God’s ordinance concerning these sacrifices is such, that it excludes every thought of vicarious penal suffering. For, in the first place, sacrifices were never allowed to be made for other sins than such as were not to be visited by death or capital punishment. Thus, for instance, sins against the ten commandments were never to be atoned for by sacrifices. Sacrifices were never to be made for idolatry, Sabbath-breaking, adultery, etc. But if sacrifices were allowed to be made only for such sins as were exempt from death, or capital punishment, how then could any one think that the animal which was offered suffered the punishment of death instead of the offender? Why, his sin was not at all liable to be visited by the death-penalty."
It is not to our present purpose to show that there is in this a strangely inadequate idea of the range of the ten commandments. As to the rest he is right as to the fact that there was no explicit provision in the law of the offerings for the expiation of sins to which the death penalty was attached. Nevertheless, his inference from this shows a very superficial idea of both sin and sacrifice. There was, of course, every reason why it should not be permitted to a flagrant offender to avert the righteous penalty of his sin by the cheap offering of an animal sacrifice. The objection that “sacrificial expiation might have preceded execution" proceeds from a fundamental mistake, which has been already made evident, as to the character of legal penalty. As the law could not promise heaven, so neither did it threaten with hell -in the New Testament sense of hell. Long life in this world was the reward of comparative obedience: "Honor thy father and mother, that thou mayest live long in the land." And so "the soul that sinneth, it shall die" must be interpreted of literal death. This might not come as the penalty upon one specific act, or as an infliction by human hands, and yet be truly the penalty which the breach of law involved. Thus there could be no such thing as expiation before execution, because it would necessarily mean expiation so as to deliver from some penalty beyond death, for which the sacrifices of the law were totally inadequate.
Types of a higher atonement they were, and for that reason never to be confounded with that higher one, and the marks of inadequacy which they were allowed to bear upon them only made this plainer, not injured them as such. There were thus many cases in which the soul was compelled to look outside the sacrificial forms, and to say, "Thou desirest not sacrifice, else would I give it; Thou delightest not in burnt-offering:" "deliver me from blood-guiltiness, O God, Thou God of my salvation; and my tongue shall sing aloud of Thy righteousness." Thus where there was faith, a practical dependence would be induced upon that which the offerings only pointed to and themselves were not.
There was, therefore, a double reason for the fact that the sin-offering in Israel was professedly for failure, and not for every grade of sin. But the "wages of sin is death," -not of this sin or that merely, -and thus it will not raise any question with us, that for atonement in any case the victim dies. Here, indeed, the comparative littleness of the sin only preaches the more solemnly of what sin is to God! No ignorance ever avails to lessen the need or alter the character of atonement. Sin is sin no less because we are too stupid or too indifferent to recognize it as such, and God must bring us to His thoughts, not come down to ours. If "by the law is the knowledge of sin," we find that its types teach this as plainly as the two tables: the very atonement for sin proves that failure even in ignorance is accounted that by God, and for the least sin the wages is death, -the atoning victim dies.
It is upon the penalty of sin that this offering insists more strongly than any other, and this is indicated by its name. If the burnt-offering spoke of the perfect obedience in which we are accepted, and the peace-offering of the effect of Christ’s work in reconciliation and communion, the sin-offering declares the judgment of God which the sin-bearer must remove by coming under; and thus while the three preceding offerings are all declared to be sweet savor to God, the sin- and trespass-offerings are not, as such. For judgment is not that in which God can delight, but that to which He is forced: it is His "strange work." And this is why, no doubt, the chapter begins as a new communication from the Lord with the accustomed phrase, "And Jehovah spake unto Moses." This we must go back to the first chapter to find, again. After this, we find it indeed at the beginning of the trespass-offering also, and even of the two parts of it, so that the division which it makes is not of equal importance in each case; yet on the other hand where as in the first three chapters, we have an unbroken communication, the contents of it are necessarily linked thus together in a special way. So it is then with the sweet-savor-offerings.
It is noticeable that while we have three grades of burnt-offering, and three (much less perceptible) of the peace-offerings, the sin-offering has no less than seven forms. This at first sight would seem strange and anomalous enough, plain as it is that just here we have not, and cannot have, the element of voluntariness apparent in the preceding forms. The burnt-, meal-, and peace-offerings constituted those which could be and were often brought as an expression of the devotion of the worshiper apart from any command; the sin- and trespass-offerings were imperative -the claim of God upon the sinner which he could neither escape nor diminish, nor even add to. Burnt-offerings and peace-offerings he might bring according to his means, but the sin-offering was one, never multiplied or added to, offered distinctly as obligation, not of choice.
The more remarkable is it, then, that the law itself admitted grades, most of which were apportioned to the station of the person whose sin was in question, but the lower ones permitted to poverty, and with a concession so great that finally even a meal-offering is allowed in place of that which alone could furnish the atoning blood. Here it is impossible, then, to deny that there are grades, natural poverty plainly representing poverty in spiritual apprehension, or in the riches with which it endows the wise of heart. And in these seven forms of the sin-offering we must surely recognize the complete provision which God has made for all possible need.
The epistle to the Hebrews reminds us of one distinctive feature of the sin-offering which it is of the greatest importance for us rightly to understand -that "the bodies of those beasts whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high-priest for sin are burned without the camp." And the explanation is added, "Wherefore Jesus also, that He might sanctify the people with His own blood, suffered without the gate." (Heb 13:11-12.) Why this necessary link between the place "outside the camp" or "without the gate" and the entrance of the blood into the sanctuary?
Let us take the last first as the apostle puts it, surely in order that we may find in it the key to the other. In the offering also it is put first, while, however, in the antitype the order must have been reversed. The didactic order is thus the opposite to the order of fact: to see the facts aright, we must reverse the order.
"The sanctuary" is here literally "the holy places," -the tabernacle as a whole. Only once a year, on the day of atonement, did the blood enter into the holiest of all. At other times it might be sprinkled before the vail, or on the horns of the altar of incense. The passage in Hebrews contemplates both of these. The regular place for the sprinkling of blood in connection with other offerings was the altar of burnt-offering; and it was there that God says He gave it for atonement: but where it was carried into the sanctuary it was not put upon the altar outside except on the day of atonement, (Lev 16:18-19,) and then for a special purpose, which we shall consider in its place. Ordinarily, (and in fact even on the day of atonement,) the blood that was carried into the sanctuary was the blood which otherwise would have been upon the altar. The meaning in each case was in its appeal to God on man’s behalf, and in the various grades of presentation we find it in nearer and nearer approach to God, sprinkled on the altar-sides, anointing its horns, passing across the court into the holy place, and finally reaching, in the mercy-seat, the throne of God itself. All through it is the same truth that is presented by it -atonement, or propitiation, -but with increasing emphasis, although its being the altar-blood is the essential point to be kept in mind. If it be not, the meaning is really lost, "I have given it you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls."
It is the blood of the sin-offering only which goes into the sanctuary, or, as the apostle explains to us, "sanctifies the people." Why that, when the fundamental sweet-savor-offering is the burnt-offering, and the sin-offering is not that? If the sin-offering is that in which the judgment of sin is what is specially enforced, then it is evident. The judgment of sin is an essential necessity with a holy God; its judgment fully carried out in the penal suffering of a substitute sanctifies those for whom it is borne, -i.e. separates them to God according to holiness. Thus approach to God is by the sin-offering rather than the burnt-offering: not that there is none by the burnt-offering, for it too is for atonement; each offering emphasizes certain features, none (in its full thought) omits altogether any; death and the sprinkled blood are found in all. But the marked features are for our instruction, and it is marked for us here that only the blood of the sin-offering enters the sanctuary.
We have not, however, yet reached the full significance of this, as is plain. For of the sin-offerings themselves, only one form could provide the blood that entered, and that was where the body of the victim was burned without the camp. This was the case only in that of the day of atonement, in the red heifer, or the first two grades of the sin-offering here. Lower grades could, however, lift the blood to the horns of the altar where the blood of the burnt-offering could not reach; and it is thus the culmination of the sin-offering character where the flesh is in this manner burned. If, then, the idea of the sin-offering is the judgment of sin which the holiness of God requires, it will be this, in the fullest way, which is shown in the burning.
