In Exodus 29.41 we have mention for the first time of the grain offering (but not by name - see 30.9) and the drink offering, which are to be offered with the daily morning and evening whole burnt offerings. Thus the full sacrificial picture is beginning to be built up in parallel with the establishment of the Aaronic priesthood. Prior to this offerings and sacrifices have been relatively simple. Now they become more sophisticated, which is why ‘priests’ are now required to ensure their correct presentation.

In Exodus 30.9 there is the mention of the whole burnt offering (‘olah) and the grain offering (minchah) as items which must not be offered on the altar of incense (which is also attended to daily). This latter (the minchah) reminds us of Cain’s offering. These were clearly well recognised offerings. And it was these offerings that were offered at the dedicating of the tabernacle (Exodus 40.29).

So we began with animal offerings and grain offerings offered as ‘gifts’ (minchah), this expanded into ‘whole burnt offerings’ (‘olah) which were wholly consumed on the altar and ‘went up’ to God. And finally we arrived at, along with whole burnt offerings, ‘sacrifices’ (that which is slaughtered) which were at least sometimes partly partaken of by the offerers, which were similar to those of neighbours in Egypt and Canaan (Exodus 34.15).

In fact we know from Ugarit that in Canaanite religion around this time the sacrificial system was quite complicated including the equivalent of burnt offerings (srp), slain offerings (dbh), peace offerings (slm), and sin offerings (stm), among others.

One warning must be given here. There are so many examples of different sacrifices around the ancient world whose significance must be obtained mainly by educated guesswork that examples can be discovered which will prove anything. People can see what they want to see, and we can read into people what we want to read. To a certain extent they become as primitive, or otherwise, as we decide to make them.

It is of course legitimate and right to study them as background, but none of their religions survived in any recognisable form. In the end the significance of their offerings and sacrifices comes from interpretation of their limited literature, and is very much a matter of interpretation. (And I would not want to be judged on the basis of some people’s primitive views on the bread and wine of Communion). The same is true for Israel. The true significance of their offerings and sacrifices to Israel can only be discovered by comparison in Scripture, our only genuine source for knowledge about them. For a similar sacrifice did not necessarily signify a similar significance. Each community would develop a differing significance depending on the beliefs of the group. The whole point about Israel was that they had received a unique view of God, both from their past and at Sinai, something that endured through the ages. And they received them through a man who uniquely knew God as no other did. This must not be ignored when looking at the significance of their offerings.

Introduction To Leviticus.

In this book we will now learn what happened in the Tabernacle that made it so important to the life of Israel, and we will also discover some of the lessons that it has for us. God had given them the tabernacle so that their lives might centre around Him, and it was necessary for there to be a means by which their response to Him might be developed and applied to their lives.

To a man who approaches God, and to a nation that approaches God, there is no question more important than, ‘How can we get right and keep right with God so that we can walk with Him and know Him daily? How can we approach Him in worship in a way that He will accept?’ How can we offer Him worship that is pleasing to Him? Those were the questions that the Tabernacle sought to solve, for it was seen to be His earthly ‘dwellingplace’, and that required a firmly established cultus, which Leviticus describes to us.

Central to Leviticus, as is central to the mind of the man who would seek God, is how to worship God and how to deal with all that offends God, and to Israel that included dealing with offences against the requirements of the Law in all its aspects, firstly as given at Sinai in the Book of the Covenant (Exodus 20-23), secondly as previously revealed and customised prior to Sinai (Exodus 15.25; 18.13-16), and thirdly as expanded by Moses at different times through the next forty years, as he sought to lead and prepare for the future this large band of disparate people, the nucleus of which was composed of descendants of Jacob. For many of these people had worshipped different gods, and now he was calling them to follow their Deliverer, Yahweh, the God of Israel.

We may possibly differentiate in the Book between the requirements given to Moses by God ‘out of the Tent of Meeting’ (1.1), and those given to Moses ‘in Mount Sinai’ (25.1-26.46). But 7.38 speaks of the basics at least of 1-7 as having been given ‘in Mount Sinai’. This may suggest a foundation laid in Mount Sinai and expanded on later. The task of building up instruction for the people must necessarily have taken many years, but the foundations had to be laid speedily due to the complicated nature of the make up of the people who had followed him from Egypt. Or it may be that the Tent of Meeting could be described as ‘by Mount Sinai’. Either way they would later be written down as being part of God’s covenant with His people, as was common with religious codes at the time, and possibly expanded on by him in consultation with God.

‘Out of the tent of meeting’ could mean the tent which he had erected outside the camp of Israel where he could meet with God, which was overseen by Joshua (Exodus 33.7-11), or it could mean the tabernacle as set up after the giving of the covenant at Sinai. Both are called ‘the tent of meeting’.

In Mesopotamia such priestly practises and ideas as are described here were regularly written down (well before the time of Moses) and were passed down almost unchanged over hundreds of years. As Moses was leading out of Egypt a large group of people from many nations, although with its core made up of the children of Israel, and as he knew that when they reached Canaan they would be faced up with peoples with very sophisticated religious systems which God had strongly insisted that they must reject, he would undoubtedly have seen it as vital that ‘Israel’ should have their own well established cultus both to bind the people to Yahweh and to safeguard against their being caught up in Canaanite religious worship. It was therefore inevitable that he would write down Yahweh’s instructions concerning the new cultus. That was why God had chosen for himself an educated and highly trained administrator, and had made him well versed in tribal ways.

That they were seen as God’s revelation to His people from Moses comes out in the constant repetition of ‘and Yahweh said to Moses’. This does not necessarily mean that it was all spoken at the same time. Indeed the varied repetition might suggest more that it was at different times, although we must remember that repetition was very much a part of ancient religious literature in all nations as it was intended to be learned by heart and repeated to others. Repetition aided memory and enabled the listener to better think along with the reader.

In order for the Aaronic priesthood to operate at least the basics had to be laid down in some detail from the beginning, and as we have already seen in Exodus 29 considerable detail came into the investiture of the priest, suggesting that a pattern was already known, at least in embryo. Moses may well have studied the basics of Canaanite and other religions when he was being educated in preparation for being a leading administrator in Egypt, especially as he would be knowledgeable in the Canaanite and Hebrew languages which were very similar, and this would give him the basis on which God could build. And he would have been familiar with Midianite religion through his father in law, ‘the priest of Midian’. The whole is consistent with what results, and mainly what we would expect from what we know of the way in which God reveals Himself.

The first seven chapters of Leviticus deal with the ‘instruction’ (torah) concerning the whole burnt offering (‘olah), the grain offering (minchah), the sin offering (chatta’th ), the guilt offering (asham), the consecration (of the priests), and of the sacrifice (zebach) of peace offerings (shelem), most of which, apart from the guilt offering, have been met with in the introduction (7.37). These are basic types of offerings and sacrifices and might be used and/or combined both in public communal acts of worship and in private submission and worship. They are split basically into two sections, the Pleasing Odour Offerings of dedication, thanksgiving and worship, which have come from the past, and the Purification for Sin Offerings for the forgiveness of sins, which may be relatively new to Israel. The distinction must not be rigidly over-stressed. Part of a purification for sin offering can be a pleasing odour to Yahweh (4.31), and the whole burnt offering, the grain offering and the peace offerings all had an important atoning element, but the distinction nevertheless remains.

Chapters 1-3 The Regular Pleasing Odour Offerings.

The offerings which are mainly intended to rise as a pleasing odour to Yahweh are first described ; the whole burnt offerings, the grain offerings and the peace sacrifices. While containing within them an important element of atonement, they also express dedication, worship, thanksgiving, tribute, a desire for fellowship with God, and the promise of obedience. These fall in line with the ancient offerings and sacrifices before Sinai, although being more extensive and more complicated.

We must not be too dogmatic about the differing significance of these sacrifices, as if we could limit them to one idea, for in all the animal sacrifices there was the presentation in one way or another of the blood to God, and the offering to Him of the fat along with the vital organs. The former sought atonement, the latter offered a pleasing odour to God. But we cannot doubt that each offering had its own special significance, and therefore its unique place within the system. And each presented an aspect of the greater offering, when our Lord Jesus Christ was offered up and sacrificed for us.

Chapter 1 The Whole Burnt Offering (‘olah - ‘that which ascends’).

We should note that in these first seven chapters the offerings and sacrifices described are seen mainly from the viewpoint of individual offerings and sacrifices rather than from that of communal ones. We are being shown the essence of each offering. But all the communal offerings and sacrifices are based on them. And in the end, for the Christian, a large part of their significance lies in the fact that, as the writer to the Hebrews especially made clear, they point forward to Jesus Christ’s offering of Himself on our behalf. .p> As we have seen in the introduction the whole burnt offering (‘olah) is the most ancient of sacrifices. We call it the ‘whole burnt offering’ because it was wholly offered up and burnt on the altar, (and it was sometimes actually called that - see Psalm 51.19), but its usual name (‘olah) means, ‘that which ascends’. The idea is of a total giving to Yahweh and it is seen as ascending up to Him in Heaven. It includes worship, thanksgiving for all His mercies, dedication, tribute and atonement, all that a man offered to God and sought from God. It was the basic sacrifice of the patriarchs. However while it is wholly offered up 7.8 tells us that the priest who offers the whole burnt offering is allowed the skin for himself.

The whole burnt offering could be of a bull-ox, of sheep or goat, or of specific birds depending on the wealth and occupation of the offerer. These animals and birds were of especial value to a man because he was sacrificing the opportunity of he and his family eating them, and for them to provide them with clothing, and there was therefore a cost to offerings and sacrifices, especially those that were wholly consumed in the offering. And for a poor man to offer a bird may well have been far more costly to him than for a rich man when he offered a bullock. For him food was in short supply. Our first lesson is thus that what we give to God must not be without cost, for otherwise it will mean nothing to us, but that He does not demand from us what we cannot afford to provide. He does not demand too much.

1.1 ‘And Yahweh called to Moses, and spoke to him out of the tent of meeting, saying,’

Notice the ‘and’ at the beginning. This connects the verse to the last verses in Exodus, where ‘the tent of meeting’, that is, the Tabernacle, was dealt with, and where the cloud and fire covered the Tabernacle to denote God’s protective care and presence. Now we are to learn how God spoke to Moses from there, from the midst of the cloud and fire, and the detailed activities which were to take place in that Tabernacle, as revealed by God to Moses. God was, as it were, there and awaited their approach. Note the threefold emphasis on God as actually speaking to Moses from the tent, ‘Yahweh called -- and spoke -- saying.’

‘The tent of meeting.’ The idea behind this name is that it was the tent where men came to meet with God. All the focus was on God. That was why men assembled there, to meet with God, and that was why it was called the tent of ‘meeting’. The word mo‘ed (meeting, assembly) is used elsewhere to describe the assembling of men together.

At this point in time the ‘tent of meeting’ has become the Tabernacle, which has replaced the smaller Tent of Meeting which had been outside the camp (Exodus 33.7-11). This one was in the middle of the camp surrounded and guarded by the tents of the priests and Levites (Numbers 1.53). The tents of the other tribes, divided into their tribes, would then surround these on all four sides at a discreet distance (Numbers 2). Moses would presumably approach the entrance to the Tabernacle where Yahweh would speak to him from the cloud that abode on the tabernacle and the glory that filled it (Exodus 40.34-35), as He had spoken face to face with him in the old Tent of Meeting. At these times the people would probably keep at a discreet distance (compare Exodus 33.7-11).

1.2 ‘Speak to the children of Israel, and say to them, When any man of you offers an oblation (qorban) to Yahweh, you shall offer your oblation of the dumb beasts, of the herd and of the flock.’

This day when he approached Yahweh Moses was given instructions for when any man of Israel wished to bring God a qorban (a gift or oblation). This offering is not described as being for any particular reason and is therefore clearly seen as an act of worship and love, as it was with the patriarchs. The whole of the offering goes up to God in dedication and worship. But the way it is offered confirms that it has within it an atonement aspect, a desire to be at one with God through the shedding of blood. This is in fact specifically stated. The oblation is of ‘dumb animals’, either of the herd or the flock, animals that were valuable and could supply labour, milk and clothing, and could be eaten. There had to be a cost. But the dumb beasts had no choice in the matter. The choice lay with the offerer whose offering it was. The offering represented him and those for whom he was making the offering.

The writer to the Hebrews contrasts this fact with what was true about Christ, Whom he sees as fulfilling the reality of which the offering was a ‘type’, a foreshadowing picture. He too was offered at great cost, but in His case He was not led bleating to the place of sacrifice blandly or resistingly, but offered Himself voluntarily of His own free choice (Hebrews 10.9), and it was that which rendered His offering of Himself so fully efficacious. He offered Himself up in full yieldedness to God as One Who was fully obedient, and through His blood therefore attained mercy and full reconciliation for all who would come through Him. But in His case too each person has to decide whether they will identify themselves with His offering of Himself, and respond to Him. Each of us must personally ‘lay our hand’ on Him to identify ourselves with Him.

‘Speak to the children of Israel.’ As the people had requested, God now spoke to them through Moses (Exodus 20.19). They had already demonstrated their unwillingness to meet God face to face. The ‘children of Israel’ are called such because they looked back to Jacob/Israel as their ‘father’ but this was mainly by adoption for in fact they were a conglomerate people made up of many nations (see e.g. Exodus 12.38). Many of them were originally descended from servants of different nationalities in the ‘household’ of Jacob who went down into Egypt with Jacob, and these had been augmented at the Exodus by ‘a mixed multitude’. A large section of ‘the children of Israel’ were therefore adopted children, not truly descended from Jacob/Israel.

‘When any man of you.’ ‘Man’ is emphasised. The offerer would be the man of the household who would represent the whole household, or sometimes a leader would represent a larger group such as a sub-tribe, as Aaron and his sons would at the highest level represent the whole of Israel.

‘Offers.’ Literally ‘causes to draw near’ (hiphil of qereb). Thus the qorban is ‘what is brought near’, any offering brought to God.

‘You shall offer.’ Plural verb. It is assumed that all will at some stage come with their individual offerings. And at times they will all offer together.

‘Of the dumb beasts, of the herd and of the flock.’ Compare 1.10, ‘of the flock, of the sheep, or of the goats.’ The first stated is the general category which is then divided up into two, dumb beasts comprised of herds and flocks.

The Offering of a Bull-Ox (1.3-9)

The bull-ox was the most costly of offerings, and would be made by the very wealthy offerer or when the offering was to be of supreme importance, e.g. when it was for a priest or for the community. But God in His goodness will later make provision for lesser offerings for those who could not afford the most costly. To the poor man two birds would have an equal ‘cost’ to him, in comparison with what he owned, as the bull ox to the wealthy man.