And this all the details show: the very word used for it is not alah, "to ascend," "mount up," or hiqtir, "to consume as incense," but saraph, simply "to burn." The meaning of this is not, as Oehler supposes, to show that the burning is not sacrificial, but simply, as with what remained over of the paschal lamb, or of the peace-offerings, to destroy what could not be eaten! He must surely have forgotten Heb 13:1-25. But it distinguishes between what was sweet savor and what typified or implied the wrath of God. It thus contradicts also the view of those who with still less propriety would make the fire every where a type of wrath. Thus the meal-offering, the incense, and the burning of the fat would be confounded with the burning here. Rather, the fire is the type of that holiness of God which if it try One perfectly obedient could only develop the sweet savor, but as against sin, or one made sin, indeed becomes wrath by the very necessity of its being holiness. Then it is on the ground without an altar, where, if the altar speak of Christ Himself as we have seen, the burning on the ground would signify that it is not now Christ in His own person, as it were, that is in question, but the sin or sinner with whom God is dealing. While the place "outside the camp," outside of what is in recognized relationship to God, speaks, like that "without the gate" of the epistle to the Hebrews, of distance from God, that real "forsaking" which in the twenty-second psalm we see to be the agony of all others, the one exception to all God’s dealings with the righteous since the world was.
It is this that the passage in Hebrews insists on as the main point, -"Christ, that He might sanctify the people with His own blood suffered without the gate." Here the order of connection between the "sanctifying" or penetrating to the sanctuary, and the place taken by the Lord is clearly shown to us, -a place which gives its deepest character to the suffering. Nothing in all that makes up the full story of the cross could be unimportant, -relation to it suffices to give value to every detail, -and in what is most external a spiritual meaning may be found enfolded, -the life by which it develops in the soul. Here, "without the gate" of the city of God, what does it not speak for Him whose glory enlightens the heavenly city?
"Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law," says the apostle again, "being made a curse for us." How is this shown? "For it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth upon a tree." (Gal 3:13.) Here once more there seems to be what is perfectly circumstantial. Why should a man be cursed that hangs upon a tree? How many an innocent man might hang there! Here there is a vail of type after the manner of the law, and yet (with our eyes upon Him who alone is the key to all types) how thin is the vail! This man that hangs between earth and heaven belongs, as it were, to neither. "Lifted up," as if to invite the verdict of heaven, heaven answers not, nor interferes. How could the picture of utter distress be more complete? But "as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so also must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whosoever believeth on Him should not perish, but have eternal life." (Joh 3:14-15.) Not die, merely, but be lifted up, and as the serpent! How plainly the sin-offering character of the cross comes out here! For there is no altar surely in such a picture: how least of all fitted to remind us of Him, a "serpent"! Yet He must be after this manner lifted up, or none could pass from death to life, -no sinner anywhere be born again.
How manifold the witness to this meaning of the cross! The outside place, the cross itself, and then as He hangs there, fruit of the ripened iniquity for which He dies, the pall of darkness wraps Him in full day, out of it the interpreting Voice, but in agony of appeal where there is no answer, "My God, My God! why hast Thou forsaken me?" Yes, "God is light," and this is truly the light withdrawn; the shadow is that of a more awful shadow cast inward upon the soul -who indeed can penetrate it?
This is the judgment of sin, not death merely, as if that were the whole of it: to assert that is to dishonor the Lord morally, making Him feebler than many who as martyrs have trod in His steps; and yet many make atonement to consist in nothing more than death. The type here with the other scriptures that we have been examining speaks plainly of man’s full penalty borne, the awful separation between God and the soul, which is the outer darkness. And in this lies the power of atonement, that God in it is glorified in holiness by Christ taking our place in that which He had proclaimed the due of sin. He must thus come where we were, and the cross is as much the display of what sin is before God as it is the blessed witness of His love to sinners. The darkness in which we were was that of necessary distance from Him who is of purer eyes than to behold iniquity and who cannot look upon sin. For faith the darkness is gone, the vail is rent, as at the cross we see it, the precious blood in its power and value has entered heaven for us, and (what the law could never teach us) we too have "boldness to enter the holiest by the blood of Jesus." (Heb 10:19.)
This, then, is the distinctive character of the sin-offering. When we have seen it, we naturally ask why then it should in so many grades of it be so little marked as in fact we find it to be. Only in the first two forms here is there the burning outside the camp; and elsewhere only in the offerings of the day of atonement and the red heifer. In the lower grades almost every other form of offering seems to be substituted for it: in Lev 5:1-6 a trespass-offering; in the offering of the doves, a burnt-offering is brought in; in that of the poorest it is a meal-offering! How strange and like confusion all this seems! but in fact is it not true that, when we come to detail, numbers of believers even know not in what atonement really consists. Many deny all "penalty" in the death of the cross; many more confound the life and the death of the Lord together; many again speak of "equivalent" penalty as true satisfaction. How strange is all this contradiction as to what really puts away sin from before God! and of lesser differences there are many.
Strange is it still, perhaps, when we look at Scripture itself, to find in the plain teachings of the New Testament, a measure, may we not say, of reserve as to the full truth. Taught in the epistle to the Galatians, taught in the Hebrews, taught less openly in the gospel of John, while the doctrine of wrath-bearing is there, there is still not anywhere the full plain language we should expect upon such a point. That which is everywhere is rather Christ’s death for us, the power of His blood, -in fact the language of the type is the common language of the New Testament also in this respect.
Some of the plainest speech is in the Old; as in the fifty-third of Isaiah; or in the twenty-second psalm, wherein the sin-offering aspect of the cross is to faith unvailed.
The truth is there, but not insisted on as we might expect: it is left for discovery, perhaps we may say, rather than forced upon notice. But why this is, the type before us will tell us also. Not surely that God does not desire that we should have the knowledge of it, but because we must grow into this knowledge, learning it as we learn ourselves with God. It can never be too well remembered that in divine things we cannot learn as we do in natural ones: we must learn of God, and for that must be with Him.
(1) We must now take up the specific cases, and here we find what is peculiar to the sin-offering, that the magnitude of the sin depends upon the position of the person who sins. This needs no enlarging on -it is an admitted principle in the estimation of sin everywhere. We must not be satisfied, however, to stop here: nay, if Christ be before us in these offerings, it would not be true to argue that the greater sinner needs a greater offering; His work is needed alike by all, nor has one a larger interest in it than another. We must distinguish thus between any moral lesson as to sin, and the typical instruction (always the greater) which has Christ as its object throughout. This is just where appears the immense inferiority of some modern methods by which it is aimed at, as the beginning of all true knowledge, to put you back at the Jewish stand-point instead of at the Christian one. The types all look forward; and the method is as wise, as if, to give you clear knowledge of the landscape, they should propose to show it you by night rather than by day. It is very simply intelligible, therefore, why one should often find more satisfaction to the mind even, as well as satisfaction to the heart, in the views of some unlearned Christians as to these things than in the tomes of many learned men.
Here, the moment we have Christ before us, it must strike us to find in the first place in the sin-offering the case of the high-priest. The day of atonement naturally occurs to us, when the high-priest does all the work; with the apostle’s application of it: "Wherefore in all things it behoved Him to be made like unto His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful high-priest in things pertaining to God to make propitiation (R.V.) for the sins of the people." (Heb 2:17.)
In making atonement it is clear that the high-priest had a place belonging to no other. As the high-priest, -the great priest, -the priesthood culminates in him, or still more simply and emphatically, as the priest, he absorbs it, as it were, into himself. He alone, as here, is the anointed, or (merely anglicizing the Hebrew word) the Messiah-priest. He alone bore the names of the people upon his shoulders and on his breast. He alone bore the iniquity of the holy things. His representative character shows itself throughout, and this is evidently what the apostle has in mind when he says that to be a high-priest it behoved Christ "in all things to be made like unto His brethren:" He must be in some sense one with them in order to represent them.
Notice: all men are not "His brethren;" there is no thought here of what has been before examined and rejected, -union by incarnation with men in the flesh. It is "of the seed of Abraham He taketh hold" (v. Heb 2:16, marg.); and both He that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one; for which cause He is not ashamed to call them brethren." (v. Heb 2:11.) He calls them "brethren," because they are such, not as born naturally, but as born anew of the Spirit, and so truly children of God. Here is the principle of sanctification for them; and as they are the sanctified, so He is the Sanctifier, the last Adam, Head of the new race, Quickener out of death. Here He is found in His own place and with His own company.
The evident difficulty confronts us, however, in any application of the high-priest in this case to the Lord, that it is for his own sin that he offers. That this could not apply to the One who knew no sin, needs no affirming. Yet on the day of atonement also the high-priest offers for himself, without prejudice to his typical character in other respects. These defects are necessarily inherent in types, and had their use also in preventing real confusion between type and anti-type. Here also, then, the high-priest may speak of Christ, with this reserve as to a point which can lead none astray who know Christ, and which may even in some ways enable us (as with a darkened glass one may the sun) to see Christ better.
That the sin of the high-priest inculpates the people certainly leads us on in the direction in which we were already looking. It shows that He is already their representative, and it is in this character that Christ undertakes for His people. In this sense alone could the language of the Psalms apply to Him, where as in the fortieth He who says, "Lo, I come: in the volume of the book it is written of Me, I delight to do Thy will, O My God!" cries yet "out of the horrible pit," "for innumerable evils have compassed Me about; Mine iniquities have taken hold upon Me, so that I am not able to look up: they are more than the hairs of My head, so that My heart faileth Me." This is the full reality of substitution, which the vivid words impress us with more strongly perhaps than any other words could do. It is the One for the many, with the iniquity of the many thus accumulated upon Him: "the Lord hath laid on Him" -caused to light on Him -"the iniquity of us all." (Isa 53:6.)
To this the type of the sin-offering here brings us perhaps nearer than any other; while the reiteration of the unusual expression, "the Messiah-priest," seems as if it were given as a guard at once. So do we take it then: as speaking of the One who alone, as the last Adam-head, united upon Himself the sins of those who as new-born of God are "all of one" with Him.
A bullock is again the victim here, hands are laid upon it as before, and it is killed before Jehovah: Christ, priest and victim, needs, as in other places also, a double type to represent Him. The priest takes some of the blood and passing into the tabernacle, sprinkles it seven times before the vail of the sanctuary. This seems not for presentation to God, but to secure a standing before the throne, like the seven-fold sprinkling of the day of atonement (Lev 16:14.) The presentation to God is rather by the anointing the horns of the altar of incense, the only place of communion at all ordinary times with the inner holiest. The rest of the blood in emphatic witness of the death of the victim, emphasized here as nowhere else, is poured out at the bottom of the altar of burnt-offering.
Next follows the burning of the fat upon the altar, just as we are reminded it was done in the case of the peace-offerings. The sacrifice is naturally, therefore, the same; and here we have an example of what we shall find all through these offerings, that they are by no means independent of one another, but pictures from different sides only of the same thing, each emphasizing some part of the truth, while none, perhaps, is altogether omitted. The slaying of the victim and the sprinkling of the blood bind all together. The burning of the fat of the peace-offering is a reflection in part of the burnt-offering, and here links both with the sin-offering. The flesh of the sin-offering is burned where the ashes of the other offerings are poured out, the character of rejection from the altar stamped thus on it also. Here, though in the midst of the sin offering, God would have us realize in the burning of the fat the sweet savor that Christ is to Him: as where we are told, that "He was made sin for us," it is directly added, "who knew no sin," -not unsuitable words surely, but most suitable; and so here: the lights go with the shadows and make the picture clear.
The burning of the bullock outside the camp we have already considered.
The sin-offering for all Israel is in its ordering exactly similar to that for the high-priest. The truth presented in it seems parallel or complementary to that. The assembly of Israel are, of course, the very people who are represented by the high-priest, and must stand, therefore, as in the last offering, for the "brethren" for whom Christ offers. We may notice with what perfection, suitably to the type, it is said at the close, as nothing similar could be said in previous cases, "and the priest shall make atonement for them, and it shall be forgiven them."
I believe it is not the Church only here, as I once thought, but the redeemed generally; while on the day of atonement the distinction between the Church and Israel is clearly maintained. But the offerings here know nothing of dispensations.
The need typically of the present offering is to remedy the necessary defect of the last one. In that, it was the high-priest offering for sin which he accepts as his own. It would not do to leave this so, and thus the other side is now given. The high-priest is in his normal place, offering for the congregation; the atonement made by him there is, as it were, identified with the atonement made for them here, and the effect in forgiveness is made theirs.
(2) We now come to the case of the "prince" or "ruler;" and here it is natural to think that Christ is again before us. The same word is used of Christ in Daniel, "Messiah the Prince" (Dan 9:25). He is the royal priest, or priest-king, Melchisedek; of that order now, and soon to act in that character also. If this "prince" does not speak of Christ, then we seem to have no clue to any typical meaning.
Furthermore, if we look at the next offering -that for one of the people of the land, we shall find almost as complete accordance with the present one, as in that of the congregation there was with that of the high-priest. The four offerings seem to fall into two pairs, the last three being also as plainly, though in a different way, connected with one another; and this is a not uncommon division of a septenary series, namely, into four and three (which is usual), and then the first four into two and two. In these two pairs also there is a parallel order of thought, -the high-priest and the assembly that he represents; the prince, the head of a tribe, or the division of a tribe, and one of the tribe, such as he represents.
There is surely, then, a designed correspondence; and yet looking, as we are doing, at the typical meaning, it is also evident that there is in this second pair an order of thought less congruous to the subject, as the offering itself is lower in kind, a goat instead of a bullock. The goat, however, is still in complete accordance with the idea in the sin-offering, speaking, as it does, of substitution, of Christ in the sinner’s place. In the day of atonement, the bullock and the goat are both taken for the sin-offering, the bullock for the priests, the goat for the people. Representation is evidently the controlling thought of the sin-offering, and here the "prince" falls necessarily behind the priest, as indeed the individual does behind the congregation. The prince represents the people over whom he is placed, as responsible for them, but in government, not in mediation. True as it is of Christ that He is King, propitiation appertains to His priestly, not His kingly office: the truth is not in its place, and this is commonly the way in which error as to the Word of God arises, by dislocation of the truth.
It is not that the truth of priesthood is wholly lost, for it is still the priest that makes atonement, but this is simply official, not grounded upon that kinship to the "sanctified" which we have seen to be necessary to representation in this way. It is from the loss of this that on the one side we hear of general redemption in all its phases to complete Universalism; on the other hand, of atonement for the elect as such. Thus atonement becomes for many indecisive and uncertain, or narrowed so as to limit God’s love by that which alone presents it in its fullness. Scripture rightly understood delivers us from both narrowness and looseness. Propitiation becomes for the people of God the full and perfect satisfaction which alone gives rest to the conscience, and yet is for the whole world upon condition of faith, all being welcome and besought to avail themselves of it. We shall have occasion to examine this again when we come to the day of atonement, in which so many of the sacrifices are brought together for us. Meanwhile, the prince and the individual Israelite here may well suggest those thoughts of atonement in which sovereignty of counsel and individual election -both true in themselves -control the doctrine unduly, banishing the full tenderness of priesthood, and the largeness of a love that goes out to all. Yet here a true substitution -the goat -remains, and therefore a genuine salvation. The flesh, however, is not burned without the camp, and as a consequence, the blood does not enter the sanctuary; for true oneness being lost, an "equivalent" penalty can be thought of, -not the actual, and really, therefore, not equivalent. The very idea shows what is lost, for what can the equivalent be to the wrath of God? Present entrance into the sanctuary is also lost, the old man not being completely set aside in judgment. But to enter into this would lead one too far at this time.
The sheep allowed to the Israelite in place of the goat is still a descent from the truth here, for in the sheep the full thought of substitution is now also lost.
(3) The last three forms of the sin-offering are plainly connected together by the fact that they are provision for the same offenses, only differing in this, that the last two are concessions to poverty. From the trespass-offering being mentioned in ver. 6, commentators have taken these cases to be trespasses rather than sins; indeed the law of the trespass-offering was supposed to begin with the fifth chapter. Kurtz rightly urges against this,
(1) that the introductory formula of the trespass-offering is in ver. 14, while the present section is in direct continuation of the fourth chapter;
(2) that the sins mentioned are in other places also given as requiring sin-offerings, while the ram, the only animal prescribed for the known trespass-offerings, does not occur here;
(3) in the trespass-offerings proper, no allowance for the poverty of the person is or could be made, while there are unquestionably other places where this occurs in the laws relating to the sin-offerings (Lev 12:8; Lev 14:21). These considerations are conclusive, and the fact before remarked on, that the burnt- and the meal-offering are also found among these offerings takes away all strangeness from the occurrence of the trespass-offering. We are evidently in a doctrinal descent, already begun in the previous chapter, from the full truth as to atonement for sin given in the first two offerings, God in His goodness accepting the sinner coming thus, in spite of imperfect apprehensions of his need and the fullness of the provision for it.