1.3 ‘If his oblation be a whole burnt offering (‘olah - that which ascends) of the herd, he shall offer it a male without blemish, he shall offer it at the door of the tent of meeting, that he may be accepted (literally, “for good pleasure for him (the offerer)”) before Yahweh.’

This refers to a male offering from ‘the herd’, therefore a bull-ox. First we have three general conditions. It has to be male, it has to be without blemish (or more literally ‘perfect and complete’) and it has to be offered at the door of the tent of meeting, that is, in the court of the tabernacle where the altar is. It was to be male because that represented the life-implanter, and because it represented vigorous strength. (It was because of these factors that the male was seen as superior). It was to be ‘perfect and complete’ or without blemish because nothing that was imperfect could be offered to God, and because indeed it was being offered in its perfection as the thing most worthy of God that man possessed, and it was to be offered ‘at the door of the tent of meeting’, that is in the courtyard of the tabernacle, both because it must be brought before God and because it must be offered in a holy place so that the important aspects of the offering should not be defiled. Once the process of the offering begins all that is involved in it is holy. When the offering is made all must be concentrated on God.

In Hebrews 9.14 this offering is pointed to as a type and shadow of Christ, Who was also without fault (Hebrews 2.10; 9.14). He too was the lifegiver (Hebrews 10.14-17), was strong (Hebrews 2.18), and was the perfect offering. But unlike them He was not a dumb animal, but a responsive and obedient human being, perfect and complete in all the will of God (Hebrews 10.9). Because of what He was, and because of His willingness and obedience, His sacrifice of Himself could accomplish what no animal sacrifice could. They were but shadows. He was the Reality.

Each one of us therefore must come to God daily, in our own personal sanctuary (Matthew 6.6), offering Jesus Christ to God in prayer as our whole offering as a token of our love, our worship, our gratitude, our submission and as indicating our dependence on Him for atonement and purity.

‘Accepted before Yahweh.’ To put it literally the offerer comes, “for good pleasure for him before Yahweh”.’ The translation ‘Accepted’ takes the good pleasure as coming from Yahweh because of his offering. Yahweh is pleased with the man’s offering and accepts his worship. The alternative possible translation ‘Voluntary’ takes the good pleasure as being the offerer’s. He comes because it is his good pleasure to do so.

As in our thoughts we see the strong and virile bull ox being led by the offerer into the court of the Tabernacle to be offered to Yahweh, with the offerer’s eyes fixed on God’s own earthly Dwellingplace, for such an approach would not, when rightly made in the best times, be made without deep thought, we can imagine the joy and gratitude in the heart of the offerer as he felt that he was offering to Yahweh the strength, virility and usefulness of himself and the whole of his family, and that God would receive it from his hand and bless them, while at the same time applying His atoning mercy. As he slew the offering he would recognise that thereby their sins were being punished in the death of the bull ox, and as the carcase of his bull ox was placed on the altar and the smoke of the offering ascended upwards, his praise too would rise upwards and his voice would cry out in his gratitude and praise to God.

For as the prophets and the psalmists would make clear, it was the reality that the offerings represented that was acceptable to God, not just the offerings blandly made. Without worship from a true heart the offerings were meaningless, without obedience the sacrifices were in vain (Isaiah 1.11-18; Hosea 6.6; 1 Samuel 15.22; Amos 5.21-24).

1.4 ‘And he shall lay his hand on the head of the whole burnt offering, and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him.’

The bringer of the offering was then ‘to lay his hand’ on its head. This is a slight understatement. It was done by exerting hard downwards pressure on the offering. It was no light touch. This was the sign that he was identifying himself with the offering and was, as it were, becoming united with it. It is not done with offerings where there is no death involved (the live goat on the Day of Atonement is not an exception because it is vitally linked with one that was slaughtered, the two being seen together - 16.21). Thus it signifies being united with it in its death. Although not mentioned this laying on of the hand is also to be assumed where the offering is of a sheep or goat, or of a bird, for identification with the offering was essential. The identification was personal and specific on behalf of himself and those he represented.

The laying on of the hand/hands generally indicated the identification of the someone or something on which the hand was laid as one who will act on one’s behalf, or of someone who will take over one’s own service (Numbers 27.18). In this case he was declaring the bull ox to be his representative, both in its dying and in its ascending to God. There was something of himself and his family in the offering. It was to be seen as representative of them, and as coming from them, and as dying for them, and as making atonement for them. It was both substitute and representative in a way that a grain offering could not be. It was a full act of worship, the symbol of their giving of themselves in totality to God as His servants, and a seeking of reconciliation through it. There are no real grounds for suggesting that the sin was seen as flowing from the offerer to the offering. Had it been so it could not have been wholly offered to God on the altar. This was not a sin offering. But any who were burdened with guilt may well have seen it that way.

‘And it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him.’ It was ‘accepted’ for him (as representing his family group), received with pleasure and good favour. Yet it was certainly an ‘atonement’ offering. The verb in the piel means ‘to make atonement, to remove that from His sight which had brought displeasure to God’, and to restore the relationship between the man and his God. It probably comes from the verb ‘to cover’ (caphar - compare Genesis 6.14 and the Arabic kafara) and the piel makes it intensive. It therefore indicates a total covering, a complete satisfaction and a dealing with what is amiss, an intensified covering. But a holy God could not ‘cover up’ sin by hiding it, but rather by providing a cover that neutralised it. He made it as though it was not. Sin’s power and demand for death was then no more. It was not hidden, covered up, and waiting possibly to be uncovered. It was remembered no more. It was gone for ever. All that was wrong and evil about it was obliterated under the overpowering influence of God’s holiness, operative as a result of the death that had satisfied the demand of sin.

Others see the derivation of the verb as from Akkadian kuppuru, ‘to wipe away’. Or connect it with the Hebrew noun koper, a ransom, therefore ‘to deliver by a ransom’.

So as the man brought his offering in gratitude and worship on behalf of his family group who were seen as at one with him, he was also conscious of the need for at-one-ment, of being made ‘at one’ with God by their sin being ‘covered’ and neutralised (or wiped away, or being removed by a ransom being paid). And with the sin neutralised (or removed), the blood and the carcase was then holy, for it had required God’s holiness to be sufficient within it to neutralise the sin, it had become the place of God’s saving activity, indeed it was then so holy that it had to be dealt with in a holy place, and in extreme cases burnt outside the camp in a clean place because it was too holy for the camp.

In the same way it is Christ’s own perfect holiness that enables the sinner to be made perfect in God’s sight as a result of His death for sin (Hebrews 10.14). For we do not come to a bull ox, but to the precious blood of Christ as of a lamb without blemish and without spot (1 Peter 1.19), and our sin is laid on Him and His righteousness is put to our account (2 Corinthians 5.21). We are declared righteous and covered with the cloak of righteousness in Him (Isaiah 53.11; Romans 3.24-26).

1.5 ‘And he shall kill the young bull before Yahweh, and Aaron's sons, the priests, shall present the blood, and sprinkle the blood round about on the altar that is at the door of the tent of meeting.’

The offerer himself kills the young bull-ox (‘son of a bull’). He is identifying himself with its death, indeed signifying that he is the cause of its death. And this is done as he slits its throat in the sight and presence of Yahweh. He acknowledges thereby the deserts of his sin. The blood is then caught in a bowl and the priests ‘give’ (‘present’) the blood and sprinkle it round about the altar so that each side of the altar is splashed with the blood. This activity of the priests brings out that the blood is holy and cannot be presented by the offerer himself, an intermediary is needed, and also that the blood is special in its symbolism ‘It is the blood that makes the atonement for the whole person’ (Leviticus 17.11). It is the symbol and evidence of the death of the offering with which the offerer has identified himself, and its correct presentation is clearly of first importance, for whatever the offering or sacrifice might be the blood is always specially applied (although as we shall see in different ways). It is the final reminder that the wages of sin is death, and that that death is therefore being offered to God, a life offered in death, to meet the requirements of the Law for the punishment of sin.

The whole offering is then offered to God by fire, and with it the worship, love and self-dedication of the offerer. To speak of it just as a substitute is to undervalue it. It is a substitute and more. It is total consecration, a total giving of themselves, along with a plea for reconciliation because of a death suffered. However substitution was certainly an important aspect of Israel’s thinking, as witness the substitution of Levites for the first-born sons and the ransom made to cater for the difference in numbers (Numbers 3.44-48), and the substitution of a firstborn ass or man by a lamb (Exodus 13.13).

The sprinkling (flinging the blood against all sides of the altar) is an indication of the application of the blood as something acceptable to God. It is an essential step in the making of atonement, in the making of men at one with God because sin has been dealt with. The idea may be to link it with the offering that is being offered up on the altar, without the blood itself ‘ascending up’, or indeed to surround the offering with the atoning blood. It needs to remain on the altar before Yahweh because of its atoning significance, while the remainder goes up to God.

Hebrews tells us that this is a type of what Christ did for us when He died on the cross. That He ‘through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God’, that He might cleanse and make us holy in conscience and spirit in order to make us fitted and ready for service (Hebrews 9.14). There too it speaks of full cleansing and consecration, and neutralisation of sin by His holiness (Hebrews 2.10-11; 10.10, 14).

1.6 ‘And he shall strip/de-gut the burnt-offering, and cut it into its pieces.’

The offering is then stripped of its skin, and de-gutted so that the guts can be washed. The word may mean either or both. The offering needed to be de-skinned because the skin for all but the most important offerings goes to the priest. Then it was cut in pieces by the offerer. This was in order to prepare it for being offered, and made it manoeuvrable. Perhaps it was also seen as laying bare the bull-ox’s inwards so that it was known inside and out (compare how the bird is deliberately torn open, but not in half - 1.17). All that it is is to be laid open before God.

If we too would come to God we too must be fully laid open before Him so that all lies open before the eyes of Him with Whom we have to do (Hebrews 4.13).

1.7-9 ‘And the sons of Aaron the priest shall put fire on the altar, and lay wood in order on the fire; and Aaron's sons, the priests, shall lay the pieces, the head, and the fat, in order on the wood that is on the fire which is on the altar, but its inwards and its legs shall he wash with water: and the priest shall burn the whole on the altar, for a whole burnt-offering, an offering made by fire, of a pleasing odour to Yahweh.’

The priests then again take over. They put the fire in place on the altar (from the perpetually burning fire maintained on a part of the altar - 6.13) and lay wood on top of it, and then they lay the pieces on the altar to be burnt up, including the head (which would have been separated in the skinning process), the fat, and the innards and the legs, but the latter two only after they have been washed by the offerer with water. Possibly mainly in mind here is the removal of the waste that is in the bowels and intestines, and the legs would also have been contaminated by contact with the ground. The purpose of the washing with water is therefore to remove contamination and earthiness, and symbolises the need for the inner cleansing of the offerer. It must be offered to God in pristine condition free from earthiness. Only then can the offering be a pleasing odour to Yahweh.

Note the specific instructions about the fire and the wood. The whole burnt offering must have the fire placed and the wood newly prepared for it (whereas the peace sacrifice can be placed on top of a whole burnt offering - 3.5). Similarly with ourselves, each offering of ourselves that we make must be made afresh (compare Romans 12.1-2). There is no room for partial consecration.

It is ‘an offering made by fire (ishshah).’ Fire was the usual way by which an offering was made to God where the whole of what was offered was to be His and beyond the reach of man. It was to pass from this world. Furthermore fire regularly purifies, refines and cleanses. What was offered to God had to be made fully pure. Fire made it acceptable. ( Numbers 31.23; also compare Deuteronomy 13.16 where it denotes being offered to God permanently).

Note on An Offering By Fire.

Fire was regularly the way by which God revealed Himself to His servants. Consider the smoking furnace and the flaming torch of Genesis 15.17; the burning bush of Exodus 3.2; the pillar of fire which led them and was on the tabernacle (Exodus 13.21; 40.34, 38; and on through the wilderness journey); the fire on Sinai (Exodus 19.18; 24.17). See also Deuteronomy 4.11, 12, 15, 33, 36; 5.4-5, 22-26; 9.10, 15; 18.16. It is therefore very probable that the continually burning flame of the golden lampstand in the Holy Place, the fire on the incense altar and the continually burning fire on the bronze altar of whole burnt offering were also intended to be symbolic of God’s presence, a dim representation of the glory that they pleaded not to have to behold in full. Thus to burn strange fire before Yahweh, fire not appointed by Him, was a heinous offence punishable instantly by death. It did not adequately represent Him (Leviticus 10.1-2; Numbers 3.4; 26.61).

It would seem reasonable therefore that the consumption of things by fire in a holy setting would be seen as God taking them to Himself, for as we shall see it occurs not only on the altar, but whenever holy things are finally dealt with in a holy setting, and in Judges 13.20 the angel of Yahweh ascended to God in the flame of the altar when the flame went upwards, burning and offering up the whole burnt offering and the grain offering. An offering by fire was thus one that on the whole went directly to God, while His priests were also to be maintained from a portion of them, ‘The priests the Levites, and all the tribe of Levi, shall have no part nor inheritance with Israel. They shall eat the offerings of Yahweh made by fire, even His inheritance (rightful due)’ (Deuteronomy 18.1).

Fire also dealt with those things that God ‘devoted’ to Himself in judgment (compare Deuteronomy 4.24) for Him to do with as He wanted. They were to pass from the sphere and control of this world into His control. Notice the continual emphasis on permanence. It was not just a matter of destruction. Consider Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19.24); the idolatrous city (Deuteronomy 13.16); the cities of Midian taken to avenge Yahweh (Numbers 31.3, 10); Jericho (Joshua 6.24); Aaron’s sons when they offered ‘strange fire’ (Leviticus 10.1-2); the men who complained against and displeased Yahweh (Numbers 11.1-3); the ‘leading men’ who claimed equality of holiness with the priests and blasphemously offered incense, the company of Korah (Numbers 16.35; 26.10); Achan (Joshua 7.15, 25); all idols ( Deuteronomy 7.5, 25; 9.21; 12.3); His people when they become idolatrous (Deuteronomy 32.22). The fire of Gehenna and the lake of fire are equally symbols of God’s final dealing in judgment.

End of note.

‘Of a pleasing odour to Yahweh.’ Compare Genesis 8.21; Exodus 29.18, 25, 41. It was an offering acceptable and pleasant to Him because of what it represented in terms of worship, dedication and love on the part of the worshipper. Without the latter it was totally unacceptable (Isaiah 1.10-15). The phrase deliberately avoids the thought of God actually partaking of the offering. He receives it as something to enjoy, as something pleasant.