As to that for which these offerings are prescribed, it is to be observed that in the previous chapter the sins are not specified. So to speak, the exact character of the sins is not the important thing, but that they are sins; and it is in this way that sin receives its most real judgment. Thus it would seem that in the specification here we have another evidence of the lower ground upon which we are. It is about this or that that the soul is troubled, -the specific character of the thing rather than the generic, and the idea of the trespass-offering introduced exactly corresponds with this; for in the trespass-offering we find the exact estimate made of the wrong done which has to be made up -the debt which has to be paid. The trespass-offering contemplates sin as injury rather than sin -against God’s government rather than His nature. Both views are of course right, but the former is the more superficial, and if substituted for the other, is poverty itself. Just so with the “governmental theory of atonement," which makes the necessity of dealing with sin to be in the interests of good government merely. God must show Himself against it in the interests of good government, -true indeed; but He must show Himself for what He is, because He must be what He is, -the requirements of His nature are the deepest and most fundamental of all.
The offering in this case is to be either of a female sheep or of a she-goat, that which was most appropriate to the sin-offering coming last, for in the case of the true trespass-offering it does not appear. The governmental theory, in like manner, has no true substitution -Christ was not in the sinner’s place. It has a substitute for penalty, not a Substitute under penalty: and yet this is not universally so; a happy inconsistency with some who present the trespass- for the sin-offering is that they present nevertheless the goat for their trespass-offering! Yet it is (whether sheep or goat,) the female that is offered, a lower thought perhaps even because the thought of fruitfulness is so distinct in it. This can be so pressed as to obscure the primary necessity for atonement.
In the next case we find an assemblage of contradictory thoughts: for his trespass in which he has sinned, the offerer brings a pair of doves for a burnt-offering and sin-offering together. The doves are already, as we have seen, the lowest form of burnt-offering; but here, (as where the heart is truer than the head,) save one, no offering fails entirely to be represented. But who can interpret aright the thoughts that crowd together here? One offering, as has been said, is wanting -alas! the peace-offering! how significant is its absence, where the cross of Christ is only seen as in the confusion of a dream!
Finally -for plainly we can go no further in this direction, -in case of poverty so great that even the offering of doves is beyond reach, -a meal-offering of fine flour, but without oil or frankincense, is accepted for a sin-offering. Here, at least, there can be no question with any that we have not God’s thought of what is atonement for sin, -for even the blood that maketh atonement for the soul is absent -but what God in mercy can accept where man has no better. It is Christ, of course, who is trusted in, and trusted in as Saviour, though the soul may be so deeply ignorant as not to know that even His death was needed for atonement. God knows the need, and Christ has met it, even for those utterly unconscious of the depth to which He must descend for this. How blessed the assurance here that the cross it is that saves, not one’s intelligence about it! Yet we must remember that ignorance of the cross and opposition to it are different things, though it be true that Peter, when he first heard of it, opposed. Here we must leave Him who knoweth the hearts to draw the line.
5. The Trespass-offering, as the governmental offering, occupies the fifth place. As already said, it is sin as injury rather than as sin that is contemplated, and thus the thought of compensation is prominent in connection with it: the amount of compensation due was to be estimated by the priest, and then a fifth part more added to it and given to the person injured; so that he was more than recompensed.
No one doubts that this is the peculiar feature of the trespass-offering. As for the rest, it was a ram in every case that was offered, but the manner of the offering is entirely omitted in this place. Further on we shall find that it was very little different from the ordinary forms of the sin-offering: here, all this is omitted, that our eyes may be fixed upon this special feature.
The estimation of the priest seems to include that of the ram: to make it the whole thing, attaching to the animal, as Hengstenberg imagines, a suppositious value, is impossible to believe. Think of God ordaining a fictitious compensation to a person wronged! On the other hand, the words certainly give the impression that the ram was estimated; and although this is the only case of such a thing in the sacrificial offerings, we cannot say that it is a contradiction in thought to this one. Otherwise, indeed, we should have to look at the compensation as something merely added to the sacrifice rather than as giving it its character. As it is, the offering becomes the restitution-offering.
If still we have Christ before us, the thought of restitution by the cross will not be difficult to understand or hard to follow out. The law of the offering divides into two parts, clearly distinguished by the "Jehovah spake unto Moses" which divides them, and no less by their subjects, -the first part treating of wrongs done to God, the latter of wrongs done to man. In both respects it should be clear that Christ has not only restored what He took not away, but overcompensated -added the fifth part more. This is the double tithe which the Egyptians gave to Pharaoh in testimony that Joseph had saved their lives, and that all they had was of Pharaoh’s bounty. It is the witness of grace and salvation: mark, the overplus is the witness of this; for God could not be content with mere restoration of what had been taken away; He could not satisfy Himself with merely repairing the damage sin had done, -the disorder it had introduced. No; there must be for His people greater blessing, and for Himself a greater glory -blessing, thus, for all His creatures, as they behold it.
The failure to apprehend this is the foundation of much error in theology. It leads to a real degradation of Christ’s blessed work, which is made to consist in merely canceling the evil Adam did, and completing that which Adam failed to do. But then Adam has to be made from the beginning a candidate for heaven, and law-fulfillment the means originally designed for getting there! As it has been said by one, "This do, and live," was written over the gate of heaven. A creature was to leave the place God had made him for and put him into, -was taught to aspire, when Satan had lost heaven by aspiring. All this, for many, has dislocated their theology from the foundation. Adam is looked at as "holy" instead of innocent; the image of God in righteousness and true holiness into which we are new-created is thought only the renewal of that in which man was created. And it is no wonder if, on the other hand, many should think of earth in a heavenly state, as the only heaven intended for us.
How differently does Scripture speak! contrasting the Second Man with the first, the old with the new creation. It is Christ who has opened heaven to us; manhood has entered it in Him; grace has made ours what God could never have proposed to us to gain by working: as children of God, possessors of eternal life; as indwelt of the Spirit, members of Christ’s body; Eden but the type of the paradise of God; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ! Had Adam ever been invited to take possession of such an inheritance?
Godward also He has wrought, glorifying Him, as Adam could never have done. Where was His righteousness told out as in the cross? eternal love at the same time manifest in the Son of God bearing our sins in His own body on the tree! God and man in His own blessed person held fast in an everlasting embrace never to be sundered. Surely salvation is, by the whole fullness of what constitutes it that, an overplus every way of blessing and of glory.
This is the trespass-offering: one perfect Man in the depth of humiliation, lifted up upon the cross, has accomplished this. Manhood itself has been, in Him, raised from its fall to be the dwelling-place of Deity. The divine answer to the question, "What is man, that Thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, that Thou visitest him?" has been given in Jesus: "Thou hast made him a little lower than the angels; Thou hast crowned him with glory and honor: Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of Thy hands; Thou hast put all things under his feet."
It only remains to show briefly now how the first two gospels compare with these last two offerings. Matthew’s is, without doubt, the governmental gospel. Its theme is the kingdom of heaven, and Christ the King; while Mark’s is ministry and the perfect Servant. In each case, the character is preserved throughout: even the forgiveness of sins in the former, as taught in one of the parables of the kingdom, is conditional and can be recalled; in the prayer taught His disciples we find "Forgive us our debts" instead of "our sins," as elsewhere; in the parables of the thirteenth chapter He is the man who buys the field, and who buys the pearl.
A difficulty in deciding between the two gospels lies in this, that at the cross, in Matthew as in Mark, the cry of desertion is found, and the darkness which it interprets. This in the offerings is characteristic, as we have seen, of the sin-offering and not the trespass. It only shows, however, that there is not the repetition in Scripture which we often imagine to be there. In God’s governmental ways He must display His nature; so that there is nothing really contradictory in this. On the other hand, while in both the effect of the darkness endured is that it passes away -the vail is rent, -on the other hand, it is in Matthew only that His death is followed by the resurrection of the saints. But death is governmental, not the necessary penalty of sin. So too the threefold vindication of the blessed Sufferer by the traitor who betrays Him, the judge who condemns Him, and in the dream of Pilate’s wife, is again governmental. Mark omits all this, in order to concentrate our attention on the great expiation being wrought, the fruit of which is seen, not, as in Matthew, in disciples bidden to baptize into the kingdom, but in the gospel going forth to men, with the power of the adversary broken down before it.
Space forbids further dwelling upon a theme so precious, and we must close here our comment upon the offerings in themselves.
F. W. Grant, The Numerical Bible (4th ed., 1903) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Alexander MacLaren 1905 · Public Domain On v1 Lev 1:1 - Lev 1:9.
Leviticus
THE BURNT OFFERING A PICTURE AND A PROPHECY
Read full note →
Lev 1:1 - Lev 1:9.