We may see from this that when we offer ourselves as living sacrifices to God (Romans 12.1-2) we must be particularly careful to do so thoroughly and totally each time we do it, ensuring full cleansing through the blood of Christ as we do so (1 John 1.7-10). No part of our lives must be left out. We are to be a whole offering and thus pleasing to God. Compare how Paul saw himself and his companions as a pleasing odour to God, a ‘sweet odour of Christ’, because of their service on His behalf (2 Corinthians 2.15), and the provision sent to him as God’s servant were ‘an odour of a sweet smell, a sacrifice acceptable, well-pleasing to God’ (Philippians 4.18) because they witnessed to their faithful love. And he also speaks of Christ as offering Himself for us as a ‘sweet smelling odour’ (Ephesians 5.2) on our behalf. Our service in Christ and through Christ and because of Christ is a sweet smelling odour to God.

So the offerer brings the bull-ox, lays his hand on it, slaughters it, cuts it up and washes its inner parts, while the priests catch the blood as its throat is slit, sprinkle it on the altar, set the fire and the wood, and lay the pieces on the altar together with head, fat and innards so that it is burnt up.

In the same way we must identify ourselves with Christ’s death for us, recognise that we have been crucified with Him and must therefore die to ourselves, and apply his death to each part of our lives which is displeasing to Him, seeking cleansing in His blood. He on His side, as our Priest, has already arranged for the reception and completion of our offering, which was offered once for all in Him (Hebrews 10.12), and He will now bring all that we are to God.

The Offering of a Ram or a He-Goat (1.10-13).

Much in these next three verses is summarised because it is the same procedure as for the offering of the bull-ox. The three things emphasised are the death with the offering of the blood, the offering of the remainder by burning on the altar, and the washing of the innards and legs. These were the essentials of the offering. The offering ‘at the door of the tabernacle’, the laying on of the hand, the ‘giving’ (presenting) of the blood and the building up of the fire are all assumed. (As hands are later constantly laid on sheep and goats (3.8, 13; 4.24, 29 etc.) we can be sure that it happened here, as with the bull ox).

1.10 ‘And if his oblation be of the flock, of the sheep, or of the goats, for a burnt-offering, he shall offer it a male without blemish.’

Again the offering was to be a male without blemish. To offer a female would be to avoid offering the life-giver, the strength of the flock. To offer anything that was blemished would be an insult to God and would indicate the attitude of Cain rather than that of Abel (Genesis 4). For dedication to God only the best is good enough.

1.11-13 ‘And he shall kill it on the side of the altar northward before Yahweh, and Aaron's sons, the priests, shall sprinkle its blood on the altar round about, and he shall cut it into its pieces, with its head and its fat, and the priest shall lay them in order on the wood that is on the fire which is on the altar, but the inwards and the legs shall he wash with water; and the priest shall offer the whole, and burn it on the altar: it is a burnt-offering, an offering made by fire, of a pleasing odour to Yahweh.’

‘He shall kill it on the side of the altar northward before Yahweh.’ This is the only case where such specific directions are given about where the slaughter was to take place, and it is probably to be seen as applying to all whole burnt offerings, and sin and guilt sacrifices (but not necessarily peace offerings because of their multiplicity), unless we are to see it as contrasting with the fact that the offering of the bull had pride of place at the door of the tabernacle. However, that is unlikely. Slaying in the courtyard was itself probably seen as ‘slaying at the door of the tabernacle’. For in fact to the east of the altar was the place of the ashes where rubbish could also be dealt with (verse 16). And to the west was the tabernacle itself, and, between the tabernacle and the altar, the laver (wash basin). This side had to be kept clear for the movement of the priests in and out, and out of respect for Yahweh. The offerers would have gathered in the courtyard, but would not be expected to crowd the actual entrance to the Tabernacle.

Thus it was probably recognised that northwards of the altar was where all actual slaughter would take place (it was so later in the Temple) with the exception made when there was a multiplicity of peace offerings (see 6.25). If this was not a general instruction it is difficult to see why comparative instructions were never repeated in any form elsewhere in these chapters, and why it should only be applied to the sheep and goats offered as a whole burnt offering. Thus northward of the altar appears to be where in general all the animals were to be slain. It ensured orderliness. The same instructions as before are then summarised.

The pattern for the sheep and goats is the same as for the bull-ox, although with these the priest is said to ‘offer’ (hiphil of qarab - cause to draw near) the whole before he burns it. This is because the offerer offering it at the door of the tent of meeting is not mentioned and it was necessary to thus emphasise that the offering was ‘offered’ before Yahweh prior to being offered up. It must not be seen as done casually or mechanically. The pieces here are arranged on the altar by a single priest in contrast with the bull ox, presumably because of their smaller size.

The Alternative Offering of Birds (1.14-17).

A further offering was available as an alternative for the poorer members of the community. It differs in presentation because of the nature of the offering but for all practical purposes it follows the pattern already described. Only the differences are emphasised. We may therefore again assume the general pattern, including probably the hand laid on for identification.

1.14 ‘And if his oblation to Yahweh be a burnt-offering of birds, then he shall offer his oblation of turtle-doves, or of pigeons.’

The type of birds that may be offered are prescribed, either two turtle-doves or two young pigeons. Both were edible birds and may well have been reared domestically, although wild doves and pigeons lived in the hilly country in Palestine. Thus they were available to anyone at the cost of obtaining them. The dove especially was a bird of peace, thus symbolising the prince of Peace (Isaiah 9.6)

1.15-16 ‘And 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 flat side of the altar, and he shall take away its crop with its contents (waste material, filth), and cast it beside the altar on the east part, in the place of the ashes,’

In this case the actual slaughter is carried out by the priest. This was because, in view of the smallness of the offering, the limited amount of blood was more easily dealt with in this way, and the slaughter was quick and easy. Having been ‘identified’ with the offerer the bird is brought to the altar, its head wrung off and burned on the altar, and its blood drained off on the side of the altar. The crop and its contents (‘its waste material’) were thrown into the ash pit which was available for the fat impregnated ashes to the east of the altar. (‘Feathers’ (LXX) is an alternative possible translation instead of ‘contents, waste material’. The word occurs only here but see Ezekiel 17.3, 7 for an almost parallel word rendered feathers).

So the unclean parts are removed before the birds are offered up, a reminder that when we offer ourselves up to God we must first ensure that any uncleanness within our hearts is dealt with by the blood of Christ (1 John 1.7) while we are making our offering.

1.17 ‘And he shall rend it by its wings, but shall not divide it in two; and 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 pleasing odour to Yahweh.’

Each dead bird was then to be ‘torn by its wings’, but not to be totally split, after which it was burned on the wood on the altar which was over the fire. The rending is presumably to reveal its innards (which were too small to wash, unless that is the purpose of the rending), but it is interesting that it is not to be torn in two. It is not mimicking Genesis 15. It is a whole offering. The purpose would seem to be in order to stress that both the inner and the outer was offered to Yahweh. It is an offering of the whole. It was laid bare before God. Nothing is to be hidden from or withheld from God.

In the same way when Jesus Christ was offered nothing was hidden. He was, as it were, torn open and laid bare before God. And He was found perfect, and therefore fully satisfactory so that He could make possible our approach to God, by His righteousness being put to our account. His holiness, together with His death, neutralised our sin as He bore it on Himself. In the same way also, when we bring our lives to God, nothing must be allowed to be hidden. Our inmost hearts too must be laid bare. But in our case the crop and what is unclean must be removed by forgiveness and atonement.

‘It is a whole burnt-offering, an offering made by fire, of a pleasing odour to Yahweh.’ This offering is as acceptable to Yahweh as a bull-ox, because He sees the heart of the offerer. That it is a fire-offering stresses that it is purified and wholly burnt up. And if the heart is right the offering smells pleasing to Him.

Chapter 2 The Grain Offering (Minchah)

A variety of grain offerings could be offered to Yahweh, symbolising for the offerer and his family a complete giving of themselves and of their daily lives to Him, together with their worship and praise, and a reminder to God of their dependence on Him for the rain that encouraged the growth of the grain. All described here were to be made of unleavened milled grain, with oil poured on it, and then with frankincense placed on it. The mixing of grain and olive oil was usual in a grain offering, but the frankincense was special, indicating a worship offering, a sweet odour. The word used for ‘grain-offering’, (minchah), means elsewhere a gift or tribute. It can also refer to an offering or sacrifice (Genesis 4.4; 1 Samuel 2.29; 26.19). Thus its use is not always certain in translation, although quite clear in Leviticus.

The mixture was brought by the offerer and a handful of the grain and oil, and all the frankincense was then taken and offered by the priests on the altar as ‘a memorial’ before Yahweh, with the idea that God would be made aware of the offering and of the love and worship that lay behind it. The memorial was a fire-offering and was a pleasing odour to Yahweh. His heart was satisfied with His people. The remainder belonged to the priests for their consumption in the tabernacle. But it was most holy and could not be taken out of the tabernacle. Such offerings could not be treated lightly. They belonged to Yahweh, and He chose to feed from them His anointed priests, who also belonged to Him. In a sense they were an extension of Himself reaching out to men.

This offering would be a way by which women especially could make an offering to Yahweh in accordance with their favourite way of cooking, in order by it to show their love and worship for Yahweh. It is a fire-offering, ‘an offering made by fire, of a pleasing odour to Yahweh.’ Accepted by Him, but not eaten by Him, and which brought Him joy and pleasure as symbolised by a pleasing odour. (The adding of the frankincense clearly indicates that it is necessary in order to make the offering a pleasing odour, the thought is not of God eating the offering but of savouring its smell).

The primary significance is one of gratitude and love to Yahweh for His provision of grain and oil, a constant reminder of their dependence on Him for the rain, and of a dedication of all their abilities to Him. As far as the offerer was concerned it was a whole offering to God, even though most became available to the priest for his consumption in the tabernacle (6.16). It must be stressed again that there is never any suggestion that Yahweh partook of such offerings. They were quite openly said to be for the priest. Yahweh is simply revealed as pleased with the offering. The frankincense adds to the offering a further token of special gratitude and worship and love, and that is wholly offered to Yahweh (it was inedible). The grain offering was regularly offered with whole burnt offerings (it was part of the daily offerings morning and evening), and sometimes with peace offerings. In those cases no frankincense was required, because the pleasing odour came from the other offerings, demonstrating that the frankincense replaced the offered animal or bird. But it could equally be offered on its own, as could frankincense.

The Primary Offering (2.1-3).

2.1-2 ‘And when a person (nephesh) offers an oblation of a grain-offering to Yahweh, his oblation shall be of milled grain; and he shall pour oil on it, and put frankincense on it, and he shall bring it to Aaron's sons the priests, and he shall take out of it his handful of its milled grain, and of its oil, with all its frankincense, and the priest shall burn it as its memorial on the altar, an offering made by fire, of a pleasing odour to Yahweh.’

The bringing of a grain-offering was to be of milled grain, not just the bare grain but the grain as worked on by man. It thus had ‘added value’. It was mixed with olive oil to make it more edible and pleasant, but the oil in itself was an important product in its own right. Frankincense was not something to add to its edibility but was offered in worship, a valuable and sweet-smelling direct offering. Thus God was being offered a portion of men’s produce in the grain, together with their work in preparing it, as made edible through another product, olive oil (compare ‘one cake of oiled bread’ - Exodus 29.23), which was also man’s produce. A proportion would then be extracted by the priest, together with all the frankincense, a costly and sweet smelling addition. That was Yahweh’s portion and was offered by fire to Him as a ‘memorial’, something that reminded God of the worshippers and of their offering. It was a fire-offering and a pleasing odour to Yahweh.

Frankincense was a whitish yellow resin which was obtained by incising the bark of the Boswellia tree in the semi-desert mountains around Dhotar in Southern Arabia (compare Jeremiah 6.20) and had a strong sweet odour. It was a constituent in the holy anointing oil (Exodus 30.34), and was placed in purified form on the Shewbread (24.7). It was costly and regularly used in worship (Jeremiah 17.26; 41.5), a precious offering to God. It was widely traded by Arab traders. It was not edible, which was why the whole was offered to Yahweh and none available to the priests. This clearly demonstrates that there was no idea in all this that Yahweh actually partook of the offerings. He would not eat frankincense! He smelled it.

Part of the thought behind the frankincense, apart from the fact that it was precious, was probably that it had been obtained at great effort. It had been brought from a long way away in order to give pleasure to Yahweh. It was very much a product from outside. We may see this as indicating that Israel must also offer to Him tribute from the world as well as from their own products, or as pointing to Christ Who came from ‘outside’ as One who was of great value, so that He might be offered to God on our behalf as a pleasing odour.

So the idea behind the offering was of gratitude for prosperity and an acknowledgement of God’s provision, revealed in tribute given, and worship and love offered. Milled grain was basic to their diet and an important commodity. It was as their lifeblood. Olive oil was also important in the life of Israel. It was later a prominent export (Ezekiel 27.17; 2 Chronicles 2.10) and was used in paying tribute and making treaties (Hosea 12.1; Isaiah 57.9). Along with milled grain and honey it was a symbol of prosperity (Ezekiel 16.13; Jeremiah 41.8). It was often sometimes offered by itself in worship (Genesis 28.18; 35.14; Micah 6.7; Ezekiel 45.25; 46.15). In contrast the grain offering offered by the poor as a replacement sin offering specifically had no oil or frankincense on it precisely because it was a sin offering (5.11). Thus the oil and frankincense were more positively related to love and worship. Isaiah 61.3 can speak of the ‘oil of joy’, and men and women anointed themselves with oil when they were joyful (compare Micah 6.15; Psalm 45.7; 104.15).

2.3 ‘And what is left of the grain-offering shall be Aaron's and his sons'. It is a thing most holy of the offerings of Yahweh made by fire.’

The remainder of the grain-offering was for Aaron and his sons. But the value that God placed on it is indicated by the fact that it was ‘most holy’. It must therefore be eaten, in a holy place, in the tabernacle. It was looked on as an important offering of great sanctity.

Some have seen in the offering of milled grain and oil a reminder of Jesus as the bread of life (John 6.35) and as the anointed One (‘Christos’), and the frankincense as the symbol of His Godhood, come from outside in order to perfect our offering to God. Thus are we to ‘offer up’ Jesus to God as our offering, that we might be acceptable to God, and offer our praise and thanksgiving through Him. And we are to see Him as provided by God that He might be partaken of by all Who are set apart as His. For having ‘offered Him up’ we can then partake of Him. It is also an indication that all that is most important to us, including our labour, should be given to Him.