In considering the Jewish sacrificial system, it is important to distinguish the symbolical from the typical value of the sacrifices. The former could scarcely be quite unnoticed by the offerers; but the latter was only gradually made plain, was probably never very generally seen, and is a great deal clearer to us, in the light of Christ, the Antitype, than it could ever have been before His coming. As symbols, the sacrifices expressed great eternal truths as to spiritual worship and communion, its hindrances, requisites, manner, and blessings. They were God’s picture-book for these children in religious development. As types, they shadowed the work of Jesus Christ and its results.
The value of the sacrifices in either aspect is independent of modern questions as to their Mosaic origin; for at whatever period the Priest’s Code was promulgated, it equally bears witness to the ruling ideas of the offerings, and, in any case, it was long before Christ came, and therefore its prophecy of Him is as supernatural, whether Moses or Ezra were its author. I make this remark, not as implying that the new theory is not revolutionary, but simply as absolving a student of the religious significance of the sacrificial system from entering here on questions of date.
The ‘burnt offering’ stands first in Leviticus for several reasons. It was derived from patriarchal times; it was offered twice daily, besides frequently on other occasions; and in its significance it expressed the complete consecration which should be the habitual state of the true worshipper. Its name literally means ‘that which ascends,’ and refers, no doubt, to the ascent of the transformed substance of the sacrifice in fire and smoke, as to God. The central idea of this sacrifice, then, as gathered from its name and confirmed by its manner, is that of the yielding of the whole being in self-surrender, and borne up by the flame of intense consecration to God. Very beautiful is the variety of material which was permitted. The poor man’s pair of pigeons went up with as sweet an odour as the rich man’s young bull. God delights in the consecration to Him of ourselves and our powers, no matter whether they be great or small, if only the consecration be thorough, and the whole being be wrapped in the transforming blaze.
It is worth while to try to realise the strange and to our eyes repulsive spectacle of the burnt offering, which is veiled from us by its sacred associations. The worshipper leads up his animal by some rude halter, and possibly resisting, to the front of the Tabernacle, the courts of which he dared not tread, but which was to him the dwelling-place of God. There by the altar he stands, and, first pressing his hand with force on the victim’s head, he then, with one swift cut, kills it, and as the warm blood spouts from the mangled throat, the attendant priest catches it in a basin, and, standing at the two diagonally opposite corners of the altar in turn, dashes, with one dexterous twist, half of the contents against each, so as to wet two sides of the altar with one throw, and the other two with the other. The offerer then flays the reeking carcase, tossing the gory hide to the priest as his perquisite, and cuts up the sacrifice according to a fixed method. His part of the work is done, and he stands by with bloody hands while the priests arrange the pieces on the pile on the altar; and soon the odour of burning flesh and the thick smoke hanging over the altar tell that the rite is complete. What a scene it must have been when, as on some great occasions, hundreds of burnt offerings were offered in succession! The place and the attendants would look to us liker shambles and butchers than God’s house and worshippers.
Now, if we inquire into the significance of the offering, it turns on two points-expiation and burning. The former it has in common with other bloody sacrifices, though it presents features of its own, even in regard to expiation. But the latter is peculiar to it, and must therefore be taken to be its special teaching. The stages in the whole process are five: the presentation, laying on of hands, slaughter, sprinkling of blood, and burning of the whole carcase. The first three are alike in this and other sacrifices, the fourth is modified here, and the last is found here only. Each has its lesson. The offerer has himself to bring the animal to the door of the Tabernacle, that he may show his willing surrender of a valuable thing. As he stands there with his offering, his thoughts would pass into the inner shrine, where God dwelt; and he would, if he were a true worshipper, feel that while God, on His part, already dwelt in the midst of the people, he, on the other hand, can only enter into the enjoyment of His presence by sacrifice. The offering was to be ‘a male without blemish’; for bodily defect symbolising moral flaw could not be tolerated in the offerings to a holy God, who requires purity, and will not be put off with less than a man’s best, be it ox or pigeon. ‘The torn and the lame and the sick,’ which Malachi charged his generation with bringing, are neither worthy of God to receive nor of us to offer. When he pressed his hand on the head of the sacrifice, what was the worshipper meant to think? In all other instances where hands are laid on, some transference or communication of gifts or qualities is implied; and it is natural to suppose that the same meaning attaches to the act here, with such modifications as the case requires. We find that it was done in other bloody sacrifices, accompanied with confession. Nothing is said of confession here; but we cannot dismiss the idea that the offerer laid his sins on the victim by that striking act, especially as the very next clause says ‘it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him.’ The atonement was made, as we shall see, by the application of the blood to the altar; but the possibility of the victim’s blood atoning for the offerer depended on his having laid his hands on its head. We may perhaps go farther than ‘transference of sins.’ Might we not widen the expression, and say ‘identification,’ or, to use a word which has become so worn by religious controversy that it slips through our fingers unnoticed, ‘substitution’? Did not the offerer say in effect, by that act, ‘This is I? This animal life shall die, as I ought to die. It shall go up as a sweet savour to Jehovah, as my being should.’
The animal invested with this representative character is next to be slain by the offerer, not by the priest, who only performed that part of the ritual in the case of national or public sacrifices. That was distinctly a vicarious death; and, as inflicted by the hand of the person represented by the animal, he thereby acknowledged that its death was the wages of his sin, and allowed the justice of his condemnation, while he presented this innocent life-innocent because not that of a moral being-as his substitute. So far the worshipper’s part goes. But now, when the act of expiation is to be symbolically represented, and, so far as outward sacrifice could, is to be accomplished, another actor appears. The priest comes forward as mediator between God and man, and applies the blood to the altar. The difference between the sprinkling of the blood, in the burnt offerings and in the other sacrifices, which had expiation for their principal object, in some of which it was smeared on the horns of the altar, and, in the most solemn of all, was carried into the holiest place, and sprinkled on the mercy-seat, suggests that the essential character of the burnt offering was not expiatory, though expiation was the foundation on which alone the essential character could be reared. The application of the blood was the formal act by which atonement was made. The word rendered ‘to make atonement’ means ‘to cover’; and the idea conveyed is that the blood, which is the life of the sacrifice, covers the sins of the offerer, so as to make them powerless to dam back the love or to precipitate the wrath of God.
With this act the expiatory portion of the ritual ends, and we may here pause to look back for a moment on it as a whole. We have pointed out the double bearings of the Mosaic ritual as symbolical and as typical or prophetic. In the former aspect, the emphatic teaching of this rite is that ‘the wages of sin is death,’ that ‘without shedding of blood there is no remission,’ that God has appointed sacrifice as the means of entering into fellowship with Him, and that substitution and vicarious penalty are facts in His government. We may like or dislike these thoughts; we may call them gross, barbarous, immoral, and the like, but, at all events, we ought not to deny that they are ingrained in the Mosaic sacrificial system, which becomes unmeaning elaboration of empty and often repulsive ceremonies, if they are not recognised as its very centre. Of course, the meaning of the sacrifices was hidden from many a worshipper. They became opaque instead of transparent, and hid the great truth which they were meant to reveal. All forms labour under that disadvantage; but that they were significant in design, and largely so to devout hearts in effect, admits of no reasonable doubt. That which they signified was chiefly the putting away of sin by the sacrifice of innocent life, which stood in the place of the guilty. Of course, too, their benefit was symbolical, and the blood of bulls and goats could never put away sin; but, under the shelter of the outward forms, a more spiritual insight gradually grew up, such as breathes in many a psalm, and such as, we cannot doubt, filled the heart of many a worshipper, as he stood by the bleeding sacrifice on which his own hands had laid the burden that had weighed so heavy on himself. How far the prophetic aspect of the sacrifices was discerned, is a more difficult question. But this at least we know-that the highest level of evangelical prophecy, in Isaiah’s wonderful fifty-third chapter, is reached from this vantage-ground. It is the flower of which these ordinances are the root. We need not enlarge upon the prophetic aspect of the sacrifice. The mere negative sinlessness of the victim points to the ‘Lamb without blemish and without spot,’ on whom, as Isaiah says, in language dyed through and through with sacrificial references, ‘the Lord hath made to meet the iniquity of us all,’ and who Himself makes ‘His soul an offering for sin.’ The modern tendency to bring down the sacrificial system to a late date surely sins against the sacred and all-explaining law of evolution, in the name of which it is attempted, inasmuch as it is an unheard-of thing for the earlier stages of a religion to be less clogged with ceremonial than the later. Psalmist and prophet first, and priest afterwards, is not the order of development.