Note on ‘most holy’.

Holiness was a religious concept. Its main idea was of that of setting things and people apart to a holy purpose. They then became ‘holy’ and were not to be trifled with because they belonged to deity. In its wider use it did not signify morality, for the sacred prostitutes of other religions were called ‘holy ones’, and physical items in the temples could be described as ‘holy’ because religiously set apart for divine use. But the God of Israel was partly distinguished by His moral requirements. And thus one ‘set apart to Him’ was inevitably required to be morally holy as well as religiously holy. Yahweh was the living, moral, powerful God of Israel. In that He was distinguished from all others. And thus with Him holiness necessarily included God-like morality.

Everything then that was deeply involved with God became holy with various degrees of holiness. They were set apart to Him, were His property, and because they in some way represented Him were to be treated as He was to be treated. We know today how easily people can begin to see religious things as ‘holy’ (holy water, holy icons and so on, and even the Holy Bible) and assume they have special powers, it would therefore not be surprising if that were also true in those days, but that is not the essence of holiness. The essence of holiness is that when dealing with such things one is dealing with God, and thus that to trifle with them is to trifle with God. How that is then considered by the individual will very much depend on individual conceptions.

So every offering and sacrifice was holy, and all that pertained to the tabernacle was holy, and they therefore had to be treated for what they were, items through which God dealt with man. But when something was said to be ‘most holy’ it was restricted to the tabernacle. It must not be taken out into the camp. It was exclusively for tabernacle use. Thus this grain offering, in as far as it was not actually offered on the fire on the altar, had to be retained in the tabernacle and could only be eaten by those who were most holy, the priests. They could absorb its holiness for they were equally ‘holy’. Israel were a holy nation (Exodus 19.6) because they were set apart to God as His own, but the priests had been especially set apart out of the holy nation to a state of special holiness which required special behaviour of them. They were to be totally devoted to Yahweh and His service. They were most holy.

But holiness depends very much on motive and purpose. The Peace sacrifices could be partaken of by the offerer because of the motive and purpose of them, while the whole burnt offerings and the purification for sin offerings could not.

End of note.

Variations on the Offering (2.4-10).

2.4-7 ‘And when you (singular) offer an oblation of a grain-offering baked in the oven, it shall be of unleavened cakes of milled grain mingled with oil, or unleavened wafers anointed with oil. And if your oblation be a grain-offering of the baking-pan, it shall be of milled grain unleavened, mingled with oil. You shall part it in pieces, and pour oil on it, it is a grain-offering. And if your oblation be a grain-offering of the frying-pan, it shall be made of milled grain with oil.’

The various ways in which the offering can be enhanced are here outlined, with the women especially seeking to show their dedication to and love for Yahweh by presenting to Him the best of their handiwork. Here it is stressed that the grain should be unleavened. Leavening was a fermenting process, while what was offered to God must be pure and uncorrupted by earthly transformation. So they offered of themselves in purity and love, free from any corrupting influence.

The oven would be a deep earthenware vessel with a fire in the bottom. The flat cakes would adhere to the side so that the fire could cook them. The wafers would be extra thin, probably round, cakes, with oil spread on them. An alternative was to use a heated flat-plate, or a deep pan with a cover. The former would produce a large flat pancake which would be separated into pieces, with the oil poured on the pieces. The latter would have oil in it, with pieces of milled grain dough dropped in the oil in order to cook them.

These varied grain offerings, representing the skills of the offerers, are a reminder that we too can bring of our skills to God as an offering so that they may be used in His service, and offered up to Him as a pleasing odour.

2.8-10 ‘And you (singular) shall bring the grain-offering that is made of these things to Yahweh, and it shall be presented to the priest, and he shall bring it to the altar. And the priest shall take up from the grain-offering its memorial, and shall burn it on the altar, an offering made by fire, of a pleasing odour to Yahweh. And what is left of the grain-offering shall be Aaron's and his sons'. It is a thing most holy of the offerings of Yahweh made by fire.’

This repeats the procedures for the grain offering to stress its importance. Each grain offering of whatever kind was brought and presented to the priests, who brought it to the altar and took out the memorial portion and burnt it on the altar. Notice the emphasis made here on the smooth progression of the whole procedure from start to finish, from the first bringing of the grain offering to its finally going up in the flames. Then the priests partook of the remainder within the tabernacle as Yahweh’s anointed. The fact that the offering was ‘most holy’ meant that it could only be eaten by the priests in the tabernacle. They received it as themselves being ‘most holy’ and an essential part of Yahweh’s dwellingplace, which itself was most holy apart from the court. But that was still, of course, holy. Only the holy nation could enter it.

‘An offering made by fire, of a pleasing odour to Yahweh.’ It was a fire offering and pleasing to Yahweh, in the same ways as the whole burnt offering. The fire consumed it, Yahweh enjoyed what it signified. With some it was all that they could afford to offer.

The Grain Offering Must Not Contain Corruption But Preservative (2.11-13).

It is now pointed out that the Grain Offering must not contain anything that ferments, neither leaven nor honey. Rather it must positively be seasoned with salt as a preservative. The emphasis is on its unalloyed purity and its continual permanence in that state.

2.11-12 ‘No grain-offering, which you (plural) shall offer to Yahweh, shall be made with leaven, for you (pl) shall burn no leaven, nor any honey, as an offering made by fire to Yahweh. As an oblation of first -fruits you (pl) shall offer them to Yahweh, but they shall not come up for a pleasing odour on the altar.’

The change to the plural verb emphasises the overall coverage of this provision. It applies to all. Yahweh is so pure and holy that nothing that ferments and thus corrupts inwardly must be offered to Him by fire. It is not acceptable to Him offered in such a way. This reminds us that the fire is not seen as destroying but as ‘preserving’ and lifting up to the spiritual realm. It goes up in the smoke as a pleasing odour.

The idea would appear to be that the offering must be pristine as God gave it, without earthly influence having altered it (their own labour was not looked on in this way, for they were made in the image of God). It must be pure and unaffected by the world. By this provision He brought home a warning of the danger of a person becoming corrupted within by what was corrupting in the world, and of retaining within thoughts and aims that would produce corruption. It reminded them that He required holiness, (likeness to Himself as those separated to Him), and that any corruption would make them unacceptable to Him. They, like the offering, must ensure that in dedicating themselves to Him they removed from themselves all that was corrupt (1 Corinthians 5.6-8). In mind may have been Adam, created pure but ‘fermenting’ within and becoming sinful. Or the fermented wine that made men behave so unworthily (compare Genesis 9.20-23), and the ‘strong drink’ which did so even more. The leaven used for leavening was a piece of old dough retained and allowed to ferment so that it could be used to ferment new dough, thus lightening the pastry.

However we should note that both leaven and honey can be offered as first-fruits, which suggests that we are here dealing with domesticated honey. They are not forbidden for food, and gratitude should be shown for them, as for all that God has given us. But their unacceptability as a fire-offering and as a pleasing odour is a pointed symbol that nothing that corrupts brings pleasure to God because of what it symbolises about the state of the world, about the state of men and women, and about the sin that has marred and caused corruption in creation. It cannot therefore be offered in pure worship as something wholly pleasing to God. A sacrifice of thanksgiving, however, could be offered with leavened bread along with unleavened cakes (7.13; compare Amos 4.5) because like the first-fruits it was an expression of gratitude for God’s gifts, not something totally for God’s enjoyment and benefit. Man partook of the peace sacrifice, and of the cereal offerings offered with them. They were not exclusive. They were not as ‘holy’. This emphasises that the holiness of something very much depends on the motive and purpose. It is not intrinsic in the thing. And he must therefore give thanks for leaven. And the wave loaves at the Feast of Weeks were of leavened bread because they were first-fruits, again an expression of gratitude, but no leaven could seemingly be offered with offerings made by fire. The leavened bread in 7.13 was presumably for the consumption of the participants/priests as part of the thankoffering.

2.13 ‘And every oblation of your grain-offering shall you (sing.) salt with salt; neither shall you allow the salt of the covenant of your God to be lacking from your grain-offering. With all your (sing.) oblations you shall offer salt.’

In contrast the grain offering should be seasoned with salt in all circumstances. A supply of salt would be kept by for that purpose. Salt preserves and prevents corruption. It was therefore an important symbol of faithfulness to the covenant. Its introduction indicated a heart that intended to be true to the covenant. Each person (singular verbs) must therefore always offer salt with their grain offering, as a sign of their dedication to the permanent maintenance of God’s covenant requirements by obedience to His will, and as a symbol of God’s own faithfulness to His promises in the covenant. Salt seals the promises on both sides and ensures their preservation. It is ‘the salt of the covenant of your God’. See also Numbers 18.19 and 2 Chronicles 13.5 where the same idea is expressed, in both cases with the emphasis being on permanence. It stresses the permanent nature of the covenant relationship on both sides.

First Fruit Offerings On The Altar.

2.14-15 ‘And if you (sing.) offer a grain-offering of first-fruits to Yahweh, you shall offer for the grain-offering of your first-fruits grain in the ear parched with fire, bruised grain of the fresh ear (or ‘of the fruitful field’). And you shall put oil on it, and lay frankincense on it. It is a grain-offering.’

Having forbidden the offering of leaven and honey on the altar, even though they can be offered as first-fruits, he now indicates what first-fruit can be offered on the altar. The early ears of grain, which being green and moist were parched with fire to make them more edible, and bruised by threshing/grinding to remove the chaff and prepare them for eating, were offerable, with oil put on them and frankincense laid on top. The emphasis is on the fact that these are the very earliest ears and they are roasted with fire and de-chaffed, and then offered with oil in an unfinalised but edible state together with the frankincense as an offerable first fruit.

2.16 ‘And the priest shall burn the memorial of it, part of its bruised grain, and part of its oil, with all its frankincense. It is an offering made by fire to Yahweh.’

This too, so offered, is a fire-offering acceptable to Yahweh. The first-fruit here is offered along with man’s labour indicating full gratitude for God’s provision in response to man’s efforts. It is very similar to Cain’s offering, and as with him, the attitude of heart is all-important. To it is added the frankincense as an expression of appreciation and worship.

Again some see the milled grain as indicating Him Who, as the bread of life (John 6.35) was wounded for our transgressions and bruised for our iniquities (Isaiah 53.4), and Who went through the fires of testing and trial on our behalf. Who as the grain of wheat must fall into the ground and die that life might result (John 12.24). It might also be seen as an offering of ourselves as firstfruits, as willing to be His and to serve Him with our whole beings, enduring, if necessary, fiery trial, and committing ourselves to de-chaffing from sin. This in contrast to the unbelievers who are often described as chaff (Psalm 1.4), empty and fruitless.

Chapter 3 The Peace (or ‘Wellbeing’) Sacrifice (zebach shelem - sacrifice of a ‘peace, health, prosperity and general well-being’ offering).

This might also be called ‘a well-being offering’ or ‘a fellowship offering’ for shelem indicates ‘peace and general well-being’. It is described as a zebach (sacrifice/slaughter) relating it back to such sacrifices (zebach) as are described in the introduction. Shelem indicates ‘peace, health and prosperity’, ‘well-being’. It was a joyous sacrifice, and mainly voluntary, an act of unrestrained free-will. It was regularly a thanksgiving offering (7.12) and sometimes offered in connection with a vow (7.16). While atonement is not mentioned in this particular place, related to this particular offering, it would probably be a mistake to doubt that it contains an atoning element, for it is connected with atonement elsewhere (Exodus 29.33 with 28; see also Judges 20.26; 2 Samuel 24.25, both of which are very much connected with getting right with God. They are offered along with whole burnt offerings). One of its purposes is to seal man’s peace with God, and that always requires atonement, while fellowship would not be possible without atonement. And that is confirmed by the application of the blood, for the blood makes atonement for a person (17.11). The point being emphasised is that it is not a main purpose.

Of it, in its commonest form, only the fat, and the innards are fire-offerings, with the blood applied to the altar. Here were the specific atoning and worship elements. A portion of the meat was given to the priest and the remainder was partaken of by the offerer (or in some few special cases restricted to the priests - 23.19). The general idea then is of the eating of that which has been accepted by God, of being at peace with Him and with each other, of enjoying His presence, and of rejoicing in, and expressing gratitude for, peace with God, health and prosperity, and fellowship with Him. It is an act of dedication, worship and love, and of cementing fellowship with God. Thus as with all sacrifices it had to contain within it an element of atonement.

But here the concentration is on it in its Godward aspect. It is important to recognise that God is never depicted as eating an offering in any way. He is the invisible God. This was unlike other religions where a pretence was regularly made, often by deceitful means, giving the impression that the god had eaten the offerings. See for an example the vivid description in the Jewish tale of Bel and the Dragon, where the priests left food in a room that was sealed, with ‘only the god inside’, and stole in at night through a secret door in order to eat the food and give the impression that the god had eaten it. This was clearly a parody on things that did in fact happen. People did believe that their gods required food from them. But they were gods of wood and stone, shaped in terms of created things. But Israel’s God was the God of Heaven.

In the Law it is always made clear that the offerings, if eaten, are eaten either by the priests or the people. (Consider also the shewbread and see Exodus 24.9-11). God participates by receiving the ‘pleasing odour’. Thus does He fellowship with His people through the peace offering, fellowshipping with them in their meal but not eating of it, an indication of friendly intentions and love and yet of separateness and non-earthiness. As we have seen this is made clear by the inclusion of the inedible frankincense in the grain offering. It was the pleasing odour not the actual food that came up to Yahweh. The food was consumed by the fire and turned into a pleasing odour. (In other words God accepted it spiritually).

These peace sacrifices were a regular part of the feasts for which the nation assembled, as they gathered round the tabernacle. Through them they ate in the presence of Yahweh, and enjoyed His company. Peace offerings and sacrifices were commonly connected with other offerings and sacrifices, bringing the people into direct participation and full involvement after the more serious business of the prime offerings had been completed. They were of larger animals, oxen sheep and goats, indicating a sharing, and females were seen as equally satisfactory in such sacrifices. This indicated both the lesser nature of the peace offering and its wider and more inclusive significance. It would be offered by, and consumed by, both men and women.

The Peace Sacrifice From The Herd (3.1-5)

3.1 ‘And if his oblation be a sacrifice of peace-offerings; if he offer of the herd, whether male or female, he shall offer it without blemish before Yahweh.’