The remaining part of the ritual was, as we have pointed out, peculiar to the burnt offering. In it alone the whole of the sacrifice was consumed on the altar, with the exceptions of the skin, which was given to the priest, and of the contents of the intestines. Hence it was sometimes called ‘a whole burnt offering.’ The meaning of this provision may be apprehended if we note that the word rendered ‘burn,’ in Lev 1:9, is not that which simply implies destruction by fire, but is a peculiar word, reserved for sacrificial burnings, and meaning ‘to cause to ascend in smoke or vapour.’ The gross flesh was, as it were, refined into vapour and odour, and went up to God as ‘a sweet savour.’ It expressed, therefore, the transformation of the sinful human nature of the worshipper, by the refining power of the fire of God, into something more ethereal and kindred with the heaven to which it rose. Or, to put the thought in plainer words, on the basis of expiation, the glad surrender of the whole being is possible and will ensue; and when a man yields himself in joyful self-surrender to the God who has forgiven his sins, then the fire of the divine Spirit is shed abroad in his heart, and kindles a flame which lays hold on all the gross, earthly elements of his being, and changes them into fire, kindred with itself, which aspires, in ruddy tongues of upward-leaping light, to the God to whom the heart has been surrendered, and to whom the whole being tends.
This is the purpose of expiation; this is the summit of all religion. One man has realised to the full, in his life, what the burnt offering taught as the goal for all worshippers. Jesus has lived in the constant exercise of perfect self-surrender, and in the constant unmeasured possession of ‘the Spirit of burning,’ with which He has come to baptize us all. If we look to Him as our expiation, we should also find in Him the power to yield ourselves ‘living sacrifices,’ and draw from Him the sacred and refining fire, which shall transform our grossness into His likeness, and make even us ‘acceptable to God, through Jesus Christ.’
Alexander MacLaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture (1904–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
J. R. Dummelow 1909 · Public Domain On v1 The Law Of Sacrifice
The Law Of Sacrifice
What is recorded here is not the institution of the rite of sacrifice, which is assumed to be already in existence (see Lev_1:2), but its regulation in matters of detail. It did not originate among the Israelites; it is a primitive and universal custom, based apparently upon a natural instinct, and found in one form or other in all parts of the world. Sacrifice is an act of worship, whereby the offerer either expresses his sense of the harmony and communion existing between himself and his god, or endeavours to restore these when by any means they have been destroyed. In all probability the former idea is the earlier, and the origin of sacrifice is to be found in the conception that the god of a tribe stands in a very close relationship to it, and in some respects has a common life and interests with it. In primitive times the god was conceived in a crude and material form. He was supposed to require food and drink (see on Lev_3:11). And, as eating and drinking together is a common token of good relationship, it may well be that sacrifice in its primitive form was regarded as a common meal partaken of by the Deity and his worshippers in good fellowship. Part of the offering was eaten by the latter, and the portion for the god was laid out, and left for him, in some place where he was supposed to dwell. As the god came to be regarded as a more or less ethereal being, means were taken to send his portion to him, as it were, by converting the solid parts into smoke by burning and pouring out the liquids, wine, blood of the sacrificial victim, etc., and letting them sink into the earth. Traces of this primitive idea of sacrifice, as a feast or common meal partaken of by the god and his worshippers, may be discovered among the Israelites in Bible times: e.g. in the sacrificial feast which followed the making of the covenant between Jehovah and His people in Exodus 24 (see on Exo_24:9-11), and in the feast at the 'high place' to which Saul went (1Sa_9:13) See also the note on the Shewbread (Lev_24:5-9) and on the Peace Offering (Leviticus 3); and see for a protest against this materialistic conception of God Psa_50:8-15.
Read full note →
Alongside of this idea, and perhaps growing out of it, is that which regards the sacrifice as a gift made to the god to procure his favour or appease his vengeance. The worshipper makes his offering as before, by burning or by libation; but hopes, in consideration of its value, to procure protection from danger, deliverance from calamity, or success in enterprise. This was probably the meaning of the Burnt Offering in Leviticus 1, and of such human sacrifices as are referred to in Lev_18:21 (see note there and references).
It is probably not the earliest but the latest view of sacrifice which sees in it a means of expiating the sins of the offerer. When God has come to be regarded as a holy Being to whom all sin is offensive, the sinner feels himself to lie under His wrath and curse. He is conscious that the good relationship that ought to exist between himself and the Deity has been interrupted by his transgression, and seeks a means of restoring harmony. He finds this in the offering of sacrifice, which is said to have a 'covering' efficacy: see on Lev_1:4. Wherein this atoning efficacy lay is not certain. Some have found it in the idea of substitution. The offerer feels that his life is forfeited by his sins, but believes that he is graciously permitted to substitute a victim, to which his sins are in some way transferred, and which dies in his stead: see on Lev_1:4; Lev_16:8, Lev_16:20-22, and cp. Lev_17:11. Others have held that the efficacy of the atoning sacrifice consists in its being an expression of the offerer's feelings and desires, his penitence, humility, and prayer for forgiveness, and that it is the latter that procures the remission of his sins. In the Levitical system the idea of expiation and atonement is specially emphasised in the Sin Offering and Guilt Offering (see Lev_4:1 to Lev_6:7 and notes there, and cp. what is said on the ritual of the Day of Atonement, Leviticus 16).
In considering the various forms of sacrifice prescribed in Leviticus, it must be borne in mind that the book is a collection or codification of the law of ritual, and contains therefore regulations dating from different times. Of the five main types specified (see Intro. § 1, and the notes prefixed to Leviticus 1-4), the first three, the Burnt Offering (Leviticus 1), the Meal Offering (Leviticus 2), and the Peace Offering (Leviticus 3) are, generally speaking, sacrifices expressive of harmony between the worshipper and God; they are sacrifices of joy, of wholehearted devotion, of thanksgiving. The other forms of sacrifice, the Sin and Guilt Offerings (Leviticus 4 - Lev_6:7), are expressive of the sense of interrupted communion; they are sacrifices of atonement and expiation. In them the sense of sin comes more into prominence.
The Levitical system of sacrifice underlies the worship of the OT. Like all systems of rites and ceremonies it was liable to abuse. From the writings of the prophets we learn that a common fault of Israel was to place reliance on the performance of the outward ceremony, and to neglect the weightier matters of the law. It was not the least part of the work of the prophets to counteract the tendency to formalism, perfunctoriness, and externality, and to remind the people of Israel that 'to obey is better than sacrifice,' that God 'desired mercy and not sacrifice, and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings,' and that 'the sacrifices of God are a broken spirit.' At the same time, the entire nation could hardly ever be blind to the fact that 'gifts and sacrifices could not make him that did the service perfect as pertaining to the conscience.' OT. forms of expiation accordingly have an anticipatory function, and find their fulfilment in the NT., wherein we are taught that Christ shed Bus blood 'for the remission of sins,' and that He 'put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.' He is the 'Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.' In His death the whole endeavour of God's saving love, represented and illustrated in the OT. sacrifices, reaches its attainment, and other sacrifices are superseded. They are rendered needless because the goodwill of God to men is fully expressed in the incarnation, life, sufferings, and death of His only begotten Son, and because Christ has offered to God the only real sacrifice for the sins of humanity, in His life of perfect obedience, crowned by His death of free and absolute submission to the will of God.
The Burnt Offering
This is mentioned first as being the most general form of sacrifice. Its characteristic feature is the consumption of the entire animal by fire upon the altar, for which reason it is also described as the 'whole burnt offering' (1Sa_7:9, cp. Psa_51:19). The victims are oxen, sheep, or goats, for which, in the case of poor persons, turtle doves or young pigeons may be substituted (Lev_1:14). The animal must be a male, i.e. of the superior sex, and without blemish (Lev_1:3). The ritual of the sacrifice is as follows. (1) The animal is presented at the door of the tabernacle by the offerer, who solemnly dedicates it by laying both his hands upon its head (Lev_1:4). (2) It is then slaughtered, by the offerer himself it would appear (Lev_1:5). (3) The blood is caught in a bowl by the priest in attendance and flung round the altar (Lev_1:5). (4) The carcase is then skinned and divided, the entrails and legs washed with water, and the whole, with the exception of the skin, which falls to the priest (Lev_7:8), laid upon the altar and burned (Lev_1:6-9). In the case of pigeons, their small size and moderate quantity of blood necessitate some differences of detail (Lev_1:14-17).
The Burnt Offering, being wholly consumed upon the altar, signified the complete self-surrender of the offerer to God. It was the sacrifice of devotion, and formed therefore the main element of individual and collective worship. It was offered in daily service, morning and evening, on behalf of the entire community (the 'continual burnt offering': see on Exo_29:38-42).
1. Tabernacle of the congregation] RV 'tent of meeting': see on Exo_25:22.
2. Children of Israel] The instructions in Lev_1:1 to Lev_6:7 are for the laity. Those addressed to the priests follow in Lev_6:8 to Lev_7:38. Offering] RV 'oblation': the general name for a sacrifice or votive offering. The Heb. word is Corban, which means a thing 'brought near' or presented: see Mar_7:11 RV.
3. Male without blemish] What is offered to God must be the best of its kind: see on Lev_22:17-25 and on Exo_12:5.
4. Put his hand upon the head] This signifies the surrender of the animal to God, and, though this is not so clear, the transference of the offerer's guilt to it. In doing so he made a confession of his sins: cp. Lev_3:2. Make atonement] lit. 'put a covering over him,' i.e. screen his unworthiness, protect him in the presence of the holiness of God.
5. He shall kill] The subject is the offerer. The blood represents the life, and is sprinkled upon the altar in token that the offerer yields his life to God, in expiation of his sins and in consecration to His service.
11. Northward] On the E. side was the place for ashes and refuse (Lev_1:16); on the W. stood the laver and the Holy of Holies; the ascent to the altar was on the S. side. The N. side, accordingly, was the most convenient place of slaughter.
17. A sweet savour] see on Exo_29:18.
J. R. Dummelow, A Commentary on the Holy Bible (Macmillan, 1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
C. I. Scofield 1917 · Public Domain On vv3, 4, 8, 9 The burnt-offering
burnt-sacrifice
The burnt-offering
Read full note →
(1) typifies Christ offering Himself without spot to God in delight to do His Father’s will even in death.
(2) it is atoning because the believer has not had this delight in the will of God; and
(3) substitutionary (Lev 1:4) because Christ did it in the sinner’s stead. But the thought of penalty is not prominent.; Heb 9:11-14; Heb 10:5-7; Psa 40:6-8; Php 2:8. The emphatic words Lev 1:3-5 are "burnt-sacrifice," "voluntary," "it shall be accepted for him," and "atonement." The creatures acceptable for sacrifice are five:
(1) The bullock, or ox, typifies Christ as the patient and enduring Servant 1Co 9:9; 1Co 9:10; Heb 12:2; Heb 12:3 "obedient unto death"; Isa 52:13-15; Php 2:5-8. His offering in this character is substitutionary, for this we have not been.
(2) The sheep, or lamb, typifies Christ in unresisting self-surrender to the death of the cross Isa 53:7; Act 8:32-35.
(3) The goat typifies the sinner Mat 25:33 and, when used sacrificially, Christ, as "numbered with the transgressors"; Isa 53:12; Luk 23:33 and "made sin," and "a curse"; Gal 3:13; 2Co 5:21 as the sinner’s substitute.
(4,5) The turtle-dove or pigeon. Naturally a symbol of mourning innocency Isa 38:14; Isa 59:11; Mat 23:37; Heb 7:26 is associated with poverty in Lev 5:7 and speaks of Him who for our sakes become poor Luk 9:58 and whose pathway of poverty which began with laying aside "the form of God," ended in the sacrifice through which we became rich; 2Co 8:9; Php 2:6-8. The sacrifice of the poor Man becomes the poor man’s sacrifice. Luk 2:24. These grades of typical sacrifice test the measure of our apprehension of the varied aspects of Christ’s one sacrifice on the cross. The mature believer should see Christ crucified in all these aspects.
The Scofield Reference Bible (1917 edition), notes by C. I. Scofield — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Arno C. Gaebelein 1922 · Public Domain On v1 Analysis and Annotations
Analysis and Annotations
I. THE OFFERINGS THE FOUNDATION OF HOLINESS
Read full note →
1. The Burnt Offering
CHAPTER 1
1. The bullock (Lev 1:1-9)
2. The sheep or the goat (Lev 1:10-13)
3. The doves or pigeons (Lev 1:14-17)
Jehovah spoke out of the tabernacle which had been set up and upon which the cloud descended, filling the Holy of Holies with the glory of the Lord. Thus Leviticus is closely linked with the ending of the book of Exodus. Out of that glory, from between the cherubim, the same Person spoke to Moses, who had spoken to him out of the burning bush and on Mount Sinai. The first three chapters with which Leviticus opens form one utterance of Jehovah. The second utterance begins with chapter 4:1. This first utterance of Jehovah is concerning three offerings: the burnt offering, the meat offering, and the peace offering. They are distinguished from the other two offerings by being called “a sweet savour (or odor) to Him.” This tells of the value and acceptability of these offerings. No direct reference to sin is made in connection with the “sweet savour” offerings. For Israel these three offerings were the divinely appointed means to approach Him, who dwelt in the Sanctuary. The sin and trespass offerings had more specially to do with their sins and were the means of restoring communion with God. The burnt offering stands first among the offerings because it foreshadows in a most precious and simple way the perfect work of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself to God. This offering was wholly consumed, and was therefore also called “whole burnt offering” (Deu 33:10; Psa 51:19). It was a holocaust. It went up entirely to God; the priests could not eat of it. The altar upon which it was brought was called the altar of burnt offering, while the fire upon that altar was never permitted to go out. Every part of it typifies Christ offering Himself completely to God; the sweet odor is unto God and it is for the believer’s acceptance in Him. A few hints on this offering and the other offerings will be sufficient to show their typical meaning.
First the bullock is mentioned. The ox gives us the highest type of Christ offering Himself. Like the sheep and goats used in the burnt offering, the ox was easily gotten. He needed not to be hunted or be gotten by man’s efforts; the ox and the other domestic animals used were, so to speak, ready and willing. Led from the green pastures to be killed before the Lord, the ox is the type of Christ, who left the Father’s glory and presence to do His will and give Himself as the willing sacrifice (Psa 40:6-8; Heb 10:1-6). But the ox is also the type of the servant, and reminds us of Christ, the obedient servant, who came not to be ministered to, but to minister and give His life as a ransom for many. There was to be no blemish whatever in the animal. Even so Christ was without blemish, holy and undefiled. The type was to be without blemish, Christ is without blemish, and the Church which He loved and for which He gave Himself will be through His gracious work without blemish, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing (Eph 5:27).
The offerer had to offer it of his own voluntary will. The correct rendering is (verse 3) “for his acceptance.” This reveals the great purpose of the burnt offering. Through Christ as the sin offering, as we shall see later, the believer knows that all sins are paid for and put away. The burnt offering leads us higher. The spotless One offered Himself unto God and we are accepted in Him. The believer is therefore completely identified with the perfect obedience and devotion of the Lord Jesus Christ and accepted as His willing sacrifice was accepted by God and a sweet odor unto Him.
The offerer had to put his hand on the head of the sacrifice. This simple act identified the offerer with the offering. It also stands for faith, for the hand is for taking hold. Thus faith must lay hold in faith on Christ and become identified with Him. God and the believing soul meet in the One, who offered Himself. In connection with the command to put the hand on the head of the sacrifice we find the statement: “it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him.” While we saw before the believer’s acceptance in Christ, here the fact is made known that the sacrifice is accepted in the offerer’s place and that the burnt offering makes atonement. And because “without shedding of blood is no remission of sins” the ox had to be killed. The Hebrew word “killing” has a sacrificial meaning. The offerer had to slay the victim himself to indicate that he deserved the death which the animal suffered in his place. The next thing done was the sprinkling of the blood by the priests round upon the altar by the door of the tabernacle. Thus He who knew no sin was made sin for us; and His blood has made atonement. And how blessed it is to see it was done “before the LORD” (verse 5). How exceedingly precious and of inestimable value the devotedness of Christ, His obedience unto the death of the cross, and the shedding of His blood must be in God’s holy sight! Thus everything in the burnt offering foreshadows the blessed truth--”Christ hath given Himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet smelling savour” (Eph 5:2).