A sacrifice of peace offerings could be either male or female, but it was to be without blemish. Later it will be accepted that a voluntary free-will offering could have a slight ‘natural’ deformity, but not any other kind of imperfection (22.23). This did not apply to an offering made in connection with a vow. However even such a slightly imperfect sacrifice must still be generally without blemish. Here the sacrifice is of oxen.

The relaxing of the restriction about males was clearly practical, otherwise the large feasts would have mopped up the males and left a huge surplus of females which could not be eaten. The females, however, were required in larger numbers for they provided milk, and replacements. The males provided life, the females nurtured it.

And we should note that while Israel were living ‘in the camp’ and therefore within easy reach of the tabernacle, no ox, sheep or goat, apart from those offered as offerings, could be killed either in or out of the camp without it being brought to the door of the tabernacle and dealt with as a peace sacrifice (17.1-7). It was therefore necessary that peace sacrifices could be of either sex. This principle of bringing all within the camp was in order to prevent the danger of surreptitious sacrifices in the wilderness to demons. It kept everything above board.

3.2 ‘And he shall lay his hand on the head of his oblation, and kill it at the door of the tent of meeting, and Aaron's sons the priests shall sprinkle the blood on the altar round about.’

The same general procedures follow as for the whole burnt offering. The laying on of the hand, the killing at the door of the tent of meeting (in the court of the tabernacle), and the sprinkling of the blood on the altar round about, as with the whole burnt offering where it was for atonement. Here we have identification with the sacrifice, the shedding of the blood, and its application for atonement. In this lay the atoning aspect. For the fact of recognised atonement in the peace sacrifice see Exodus 29.33 with 28. (It will be noted throughout that it is apparent that certain things are assumed in each differing offering and sacrifice, the details being carried over from other offerings and not stated in all cases. To get the whole picture we have to combine the differing descriptions, while noting the explicit differences and positively stated exceptions. Note how the detail here concentrates on only one aspect of the peace sacrifice, its Godward element. The partaking of the sacrifice by the laity will be dealt with later under ‘the law of the sacrifice of the peace offering’ (7.11-21)

3.3-4 ‘And he shall offer of the sacrifice of peace-offerings an offering made by fire to Yahweh, the fat that covers the innards, and all the fat that is on the innards, and the two kidneys, and the fat that is on them, which is by the loins, and the covering of fat (or covering membrane) on the liver, with the kidneys, shall he take away.’

Note the details of what is to be burned on the altar. Instead of all the sacrifice being cut up and placed on the altar it is the fat that covers the vital parts, together with those vital parts; the fat surrounding the innards, the fat that covers the innards, the two kidneys with the fat that surrounds them, and the covering of the liver. The kidneys and the liver represented, in their eyes, the seat of the emotions and the will. They represented how it lived, and moved and thought. They were thus not to partake of the beasts essential living being, nor of its protecting fat. The life in the blood, the fat and the vital sources of being were all therefore forbidden. There must be no thought of man drawing on the beast’s essential life and strength. The meat of the animal was not a part of the offering, for it was not seen as part of the animal’s essential life. It could therefore be eaten by participants.

3.5 ‘And Aaron's sons shall burn it on the altar on the whole burnt-offering, which is on the wood that is on the fire. It is an offering made by fire, of a pleasing odour to Yahweh.’

What has been selected out is now to be burned on the altar ‘on the whole burnt offering’. The assumption is made in this example that the sacrifice is made after a whole burnt offering. In that case the whole burnt offering is offered first and the peace sacrifice placed on top. Possibly when an ox was being offered as a peace sacrifice it was recognised that it would be part of such a combination of offerings, or possibly this is like the north side of the altar in 1.11, mentioned once but intended to be seen as having wider application.

Others see the reference as to the morning whole burnt offering which would already have been offered on the altar, so that the peace sacrifice is laid on top of it. It does not require new preparation. It is a subsidiary sacrifice.

Again the offering is a fire-offering and a pleasing odour to Yahweh, as with the whole burnt offering and the grain offering, (but not so much with the sin and guilt offering). They deal with sin generally but not specifically, for their central purpose is dedication, tribute, gratitude and the demonstration of love, and in the case of this sacrifice the making of peace with God and men. The only point being that even with these atonement is necessary for their acceptance. In this case the meat is man’s (shared with the priests and their families) but the vital life of the animal is God’s.

While this was the least of the offerings, to those who are in Christ it speaks of the most glorious of experiences, a side which no other offering speaks of. For Ephesians tells us that He is our peace (Ephesians 2.14). He has made His people one with each other by reconciling us to Himself in one body on the cross having slain both the enmity between God and man, and the enmity between all men when they come to Him, whether Jew or Gentile. All are made one in Christ.

And as men came to the tabernacle with joyous hearts to offer their peace offerings, together with their other offerings, (all of which point us to Christ), and to rejoice together in fellowship both with God and with one another, partaking of the meat of their peace sacrifices with joy, so can we find peace through Him and through His death on the cross for us, rejoicing together with all who come to partake of Him and feasting on Christ, looking to Him as the bread of life (John 6.35), feasting on Him by coming to Him daily in faith and eating and drinking of Him through His word, and receiving of His life and His fullness as we allow Him to live His life through us (John 4.10, 13-14, see also Galatians 2.20; Ephesians 3.17-20).

A Peace Offering of Sheep (3.6-11).

3.6 ‘And if his oblation for a sacrifice of peace-offerings to Yahweh be of the flock, male or female, he shall offer it without blemish.

The same instructions are given concerning the offering of the sheep, and then of the goat. This distinction between sheep and goat (contrast chapter 1) may be because in the case of the sheep its fat tail had to be dealt with separately. Or it may be in order to preserve threeness (just as there were three differing offerings mentioned in chapter 1), to indicate the completeness of the sacrifice. The idea may be that however different people are, (farmers, shepherds, goatherds) the ultimate way to God is the same for them all, through sacrifice and making peace with God. For us, and ultimately for them, it is through the unblemished lamb (John 1.29; 1 Peter 1.18-19). There is no other way (John 14.6).

3.7-11 ‘If he offer a lamb for his oblation, then shall he offer it before Yahweh, and he shall lay his hand on the head of his oblation, and kill it before the tent of meeting, and Aaron's sons shall sprinkle its blood on the altar round about. And he shall offer of the sacrifice of peace-offerings an offering made by fire to Yahweh; its fat, the fat tail entire, he shall take away hard by the backbone; and the fat that covers the innards, and all the fat that is on the innards, and the two kidneys, and the fat that is on them, which is by the loins, and the covering of fat on the liver, with the kidneys, shall he take away. And the priest shall burn it on the altar: it is the food of the offering made by fire to Yahweh.’

The same principles apply here as for the sacrifice of the ox, except that special attention is drawn to the fat tail of the Near Eastern sheep. This luxury along with all the fat was to be burned on the altar along with all that constituted the life force of the lamb. For the life and the fat was God’s. He gave it, and He has taken it away (compare Genesis 7.17).

‘It is the food of the offering made by fire to Yahweh.’ Note the change from ‘a pleasing odour to Yahweh’. The sacrifice offered in loving obedience is all that He needs to satisfy Him as He joins in fellowship with His own. Note that it is consumed in the flames. God is not seen as feeding on it directly. His ‘food’ is the pleasing odour, His spiritual satisfaction in the offering. He partakes of their obedience, love and gratitude.

A Peace Offering of Goats (3.12-16)

3.12-15 ‘And if his oblation be a goat, then he shall offer it before Yahweh, and he shall lay his hand on its head, and kill it before the tent of meeting; and the sons of Aaron shall sprinkle its blood on the altar round about. And he shall offer from it his oblation, even an offering made by fire to Yahweh, the fat that covers the innards, and all the fat that is on the innards, and the two kidneys, and the fat that is on them, which is by the loins, and the covering of fat on the liver, with the kidneys, shall he take away.’

As with the ox and sheep, so with the goats. The threefold repetition, beloved of ancient writers, stresses the threefold importance of the lesson. Peace is made between God and men, and once that is done men and women can commune with God. This was the assurance that the peace offering constantly gave to those who were true to Him.

3.16 ‘And the priest shall burn them on the altar. It is the food of the offering made by fire, for a pleasing odour; all the fat is Yahweh's.’

Again the result is described. Here it is confirmed that the food of the offering made by fire is the pleasing odour. Further, all the fat is Yahweh’s. The essential being of the animal, and its best part, belongs to Him.

A General Principle.

3.17 ‘It shall be a perpetual statute throughout your generations in all your dwellings, that you shall eat neither fat nor blood.’

This leads on to the final instruction which is to be observed ‘throughout your generations’. It is not just temporary, it is to last while sacrifices are being offered. His people must eat neither the fat nor the blood of offerings and sacrifices.

Unknown to the people, this was partly for hygienic reasons. For both could in fact cause many diseases to be passed on. (Whether Moses had observed this in the circumstances of his life or whether it was God Who bore this in mind for His people we can only surmise). But what was equally important was what they represented. The fat protected the vital parts where the life of the animal was considered to be (see the detailed descriptions above). As such it was part of what was forbidden. Some also alternatively consider that it was seen by the ancients as the best part of the animal, with the result that it had to be given to God as His prime share (both protecting them and leaving them the meat). And the blood was the source of continual life, and when shed brought death. It was ‘the life’ of the animal (17.14). No man must partake of the life force of an animal. They are of a different kind from us. So did God for ever distinguish man from brute beast, whereas other religions sought to make them partake of each other. We Christians are not animals. Our essential nature is spiritual. (We will leave the non-believers to become wholly monkeys :-))) )

The Purification for Sin Offering (4.1-5.13)

Chapter 4 The Purification for Sin Offering (chatta’ah).

Now we are introduced to the purification for sin and the guilt/trespass sacrifices. The form chatta’ah comes from a verbal stem meaning ‘to purify’. It deals with sin as a whole. The guilt/trespass offerings are also purification for sin offerings but deal with particular breaches of the covenant, and are connected with compensation, and putting things right. It may be that both these were a new innovation to Israel, or it may simply be that because of their nature the histories had not had cause to mention them. But the important element in them is that they concentrate on sin, its eradication and its need for forgiveness and purification. They face the question of sin head on, and deal with the question of specific sins.

The sacrifices are at different levels dependent on whose sin they deal with. So the major purification for sin offerings are those for the sins of the priests, who are representatives of ‘the congregation (church, assembly) of Israel’, and of the community as a whole, which of course therefore contains within it the priests. The priests are holy to God, and the whole community are to God ‘a kingdom of priests and a holy nation’ (Exodus 19.6). Thus such sins are directly against God’s holiness and cause a breach of the covenant for the whole nation.

These sins were sins against the covenant. They might be ritual failures or moral failures (both being the same in their eyes, they breached the covenant). Carelessness with regard to either would bring them under God’s judgment. There must be no failure in observing God’s ritual requirements exactly as required, and the keeping of Yahweh’s moral commands was seen as an essential part of the ritual requirements. All of life was considered to be involved in God, and had to be lived out with God and His requirements in mind. The failure to observe the ritual correctly in mind here would be accidental or careless. To do such a thing deliberately would be presumptuous sin and would incur death.

There is, however, an important difference between purification for sin offerings and all other offerings (including guilt offerings), and that is in the application of the blood. Only in the case of the purification for sin offering is it applied to the horns of the altar, and this is said in 8.15 to be in order to purify the altar, with the remainder cast at the foot of the altar, which in 8.15 is said to sanctify it in order to make atonement for it.

In the case of the whole burnt offerings, the peace sacrifices and the guilt offerings the blood is ‘sprinkled round about the altar’. The general significance must be the same, but in the case of the purification for sin offering extra purification is required.

4.1 ‘And Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying,’

This is, as ever, the indication of the introduction of a new section, possibly communicated at a different time from the earlier one. But it confirms that the purification for sin offering was communicated by God to Moses on its own at a particular point in time, although then being brought within the general pattern of offerings. These were to be seen as the words of Yahweh. This section goes on to 5.13.

4.2 ‘Speak to the children of Israel, saying, If any one shall sin unwittingly, in any of the things which Yahweh has commanded not to be done, and shall do any one of them.’

Here we have a general introductory statement. It is a word to the children of Israel as a whole concerning the fact that ‘if anyone’, whether priest, ruler or commoner, become aware of any way in which they have done what Yahweh has commanded not to be done, or if they find that they have failed to fulfil His requirements, then the sin offering comes into play. It applies both for the one and the many, individual sin or community sin. For the one is the part of the whole. The sin in mind is ‘unwitting sin’, sin caused by man’s weakness, not sin done boldly and with a high hand. It covered sins that sprang from the weakness of the flesh (compare Numbers 15.27-29).

Sins resulting from human weakness, and the failure due to it, can be forgiven in such a way, but open defiance and deliberate thwarting of God’s will, sins committed with a "high hand," cannot be dealt with through sacrifices. The latter included premeditated murder, the taking of a life which belonged to God (Exodus 21.12-14); idolatry, the setting aside of God for the worship of idols (Exodus 22.20, and especially in this context Deuteronomy 13.6-9; 17.2-7); the taking in adultery of a man’s wife who had been united with him by God, thus breaking the God-made tie (Leviticus 20.10); and being deeply involved with the occult (Exodus 22.18). In all these sins God was openly set at naught. Such a sinner was to be "cut off from among his people" (Numbers 15.30-31). This also included those who refused to listen to the requirements of the Law as taught by the priests and rulers of the people when speaking officially from God’s Law, for they thus defied God whose Law it was and were to be put to death (compare Deuteronomy 17.12-13). So when David had committed adultery, which was a presumptuous sin, he could not just offer a sacrifice. Sacrifices were not available for that purpose. It was a direct sin against God and a far greater judgment resulted. All such sins were strictly punishable by death, and only direct dealings in penitence with God could divert such punishment.

The previous offerings have had in mind atonement, worship, adoration, thanksgiving and love. The purification for sin offering deals directly with the problem of specific sin and how it can be removed.

Interestingly this formula ‘if anyone ---’ occurs in ritualistic formula elsewhere, including those dating from 2nd millennium BC.

Sinful Failure By The Anointed Priest (4.3-12).

Here we are now faced with sinful failure by the anointed Priest himself. This was a grave matter indeed. Here was the one who, together with his sons had been set apart by God, and who represented the whole people before God and acted on their behalf. He was their mediator and representative. He was to be the perfect exemplar. Any failure on his part to fulfil properly the ritual requirements exactly as prescribed, and the ritual requirements included all the moral requirements, reflected therefore directly on the people. For how could they act for the people once they themselves had sinned? Purification was therefore immediately necessary.

The maintenance of the true ritual exactly as prescribed was especially vital, for the danger was always that they might by altering it stray into the ways of the nations and fall away from the truth that God had revealed. The temptation was all around them constantly. The maintenance of true morality (our distinction, not theirs) was also vital because God is also morally ‘holy’ (set apart as totally different in that way), and those who are unholy morally have therefore no standing before Him. And this was especially true of the Anointed Priest. As the one especially set apart to God the Anointed Priest had a special responsibility to be holy, both in carrying out the ritual, in his activities, and in his whole way of living. Exactness in ritual did matter. Purity of life did matter. These both prevented the straying from the truth which could follow a consideration of the ‘good ideas’ or the sin of others which would only lead into error.

The Anointed Priest was primarily the High Priest, but the office also included those who acted under him, at this time the sons of Aaron. They had the huge responsibility of maintaining the purity of the faith of Israel. For being ‘anointed’ sets apart the one so anointed for God’s service. They henceforth stood as God’s man between man and his God. Anointing did not necessarily involve an outward impartation of God’s Spirit, although that did happen at times when the person was being chosen and set apart by God for a task where that power would be needed. It indicated rather that the person was ‘chosen and set apart’ permanently for a God-given task. Thus for the one appointed to act as men’s mediator before God to sin, was to invalidate his whole position and his whole efficacy. His position ceased to be tenable. And yet, alas, it did happen, and that was why, when it did, he must instantly set about obtaining atonement for himself. As the writer to the Hebrews pointed out, he had first to offer for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people (Hebrews 5.3; 7.27; 9.7). Until Jesus came there was no perfect mediator. This then brings out in contrast the perfection of our own Mediator, Jesus Christ, to Whom is purity and glory for ever.

4.3 ‘If the anointed priest shall sin so as to bring guilt on the people, then let him offer for his sin, which he has sinned, a young bull ox without blemish to Yahweh for a purification for sin-offering.’

So if the anointed priest became aware of any sin that he had committed, which would have brought guilt on the people because of whom he was, and especially in cases where the failure had been where he was acting as ‘The Priest’, he must immediately act in order for that sin to be neutralised, to be totally got rid of, so that his own and their holiness could be restored. He had sinned on their behalf as well as his own. Thus they have sinned in him. He was therefore called on to make the most valuable of sacrifices, the young bull ox; maturing, life producing, vital and powerful (by tradition it would be required to be three years old). And it is to be ‘perfect’, total and complete, without blemish. This was a reminder that it was being offered for someone who was blemished, and it therefore required one who was unblemished to die for him. It was the sacrifice of the unblemished for the blemished (compare 2 Corinthians 5.21). And it was to be brought to Yahweh Who alone could deal with his sin. The matter was between the Priest and Yahweh.

In this sacrifice, the writer to the Hebrews tells us, we have the shadow, the copy, which points forward to Christ, for He also was a growing, mature male, was without blemish and was offered to God as a sin offering for others (Hebrews 10.12; 2 Corinthians 5.21), and it is through Him alone that sin can be dealt with. But He died for sin not His own.

4.4 ‘And he shall bring the bull ox to the door of the tent of meeting before Yahweh, and he shall lay his hand on the head of the bull ox, and kill the bull ox before Yahweh.’

In the same way as with the other offerings and sacrifices the bull ox is brought ‘to the door of the tent of meeting’, that is into the courtyard where the bronze altar was, in front of the outer curtains of the sanctuary behind which, separated only by the Holy Place, was the throne room of Yahweh. And there the priest was to lay his hand firmly on the bull ox, firmly identifying with it and making it his representative for the bearing and purification of his sin. And then he killed it before Yahweh, and its life flowed out in death, and so before Yahweh there was a death for his sin, the death of a perfect representative who died in his place, and in the place of the people. His sin was identified with the bull ox, just as he was identified with the bull ox, and the bull ox died for his sin. And that death neutralised the sin. It was the antidote to sin. The sin was fully punished and the barrier that had arisen between him and God was removed. It ‘made atonement’ and brought purification for the sin.

The wages of sin is death, he who sins shall die, and that was why a life had to be forfeit. But a death having taken place the priest could, by the grace of God, become as though he had never sinned. And the bull ox too was no longer tainted with sin for the price of sin was paid. Instead it became excessively ‘holy’ because of God’s activity through it and on it. It was now wholly ‘separated to God’ as His instrument of purification. His holy action on it had made it ‘holy’. By means of the necessary punishment of death sin had been dealt with. It was ‘forgiven’. And the result of God’s holy working through it was that the ox bull became holy. Its remains had therefore to be dealt with with the greatest possible care. It had been God’s instrument of mercy.

That the sacrifice becomes holy is declared clearly elsewhere (6.25-27; 7.1, 6; 10.17), and is emphasised by the fact that when taken outside the camp it has to be buried ‘in a clean place’.

The writer to the Hebrews reminds us that Jesus too was offered as a purification for sin offering, and that indeed as the anointed High Priest He offered Himself, and that His blood too was poured out and was accepted for purification for sins (Hebrews 9.11-14; 10.5-14; 1.3). And he reminds us that He too was excessively holy (Hebrews 2.10; 5.8-9; 7.26; 10.7; 13.12), so holy that His death and offering up had to be ‘outside the camp’. Indeed the death of the bull ox had been but a shadow of this, and without this offering of Christ once-for-all the shadow would have been ineffective. The efficacy of Christ’s sacrifice was carried back into the blood that was offered before Yahweh (Romans 3.25).

4.5 ‘And the anointed priest shall take of the blood of the bull ox, and bring it to the tent of meeting,’

Here we have the first major difference with this particular offering for purification for sin (together with the community offerings for purification of sin) from all the others. The blood of the slain bull, caught in a bowl, is to be brought into the tent of meeting. All else had been dealt with at the door of the tent of meeting, without entering through the curtain. But here he goes beyond the door of the tent of meeting right into the Holy Place itself, and there approaches the veil. Once there only the veil separates him from the Holy of Holies and the very covenant throne of God. To be able to enter here is evidence that the blood has become ‘very holy’ indeed. But in what does this holiness consist? It is in that the blood has been shed for sin, and has been accepted, so that it has become God’s instrument in making purification for sin. It has ‘totally covered’ the sin of the anointed priest, and the resulting defilement of the Holy Place, and neutralised it by the action of God in the imparting His holiness, thus making both once again holy, and the blood holy with the holiness of God. It has become a most precious thing.

4.6 ‘And the priest shall dip his finger in the blood, and sprinkle of the blood seven times before Yahweh, before the veil of the sanctuary.’

And this ‘blood made holy’ is now sprinkled by means of the priest’s finger seven times before Yahweh within the Holy Place of the tabernacle, before the veil, to demonstrate that all that has to do with the priest and the Holy Place has now again been made holy. The sinning priest had not only defiled the people but also the Holy Place. But that shed ‘blood made holy’ was the proof of holiness fully restored to the whole through the shedding of blood (17.11). It completed the cleansing. The covenant was restored. The Priest’s mediating work could go on.

‘Seven times.’ Seven was the ancient number of divine completeness and perfection. Compare how Naaman had to dip in the Jordan seven times to be cleansed of leprosy (2 Kings 5.10, 14). Throughout Leviticus the number will occur again and again, indicating the same idea. In early Sumer numbering to seven was as far as a man could count, using five fingers on a hand, and then the two extra numbers he could manage. Thus seven very early on became the number that represented everything that could be counted, and continued in all nations to indicate divine completeness. It became, and continued to be, the number of divine perfection. Beyond that man could not go. (That is until someone thought of using both hands, then twelve (two eleph) became the limit of counting - two eleph means two more - and thirteen was thus unlucky - but by then the significance of seven had been fixed).

So the sevenfold sprinkling indicated the divine completeness of the purification, and the restoration of the covenant relationship, and was necessary before he could make this first approach to the altar of incense after becoming aware of sin.

4.7 ‘And the priest shall put of the blood on the horns of the altar of sweet incense before Yahweh, which is in the tent of meeting; and all the blood of the bull ox shall he pour out at the base of the altar of ‘offering up’ (of the whole burnt offering) which is at the door of the tent of meeting.’

Then having sprinkled the blood with his finger seven times towards the veil as he approached, indicating that the sin that would have prevented his approach has been dealt with, he is able to apply some of the blood to the horns of the altar of incense before the veil, which is seen as uniquely ‘before Yahweh’. For directly behind the veil, with its two poles pushing the veil forward where they extended into the Holy Place (1 Kings 8.8 - probably on each side of the altar of incense), was the Ark of the Covenant of Yahweh, where from an earthly point of view Yahweh was enthroned invisibly between the Cherubim. This was as close as the blood could be brought without going within the veil into the Holy of Holies itself. Indeed the altar was seen as in some way within the Holy of Holies, as being a kind of appendage (1 Kings 6.22; Hebrews 9.4) of the Holy of Holies, made available in the Holy Place for the priestly offering of incense, and for this type of application of blood.

‘The horns on the altar’ were upward projections at each corner. Comparative incense altars with similar projections have now been found elsewhere, for example at Megiddo, in Palestine. Their description as ‘horns’ suggests that they were probably intended to symbolise power, as the horns of a beast constantly represent its power throughout Scripture. The altar was seen as a place of power, and powerfully effective in what it achieved. And the blood was thus applied to its most powerfully effective part. Part of the reason was to purify this altar (compare 8.15). But we are probably to see that all the power of God went into receiving that blood on God’s behalf, and it was made powerfully effective in purification in general. Having now become holy it has become a kind of incense to God, an act of worship on restoration of the covenant. It was holy blood, shed for sin but then made holy by God as he accepted the price that had been paid. Prayer could, as it were, now begin again, and it began with the blood. (We must not underestimate the devastating nature of the Priest’s sin).

The remainder of the blood was then taken out of the sanctuary and poured out at the base of the altar in the courtyard which was ‘at the door of the tent of meeting’ within the holy precincts of the tabernacle. This was to sanctify it and make atonement for it (8.15). So the whole of the blood which had been made very holy by being shed for sin was dealt with within the tabernacle precincts. And it was first applied for the purification of sin, and to make atonement, and then to purify the Holy Place and its contents, and then to give praise for that atonement, and then it was finally all given to God.

4.8-10 ‘And all the fat of the bull ox of the sin-offering he shall take off from it; the fat that covers the innards, and all the fat that is on the innards, and the two kidneys, and the fat that is on them, which is by the loins, and the covering of fat on the liver, with the kidneys, shall he take away, as it is taken off from the ox of the sacrifice of peace-offerings: and the priest shall burn them on the altar of whole burnt-offering.’

All the fat of the bull ox, was then stripped from it, including the innards, and the fat that was on them, and the two kidneys and the liver, and all fat associated with them, and these were burnt up on the altar as an offering to Yahweh. The fat represented the very best of the offering, and the parts mentioned represented its vital being, its life and emotions and all that it essentially was, given by Yahweh in creation when He first gave them life and breath. These belonged to Yahweh and were passed back to Him, offered up in worship to Him. So even the sin offering has a worship aspect and recognises God’s rights as Creator. Indeed the blood having now been shed the worship could be offered truly.

4.11-12 ‘And the skin of the bull ox, and all its flesh, with its head, and with its legs, and its inwards, and its dung, even the whole bull ox shall he carry forth without the camp to a clean place, where the ashes are poured out, and burn it on wood with fire. Where the ashes are poured out shall it be burnt.’

Then all that remained of the bull ox and its carcase, including its skin, was taken out to be burned in ‘a clean place’. This was very significant. It was far from just getting rid of the remains. Being burned ‘in a clean place’ indicated its extreme holiness, and that it was being handed over to God. Nothing that could defile would be taken to ‘a clean place’. So even its dung has been made most holy. Like all else connected with the sacrifice God’s power had transformed it. We can almost hear the words, ‘what God has cleansed do not call common’ (Acts 10.15). It is burned in the clean place where the very ashes from the altar were taken for disposal, outside the camp. Those ashes too were holy for they had received of the offerings and sacrifices that had been offered on the altar. (Compare the live coal from the altar and its purifying effect in Isaiah 6.6-7). Indeed they were too holy to remain in the camp outside the tabernacle. So nothing that was taken there could be seen as defiling. Thus it is not correct to suggest that they were taken outside the camp because they had become unholy, and were saturated with sin. They were taken out because they were too holy to be disposed of in the camp. The sin had been neutralised by its penalty having been exacted, and the offering had become possessed by God’s holiness as having been His instrument of salvation and as having purified the Holy Place.

The inference is that these parts of the bull ox had become so totally holy that they could not even be burned on the altar (as the whole burnt offering was). They were beyond being offered to God by men in any worshipping way. The altar was for offering to God men’s offerings. But these had been involved in God’s activity in the purification of sin and had so been made excessively holy. They therefore belonged to Him already. God’s holiness had been imparted to them. Man could not offer them.

So they no longer in any way represented man and his offerings. Man could no longer offer them up. They were already devoted to God. Therefore while they had to be removed from the earthly sphere and given to God as His, it was by being burned (despatched to God) outside the camp altogether, in a clean place, a place so clean that it could receive the ashes of the altar. They were too holy for the altar, they were too holy for the camp, and they were too holy for the priests to partake of. They could only be offered by burning in a clean place outside the camp, and not as an offering and sacrifice, because they were already His, but as already belonging to Him. They were already devoted to Yahweh.

This point is taken up by the writer to the Hebrews in chapter 13.10-13 when he stresses that Jesus offered up Himself outside the camp, in His case totally, because of His extreme holiness. Jerusalem was no longer holy enough for Him to be offered there, and God took Him without the camp to His own special altar, for Him to be offered there in holiness. Jerusalem meant it as a reproach. God by it indicated His extreme holiness. Jerusalem testified against itself. As a result He is able to make holy and to purify all Who come to God through Him, for he is their purification for sin offering.

‘A clean place --- outside the camp.’ Such is referred to again in 6.11. It was clearly a place set apart for God’ use and was regularly needed for the depositing of holy ashes. How or why it was clean or made clean we are never told. (see also 10.14 where it has a different meaning but with a similar intent of holy things being dealt with there). But they had met God in the wilderness and it was still to be seen as His possession. He was still the Creator of all things, and watched over those places where man and beast were not allowed to control and defile. The ashes would be safe there in God’s keeping. It was in contrast with ‘an unclean place’ (14.40, 41, 45). All these many details constantly bring out how accurately the narrative fits into the time of the wilderness. To suggest that someone later invented all these details is inadmissible.

It is noteworthy that there is no mention of atonement here. This is not because there was none but because it cannot be said that ‘the priest made atonement’ for himself. In this case the atonement was directly made by God. The Priest was merely a suppliant.