The victim was flayed, cut into pieces. His inwards and his legs were washed with water. The head and the fat, as well as the other parts including the inwards and the legs, were put in order on the wood upon the altar. It was then completely consumed by fire and rose up a sweet savour unto the Lord. All has its typical meaning. All is exposed to the Divine gaze and all witnesses to the perfection and excellencies of Him who gave Himself. The fat is typical of His internal excellencies. The inwards and the legs washed in water apply to Christ’s holy character in His affections and in His walk in perfect accord with the Word (the water). The wood tells of His humanity which He took on for the suffering of death. The fire was the fire from heaven. It is not, as often taken here, the symbol of Divine wrath consuming the sacrifice, but it has another meaning. It is the figure of God’s perfect delight in the devotion of His ever blessed Son. God rested in Christ and found His fullest satisfaction in Him. The Hebrew has different words for burning. The one that is used here is the same as used for the burning of incense. This in itself shows that it has no connection with wrath. The continual fire upon the altar in connection with this greatest of all the offerings, tells us of God’s perpetual delight in the work of Christ, what He is and what He has done.
What became of the skin of the ox? Chapter 7:8 gives the answer. It belonged to the priest. And thus the burnt offering aspect of the death of Christ covers and hides all, who trust in Him.
Next we find that sheep and goats could also be brought as a burnt offering. The highest grade was the ox and the grades which followed, the sheep and the goat. This was in case the offerer was poor and could not bring the more costly ox. It also represents the faith of the offerer. A lower faith and estimate of Christ which does not reach up to the highest conception, however, does not affect the acceptance of the offerer. The inferior offerings typified Christ and were therefore a sweet savour unto God, who beheld in all the same perfect sacrifice. Our faith should rest completely upon God’s estimate of Christ and His work. The sheep is the type of Christ in His devoted self-surrender, unresisting and silent (Isa 53:7). The goat offering clearly typifies the substitutionary character of the work of the Lamb of God on the cross. The goat is more linked with the sin offering aspect of the death of Christ. Here also the fact is made known that the lamb and goat offering is to be brought on the side of the altar northward before the Lord (verse 11). It stands typically for distance and not the same nearness is recognized as in the first grade offering.
Turtle-doves and pigeons are the lowest grade of burnt offerings. These were for the poorest of the people and they express typically the weakest faith in Christ and the lowest estimate of His work. But here also we read that it was accepted as an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the Lord. These birds speak of Christ as do the ox and the lamb. The dove is the bird of peace, love and sorrow. The dove pictures Him as holy and undefiled, filled with tenderness and love. The bird was put to death by “wringing off its head,” the type of the violence done to Him, who was so tender and loving. The crop and the feathers (correct meaning, “filth”) were cast away. As those were unclean they had to be thrown away so as to make the type correspond to Him, who is undefiled and holy.
Arno C. Gaebelein, The Annotated Bible (1913–1922) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Paul E. Kretzmann 1924 · Public Domain On vv1, 10, 14 Of the Herd
Of the Herd
v. 1. And the Lord called unto Moses, and spake unto him out of the Tabernacle of the Congregation, out of the midst of the cloud which enveloped his glory, Exo 40:35, saying,
Read full note →
v. 2. Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, if any man of you bring an offering unto the Lord, ye shall bring your offering of the cattle, even of the herd and of the flock. The sacrifices brought by individuals are described first, voluntary offerings, through which the worshiper intended to draw near to the Lord. The Hebrew word indicates the fact that sinful man, as such, does not dare to draw near to Jehovah. The sacrifice, therefore, is a symbol of his desire to enter into fellowship with Jehovah, and its value consisted in its foreshadowing the greater Sacrifice, through whom we have peace and access to the Father. The voluntary offering was regarded as a gift of the worshiper, no matter whether it was an actual sacrifice or a dedicatory offering. When the individual Israelite had determined to bring such a gift, the Lord’s instructions as to the selection of the animal and as to the manner of offering were inclusive and exact.
v. 3. If his offering be a burnt sacrifice of the herd, let him offer a male without blemish, a strong, healthy animal, with all its limbs and members intact; he shall offer it of his own voluntary will at the door of the Tabernacle of the Congregation before the Lord. The formal dedication of the sacrifice to the Lord took place at the great entrance of the court, or perhaps inside the court itself, where the altar of burnt offering stood. At a later period such a perfect system of offering sacrifices was put into operation that both the slaughtering of the animals and their dissecting was performed with the greatest possible speed, a row of pillars holding heavy beams with hooks being used to suspend the animals after their blood had been caught by the officiating priests.
v. 4. And he shall put his hand upon the head of the burnt offering, in token of the transfer of his sin to the animal as his substitute, as the victim destined to die in the worshiper’s stead; and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him, that his sins might be covered over before the face of the Lord. Note that here, as always, the acceptance of a substitute is in itself an act of grace and mercy on the part of the Lord.
v. 5. And he shall kill the bullock before the Lord, each worshiper, in a case of this kind, performing the function of a priest of the Lord, as a member of the kingdom of priests, Exo 19:6. And the priests, Aaron’s sons, shall bring the blood, as it was caught up in basins after the slaughter of the animal, and sprinkle the blood round about upon the altar, against its four sides, that is by the door of the Tabernacle of the Congregation. The last was an exclusive priestly function, and even the catching of the blood was performed by the Levites only in cases of emergency.
v. 6. And he shall flay the burnt offering, this part of the work being done either by the offerer or by a Levite, and cut it into his pieces, dissect it according to the rule concerning the disposition of the various parts.
v. 7. And the sons of Aaron, the priest, shall put fire upon the altar of burnt offering, and lay the wood in order upon the fire, which was always kept burning;
v. 8. and the priests, Aaron’s sons, shall lay the parts, the head and the fat, chiefly the loose fat of the abdominal and thoracic cavities, in order upon the wood that is on the fire which is upon the altar;
v. 9. but his inwards and his legs, the intestines, as the lower viscera, and the lower parts of the legs, especially beneath the knees, shall he wash in water, to remove any outward impurities that might be clinging to them; and the priests shall burn all on the altar, to be a burnt sacrifice, an offering made by fire, of a sweet savor unto the Lord. The animal, with its flesh and bones, was burned entire, for the offering signified that the worshiper dedicated himself to the Lord with all his heart and mind, with all the powers of his body and soul, and the rising of the smoke, as the animal was consumed, caused its essence to ascend as a pleasant, acceptable odor to the Lord. In other words, the Lord graciously accepted the worshiper and his service as a member of His Church on earth. God was well pleased with such sacrifices, if they were offered in faith.
Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
unfoldingWord translationNotes 2017 · CC BY-SA 4.0 On vv1, 3, 5, 7, 10, 12, 14, 16 This is the name of God that he revealed…
Yahweh
This is the name of God that he revealed to his people in the Old Testament. See the translationWord page about Yahweh concerning how to translate this.
Read full note →
from the tent of meeting, saying, "Speak to the people of Israel and tell them, 'When any man
Here Yahweh begins speaking to Moses. This speech ends in Lev 3:17. This can be translated without the quotation within the quotation. AT: "from the tent of meeting and told Moses to say this to the people of Israel: 'When any man" (See: Quotes Within Quotes and Direct and Indirect Quotations)
When any man from among you
"When any one of you" or "When any of you"
translationWords
Yahweh
call
Moses
tent of meeting
people group
Israel
sacrifice
flocks
unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.
Tyndale Open Study Notes 2022 · CC BY-SA 4.0 On vv1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 14, 17 1:1–7:38 The first major section of Leviticus deals with…
1:1–7:38 The first major section of Leviticus deals with the institution of the sacrificial system and the priesthood. The sacrifices were either for atonement (the whole burnt offering, sin offering, and guilt offering) or for worship (grain offering and peace offering). Each one taught theology through a hands-on approach. Priests were required to officiate in the sacrificial worship at the Tabernacle, to instruct God’s people in the revelation given to Moses at Sinai, and to represent the people before God, such as on the Day of Atonement (ch 16). Priests were provided for by receiving a portion of the offerings.
1:1 The Lord called to Moses from the Tabernacle: Leviticus is part of the ongoing narrative of the Pentateuch (Gen 1:1—Deut 34:12). It is part of the history of God’s saving acts: God chose Israel to be his people, delivered them from slavery in Egypt, entered into a covenant relationship with them, and guided them through the desert to the Promised Land. Specifically, Leviticus picks up with events recorded in Exod 40:34-38, when construction of the Tabernacle is completed. It has been dedicated, and the Lord has filled it with his glory. Now the Lord gives Moses instructions for conducting worship at the Tabernacle. • The Tabernacle (literally Tent of Meeting; see study note on Exod 27:21) was an earthly representation of God’s palace. Inside the Most Holy Place, the Ark of the Covenant represented God’s throne (Exod 40:1-33). The Lord’s glory resided between the outstretched wings of the cherubim. There he would meet with Israel to communicate his will to them (see Exod 25:22).
Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.