The Purification For Sin Offering For The Whole Congregation (4.13-21).

This second type of purification for sin offering is to occur when the whole congregation, the congregation as a nation, and thus the whole nation, has sinned. The ‘congregation’ was the gathering of Israel. This ‘gathering’ would take place especially at the regular feasts, but would also occur whenever they were called together. At these gatherings decisions would be made both about the past and the future. Judgments had to be given and future options determined. However, it was always possible that any decisions then made, and the courses that followed, might finally be discovered to be contrary to the covenant. They may by them have unintentionally ‘sinned’. This would include judgments made on certain disputed matters. And God’s anger, His antipathy against sin, would therefore have been aroused. It was then that this act of atonement had to come into play.

4.13 ‘And if the whole congregation of Israel err, and the thing be hid from the eyes of the assembly, and they have done any of the things which Yahweh has commanded not to be done, and are guilty;’

The idea is that the ‘assembly’, those who represent the whole congregation, has become aware in some way that its decisions and actions have been contrary to Yahweh’s will. It had not been done deliberately, but they have come to recognise how wrong they had been. It has in mind decisions which publicly affect the whole people. They realise that they, or someone acting on behalf of the whole, have done what Yahweh commanded not to be done, and that they are all therefore guilty of breaking the covenant, and that they have done it as the nation as a whole. They recognise that, unless they act to restore it, the covenant has therefore been invalidated and has ceased to be effective. And they are all guilty as though they were one.

As the offering is later said to be the ‘sin offering for the assembly’ (verse 21) this may suggest that ‘the assembly’ represents all the men of Israel, with ‘the congregation’ including the women and children. It may however just be that it means an assembly representing the whole people. Or it may be a synonym for the congregation of Israel. (In fact ‘the congregation’ itself sometimes mean all the mature men of Israel, and sometimes all the people, and sometimes a group representing all the people).

4.14-15 ‘When the sin by which they have sinned is known, then the assembly shall offer a young bull ox for a sin-offering, and bring it before the tent of meeting. And the elders of the congregation shall lay their hands on the head of the bull ox before Yahweh; and the bull ox shall be killed before Yahweh.’

The procedure is slightly summarised and is no doubt to follow closely that for the Priest’s sins. Here it is ‘the elders of the congregation’, their main leaders as representatives of the whole assembly, who lay hands on the bull ox. The bull ox represents the whole congregation. One or two of their number will then slay the bull ‘before Yahweh’. The death is drawn to His attention, and it is made clear that they are following His demands. The blood will then be collected by the priest in a basin to be further dealt with.

The ‘elders of the congregation’ are heads of tribes and families, here the main heads of the tribes (compare Exodus 3.16, 18; 4.29). They were called elders because they were seen as old in wisdom, and usually were so in person, but not necessarily always. The tribal leaders would mainly be so because they were heads of prominent families. But particularly prominent younger men could sometimes be appointed as ‘elders’ as well. It was to these elders that Moses came when he first brought word of deliverance from God. See also Numbers 11.16-17 for the selection from among them of chosen leaders of the people to act in God’s name as His spokesmen. For the hierarchy see Joshua 7.17-18; the tribe, then the sub-tribe, then the wider family, then the family itself, then the individual. Each tribe would have its prince or chieftain, supported by a group of elders, and similarly the sub-tribe whose chief would be an elder in the main group, and himself supported by elders, and so on.

4.16-18 ‘And the anointed priest shall bring of the blood of the bull ox to the tent of meeting, and the priest shall dip his finger in the blood, and sprinkle it seven times before Yahweh, before the veil. And he shall put of the blood on the horns of the altar which is before Yahweh, that is in the tent of meeting; and all the blood shall he pour out at the base of the altar of whole burnt-offering, which is at the door of the tent of meeting.’

The same procedure is followed as for the Priest. The same gravity of offence has been committed which involves both the priest and the whole nation, for the priest was a part of the nation. The seriousness of the priest’s sin lay in that he was the God-chosen representative of the whole nation, here the sin has been the whole nation’s. In both cases therefore the whole covenant has been shattered. The blood is brought within the tent of meeting into the Holy Place. And this ‘blood made holy’ is now sprinkled by means of the priest’s finger seven times before Yahweh within the Holy Place of the tabernacle, before the veil, to demonstrate that all that has to do with the whole congregation has now again been made holy. Not only the people but also the Holy Place had been defiled, for among them had been the Priest and his sons. But that shed blood was the proof of holiness fully restored to the whole through the shedding of blood (17.11). It completed the cleansing. The covenant was restored. The Priest’s mediating work could go on. The people were still His people.

4.19-20 ‘And all its fat shall he take off from it, and burn it on the altar. Thus shall he do with the bull ox; as he did with the bull ox of the sin-offering, so shall he do with this; and the priest shall make atonement for them, and they shall be forgiven.’

Reference is here made back to the previous example. All is done the same. And the consequence is that atonement is made for them and they are as a nation forgiven. Atonement had not been mentioned in the case of the Priest, for he could not atone for himself, but it had been necessary and could be assumed in the light of this statement here. Atonement must always be made if men are to approach God. But here the Priest can ‘make atonement’ because he is not just acting for himself. He comes as the mediator for the nation.

So in this second example a detail is added which was not mentioned in the first and yet applied to it. We have seen before how in the second example a detail is brought in that was not given in the first example, but still applied (e.g. 1.11). But as we have previously noted, the priest could not have been said to ‘make atonement’ for himself. That was something he could not do.

Note how the greatest detail is still given with regard to the application of the blood. This was of essential importance and sealed the restoration of the covenant.

4.21 ‘And he shall carry forth the bull ox outside the camp, and burn it as he burned the first bull ox; it is the purification for sin offering for the assembly.’

The same treatment of the remains also follows. God’s action and holiness, in response to the death of their representative, has neutralised and atoned for the sin of a whole nation, resulting in the offering being suffused with His holiness. The offering has become excessively holy. It has been taken over by Him. It must therefore be ‘given to God’, to Whom it now belongs exclusively, in a clean place away from the camp, a place which is ‘holy’, and in this case too this would include the hide. It is too holy to belong to anyone but God. No one who was a part of the sin could have a part of it. (At other times the priest could receive the hide because he was holy, but not where he himself had been involved in the sin).

In the same way as the bull ox could atone for the sins of a whole nation, so in Hebrews are we made aware that Jesus’ sacrifice for Himself is sufficient for the sins, not only for a nation but for the whole world, if only they will repent and believe (see also 1 John 2.2; 4.14; John 1.29; 3.16; 4.42; 1 Timothy 4.10). There is no limit to the redeeming power of God.

The Purification for Sin Offering For a Ruler of the People (4.22-26).

We now come a step down to a ruler of the people. The situation is now different. He does not represent the whole nation, nor, although appointed by God, is he God’s anointed mediator for the whole people. This is a sin of only a section of the people. It is therefore not a total rejection of the covenant. Thus the offering too is toned down and its remains disposed of differently, as with the peace sacrifices. It is necessary for atonement and the restoration of the unity of the nation, but not for the restoration of the covenant as a whole.

4.22-23 ‘When a ruler sins, and does unwittingly any one of all the things which Yahweh his God has commanded not to be done, and is become guilty; if his sin, by which he has sinned, be made known to him, he shall bring for his oblation a goat, a male without blemish.’

The ruler’s sin may be personal, or it may have affected his sub-group. Either way it affects those over whom he is responsible. Thus he has brought guilt on himself and his sub-group. This time the offering is to be a he-goat. And it must be without blemish, for it is in the place of one who is blemished so that its death may be on his account. Its maleness reflects the importance of, and vitality of, the offering.

‘If his sin be made known to him.’ The rulers and elders are clearly responsible to account for each other. The idea is probably that his behaviour has come to the attention of the other rulers, and they approach him in order to deal with the matter for the sake of the whole, exerting peer pressure. It may, however, mean made known by God.

The question of what is meant by ‘a ruler’ cannot be definitely answered, although its general significance is clear. The term is general. In Exodus 16.22 the ‘rulers’ of the congregation came to Moses with a problem of the people. They thus appear as spokesmen of the whole, and possibly different from the elders. But their importance is undoubted. It may, however, refer to any prominent leader in a position of fairly wide authority. The point behind this is that having authority lays greater responsibility on the one who has it, for he is responsible for others as well as himself.

4.24 ‘And he shall lay his hand on the head of the goat, and kill it in the place where they kill the whole burnt-offering before Yahweh. It is a sin-offering.’

The ruler is now publicly to lay his hand on the goat and kill it ‘in the place where they kill the whole burnt offering before Yahweh’. This means to the north side of the altar (1.11) and its mention only here may suggest that the two above may have been killed in a more prominent position. (Compare in chapter 1. It may indicate that all bull ox sacrifices were slain more prominently).

It is clear now that this sacrifice is of a lesser nature. The tension is no longer there, except for the person involved. It is a he-goat and it is slain where all whole burnt offerings are slain. The reason that it is not to be a sheep is possibly because he-goats are often used to depict rulers. They are ‘stately in their going’ (Proverbs 30.31). Compare ‘the he-goats before the flocks’ (Jeremiah 50.8); ‘the he-goats of the earth’ signifying its important men (Isaiah 14.9). Thus the he-goat adequately represents a ruler.

4.25 ‘And the priest shall take of the blood of the sin-offering with his finger, and put it on the horns of the altar of whole burnt-offering; and its blood shall he pour out at the base of the altar of whole burnt-offering.’

The blood is applied to the horns of the altar of whole burnt offerings rather than within the Holy Place. The future of Israel is no longer seen as in doubt. Nevertheless the strength of God is called on, and the plea of the blood goes up to Him through the horns of the altar, and the altar is purified. The rest of the blood is then flung at the base of the altar to make atonement for it (8.15). It is all presented before God. It is the shedding of the blood which results in forgiveness of sins. It is the blood that makes the atonement for the whole person (17.11).

4.26 ‘And all its fat shall he burn on the altar, as the fat of the sacrifice of peace-sacrifices; and the priest shall make atonement for him as concerning his sin, and he shall be forgiven.’

The fat of the sin offering is treated like the fat of the peace offerings, presumably along with all the inner organs. They belong to God. Nothing is said of the meat and the skin. These actually go to the priest. They are holy, but not most holy. For in 6.26-29 we learn that all the priests may eat of the meat, but only in the tabernacle precincts because it is holy.

‘And the priest shall make atonement for him as concerning his sin, and he shall be forgiven.’ The result of the work of the priest, using God’s allotted means, results in atonement for the ruler. He is forgiven.

This offering brings out the responsibility of Christian leadership. For those who lead sin is more virulent, for they hurt not only themselves but those that they lead. But Christ having been made our purification for sin offering purification and atonement is available through Him, even for those who sin in leadership and bear more guilt.

The Purification for Sin Offering For The Common People (4.27-35).

This is of either a female goat or a female sheep. It is thus of lower rank than that of the ruler, which was male, but may be of either kind. By having the two dealt with separately we have five different types of purification for sin offerings described, the bull ox for the priest, the bull ox for the community, the he-goat for the ruler, the female goat for the commoner, or the female sheep for the commoner. This thus makes five types of offering, and five is the number of covenant. It may be no coincidence in that this offering deals with breaches of the covenant. Compare how the whole burnt offering and the peace offering were in threes (and how the writer groups two or three together as one or makes them separate as he wishes).

4.27 ‘And if any one of the common people sin unwittingly, in doing any of the things which Yahweh has commanded not to be done, and be guilty;’

Finally we have the offering for any of the common people who sin ‘unwittingly’, and thus not in open rebellion against Yahweh. It is for those who sin against the ‘you shall not’ commands. They have sinned against God’s direct command. If they have done so they are guilty and must go through the atoning procedures.

4.28-30 ‘If his sin, which he has sinned, be made known to him, then he shall bring for his oblation a goat, a female without blemish, for his sin which he has sinned. And he shall lay his hand on the head of the sin-offering, and kill the sin-offering in the place of whole burnt-offering. And the priest shall take of its blood with his finger, and put it on the horns of the altar of whole burnt-offering; and all its blood shall he pour out at the base of the altar.’

Exactly the same procedure occurs here as for the ruler, except that the offering is a lesser one, a female goat. But it is still to be without blemish. Only as such will it make a perfect representative and substitute. The commoner presses his hand on it, and slays it, and then some of its blood is put on the horns of the altar and the remainder at the foot of the altar. His sin results in death and is therefore neutralised by God acting in mercy, and his offering becomes holy. He is in process of being accepted by God and atoned for.

4.31 ‘And all its fat shall he take away, as the fat is taken away from off the sacrifice of peace-sacrifices; and the priest shall burn it on the altar for a pleasing odour to Yahweh; and the priest shall make atonement for him, and he shall be forgiven.’

The fat and all connected with it is then burnt on the altar and rises as ‘a pleasing odour to Yahweh’. We may probably assume that this is true of all the offerings of fat from the purification for sin offerings, although previously the emphasis has been on the need for forgiveness and atonement and it has not been specifically brought out. The priest has thus made atonement for him and he is forgiven.

(Some have suggested that this is burning as a pleasing odour to Yahweh is out of place, but you will note that in the next summary the conception of the ‘offering made by fire’ is brought in. It is therefore clear that the writer is bringing in different ‘secondary’ aspects to this offering as we go along, to remind us that they still apply. In the whole burnt offering all was a pleasing odour to Yahweh. Here it is only the offering of the fat and the innards ).

Again no mention is made of the skin or the meat. Attention is rather on dealing with the sin. But in 6.26-29 we learn that all the priests may eat of the meat, (even those excluded from priestly service by blemishes (21.21), but only in the tabernacle precincts because it is holy.

4.32-34 ‘And if he bring a lamb as his oblation for a sin-offering, he shall bring it a female without blemish. And he shall lay his hand on the head of the sin-offering, and kill it for a sin-offering in the place where they kill the whole burnt-offering. And the priest shall take of the blood of the sin-offering with his finger, and put it on the horns of the altar of burnt-offering; and all its blood shall he pour out at the base of the altar:’

The procedure is exactly the same as for the female goat. This may appear redundant to us, but for the Israelite the fivefold description was fully meaningful. Without its fivefold nature it would not have had the same impact.

4.35 ‘And all its fat thereof shall he take away, as the fat of the lamb is taken away from the sacrifice of peace-offerings; and the priest shall burn them on the altar, on the offerings of Yahweh made by fire; and the priest shall make atonement for him as touching his sin that he has sinned, and he shall be forgiven.’

In this end description there is an addition to what has gone before, the fat and the innards are ‘an offering made by fire’ to Yahweh. This is almost certainly intended to be applied to all the purification for sin offerings apart from the two where the burning was outside the camp in a clean place, and even then it applied to the fat. The fat and innards of all as offered up are both a pleasing odour to Yahweh (verse 31) and are an offering made by fire. The writer has so written it that without the fivefold description, the picture would not have been complete. The whole is skilfully and cleverly composed, introducing all the elements in the offerings while keeping attention focused on the main one, the purification for sin.

These sacrifices for the common people, offered one by one, remind us of God’s interest and concern for each of us, however lowly, and that His full provision is there on our behalf when we come to Him in faith and trust.

So the great importance of properly dealing with sin has been brought out, and our need for purification and atonement, and the sacrifices are copies and shadows of the work of our Great High Priest Jesus, illustrating the work that He finally accomplished when He offered Himself up to God once-for-all for our sins as the perfect purification for sin offering, and the perfect atonement offering, sweeping up into His work all the offerings and sacrifices which had been offered from true hearts throughout all ages. Their effectiveness came from Him.

The Guilt Or Trespass Offering - ’asam (5.1-11).

The essence of the Guilt Offering is that it appears to be in respect of fixed types of sins which make the person guilty in the eyes of others who may have suffered because of their failures, or guilty in the eyes of the sanctuary. In both cases recompense is usually needed. But it is not a case here of either a purification for sin offering or a guilt offering. This Guilt Offering is also a purification for sin offering, in one case also combined with a whole burnt offering.

This final offering in this whole section from 4.1-5.11 is with respect to very specific offences committed in ignorance; 1) failing to give witness in official courts under adjuration, 2) the touching of what is unclean because its uncleanness results from death, or because it is the uncleanness of man, 3) or the making of a rash oath by a man when not in possession of his full senses (and therefore presumably drunk) which he cannot keep. They are grave matters, but ameliorated in the last two cases by the doing of them in ignorance. Yet nevertheless they have brought impurity on Israel and must be publicly confessed and atoned for.

It should be noted that this is the first mention of public confession of sin, and the confession is clearly seen as an important part of the process of making the offering. These are sins that have directly affected others. They have thus made the perpetrators guilty, not only before God, but before each other.

The Sins For Which This Guilt Offering Is Required (5.1-4).

5.1 ‘ And if any one sin, in that he hears the voice of adjuration, he being a witness, whether he has seen or known, if he does not utter it, then he shall bear his iniquity.’

The voice of adjuration here meant a witness being put under a charge by the courts as to whether they had heard or seen anything with regard to the case in hand, with the indication that they must speak the truth under pain of blasphemy. Here the person has not lied. They have simply failed to declare the truth. But in a position like this, silence is a sin. Once it is known, they will bear as their punishment whatever the courts decide (bear their iniquity), but they are also guilty before God and require atonement, and must make public confession. They have sinned against both man and God. This is in order to bring out the seriousness of the offence. In this case silence is not golden. It is an offence against God and His justice. Unless true men are willing to assist the courts and see justice done, justice will be continually perverted. See Proverbs 29.24.

5.2 ‘Or if any one touch any unclean thing, whether it be the carcase of an unclean beast, or the carcase of unclean cattle, or the carcase of unclean creeping things, and it be hidden from him, and he be unclean, then he shall be guilty.’

In this case the person has unknowingly touched something that was dead, either the carcase of a wild animal, or of a domestic animal, or of a small creature. He or she had not realised it, possibly through carelessness, but they have been rendered unclean by it. Yet because they did not realise it or think about it they have not undergone ‘cleansing’, and may well even have approached the sanctuary, entering the court of the tabernacle, while unclean. Once they know of it they must confess it and seek purification and atonement. This could especially come about through picking up a bone without realising what it was, or something similar. Or it may have happened while out hunting or fighting and have been forgotten for a while. Later all contact with death is seen as unclean, but this is the early foundation teaching concerning this.

The avoidance of dead animals was a sensible precaution for they may have died of some disease, or have been infected by carrion. The only safe way was not to touch them but to leave them to the scavengers. ‘Unclean’ wild animals would include the camel, the coney, the hare, and the swine (Leviticus 11.2-3), ‘unclean’ domestic animals would include the horse and especially the ass (Leviticus 11.26-28). For unclean creeping things see Leviticus 11.29-31. Their dead carcases were not to be touched. The idea of clean and unclean animals went back as far as Noah (Genesis 7.2) where it was seemingly in regard to animals that could be offered as offerings to God. This law would later be expanded in some detail. By being made a religious ordinance that came between man and God it ensured that it was mainly observed.

For it was not only a sensible precaution, it was a command of Yahweh. The dead of these creatures must be left to Him. By coming in physical contact with the carcase of these unclean creatures and not taking action to obtain the appropriate cleansing they have sinned against God either through carelessness or ignorance. It is therefore necessary to seek forgiveness.

5.3 ‘Or if he touch the uncleanness of man, whatever his uncleanness be wherewith he is unclean, and it be hidden from him; when he knows of it, then he shall be guilty.’

In this case the person has touched man’s uncleanness in one way or another. This could include among other things touching their grave, or a man’s waste left in the wilderness, or a menstruating woman. The first could occur where he learned afterwards that it was a grave, the second if he discovered it on his clothes or his skin on returning from the field or the wilderness, and the third could happen anywhere.

In both of these last two examples of ‘uncleanness’ in verses 2 & 3 the point is that they have only discovered it too late to go through the process of ritual cleansing. Thus they have mixed freely with others and may even have gone to the tabernacle.

5.4 ‘Or if any one swear rashly with his lips to do evil, or to do good, whatever it be that a man shall utter rashly with an oath, and it be hid from him; when he knows of it, then he shall be guilty in one of these things.’

‘To do evil or to do good’ is a phrase meaning ‘to do anything over a wide range of things’ looking from one extreme to the other, the two opposites signalling the bounds not the content. Clearly an oath to do evil would not be binding, even though the swearing of it would be a sin in itself. The swearing rashly and not knowing about it must suggest that the person was under the influence of alcohol. The point, of course, is that he has not fulfilled his vow because he has forgotten it, and then learns it from someone and finds that it is beyond him, or is something that he feels he cannot do. The purpose here is to bring out the seriousness of a vow. It cannot just be dismissed, even when made in a drunken state. It must be publicly confessed, and atoned for.

The Guilt Offering of An Animal (5.5-6).

5.5-6 ‘And it shall be, when he shall be guilty in one of these things, that he shall confess that wherein he has sinned, and he shall bring his guilt offering to Yahweh for his sin which he has sinned, a female from the flock, a lamb or a goat, for a sin-offering, and the priest shall make atonement for him as concerning his sin.’

So if he is guilty as a result of any of these four things, he must first confess to the truth about the matter. It may be that the situation can be put right. And even if not any who have been offended or hurt by them should be informed. Then he must make his sin offering as a ‘trespass/guilt offering’ in accord with the usual practise. Here the guilt offering is also described as a purification for sin offering. But the point is that he is seen as guilty towards others as well as towards God.

The Alternative Guilt Offering of Birds (5.7-10).

5.7 ‘And if his means suffice not for a lamb, then he shall bring his guilt offering for that in which he has sinned, two turtle-doves, or two young pigeons, to Yahweh, one for a sin-offering, and the other for a burnt-offering.’

For this type of offering there is the alternative, as with the burnt offering, of offering birds, two turtle-doves or two young pigeons ‘if his means suffice not for a lamb’. In this case one bird will be offered as a sin offering, and the other as a whole burnt offering in the way described in chapter 1. For once the sin has been forgiven as a result of the one shedding of blood a further sin offering is unnecessary. What is now required is the rededication offering.

There is an important lesson here on the need to accept forgiveness. Once we have brought our sin to God in line with His terms through the blood of Christ we must accept the forgiveness and not keep harping back to it, and not go over it again and again. Then we must dedicate ourselves to Him in total surrender.

5.8-10 ‘And he shall bring them to the priest, who shall offer that which is for the sin-offering first, and wring off its head from its neck, but shall not divide it asunder: and he shall sprinkle of the blood of the sin-offering on the side of the altar; and the rest of the blood shall be drained out at the base of the altar: it is a sin-offering. And he shall offer the second for a burnt-offering, according to the ordinance; and the priest shall make atonement for him as concerning his sin which he has sinned, and he shall be forgiven.’

With the sin offering the priest wrings the bird’s neck. Whether he removes the head depends on whether we see ‘but he shall not divide it asunder’ as referring to the neck or the whole bird (compare 1.17).

We are probably to see what now happens to the blood as being a general statement, taking into account that it is almost certainly the offering in verse 6 that is in mind as well as the bird offering. The account is very much abbreviated. Nothing has been said there about the application of the blood, and the terminology is that usually for an animal offering. This suggestion must be so. The bird would not have sufficient blood to do what is described here (contrast 1.15). The blood is applied to the side altar and the remainder drained out at the base of the altar.

This is a combination of what happens to a whole burnt offering and to a purification for sin offering. In the one the blood is sprinkled on the sides of the altar, in the other the remainder of the blood is flung at the base of the altar (to sanctify it and make atonement for it). This is because it is a purification for sin offering, but only for an individual sin. But it is unlike the purification for sin offering in that the horns of the altar are not daubed with the blood to purify the altar. The one sin is not as all pervasive as the many. The second bird is dealt with in accordance with ‘the ordinance’, that is in the same way as in the whole burnt offering (1.14-17).

‘And the priest shall make atonement for him as concerning his sin which he has sinned, and he shall be forgiven.’ Thus will the priest make atonement for the one who has sinned, and he will be forgiven. Note the repetition in ‘the sin which he has sinned’. Sin is no light matter.

The Second Alternative A Guilt Offering of Grain (5.11-13).

5.11 ‘But if his means suffice not for two turtle-doves, or two young pigeons, then he shall bring his oblation for that in which he has sinned, the tenth part of an ephah of milled grain for a purification for sin-offering: he shall put no oil on it, neither shall he put any frankincense on it; for it is a purification for sin-offering.’

For the very poor another alternative is offered. Nothing must be allowed to prevent a purification for sin offering from being made. In this case the offering is of milled grain. At first sight this appears not to involve the shedding of blood. But note how carefully the writer says that it is to be offered ‘on the offerings of Yahweh made by fire’. For the very poor God graciously combines his offering with those of others.

No oil or frankincense is added to it. For this is not a positive expression of dedication, praise and thanksgiving, (and one who was so poor could not afford it). It is a purification for sin offering. Thus the bare grain is offered alone. Its full content is absorbed from the previous offerings made by fire. The person has given all that he can afford without embellishment and without pretence, and God does the rest.

5.12 ‘And he shall bring it to the priest, and the priest shall take his handful of it as its memorial, and burn it on the altar, on the offerings of Yahweh made by fire: it is a purification for sin-offering.’

The priest takes from his offering the memorial portion as described in chapter 2, and he burns it on the altar on the offerings of Yahweh made by fire. Note the change in wording, ‘the offerings of Yahweh made by fire’. They were now Yahweh’s offerings and He has provided through them what was lacking in the poor man’s offering. Note that it is no more a grain offering but a purification for sin offering.

5.13 ‘And the priest shall make atonement for him as touching his sin that he has sinned in any of these things, and he shall be forgiven: and the remnant shall be the priest's, as with the grain offering.’

Thus will the priest make atonement for him with regard to any of these sins that he has committed. He shall be forgiven as much as will the ruler with his he-goat. And what is left of the grain is the priest’s as with the grain offering. His holiness will absorb the holiness of the offering.

So do we learn that God’s forgiveness comes equally to all, whether to priest, or whole congregation, or ruler, or commoner, or poor man or destitute. God’s forgiveness is offered to all equally. For in the end all these offerings obtained their efficacy from the one great offering offered once-for-all at Golgotha.

(What is more, so is His bounty. When it comes to rewards, one man may finance a cathedral, the other give a cup of cold water, but both are treated the same. Indeed the cup of cold water may well count for more than the cathedral (Mark 12.43-44)).

We note as a postscript that once again the writer has provided his material about this guilt offering in a group of three. With this ends this session of Yahweh’s words to Moses.

Three Revelations Made By God To Moses All Related To Guilt/Compensation Offerings (5.14-6.7).

Three revelations are now made concerning the guilt offering and when it should be offered. Two of the three are introduced by the words, ‘And Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying.’ They may have been given on two separate occasions. They were probably added here to connect with the previous reference to the Guilt Offering. In that instance no compensation was payable, although instead confession was required. In these examples the question of compensation raises its head.

Guilt Offerings With Compensation For Sanctuary Offences (5.14-19)

Reference is made here to two types of offence against the sanctuary.

5.14 ‘And Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying,’

This indicates a new revelation, rather than it being a continuation of what went before. It confirms that it is describing Yahweh’s requirements. It deals with offences against the Sanctuary.

5.15-16 ‘If any one commit a breach of faith, and sin unwittingly, in the holy things of Yahweh, then he shall bring his guilt offering to Yahweh, a ram without blemish out of the flock, according to your estimation in silver by shekels, after the shekel of the sanctuary, for a guilt offering, and he shall make restitution for that which he has done amiss in the holy thing, and shall add the fifth part to it, and give it to the priest; and the priest shall make atonement for him with the ram of the guilt offering, and he shall be forgiven.’

The sins in question here are ‘unwitting’ sins with respect to the sanctuary, sins which might result from carelessness, or forgetfulness, or a false ‘shrewdness’, or pure lethargy. In some way the person has stepped out of line. It may be that they have failed to bring their offerings as due, or have brought lower level ones when they were well enough off to bring higher level ones, grain instead of birds, birds instead of a sheep. Or perhaps in some other way they have ‘profited’ from a failure to fulfil all their religious responsibilities according to the Law. But clearly the person’s conscience has now disturbed him, or he has been ‘found out’ and it is thus a question of making amends, paying restitution and offering the correct guilt offering.

The offering he must bring is a ram, a male sheep and thus of a higher level than the female sheep of the purification for sin offering. Here there are no alternatives offered. This may suggest that a poor man would not be expected to commit this breach of faith, which could suggest that being parsimonious is what is mainly in mind. There has been a failure to meet proper dues. Indeed, as well as it being without blemish, the value of the ram necessary is to be calculated by the priest according to how much loss the sanctuary is considered to have suffered. Then a further one fifth of that value has to be paid to the priest to compensate the priest for what in most cases he would have lost. After that the ram is to be offered as a guilt offering. We are given no details but it is probable that it is offered in a similar way as that described in 5.6-9, or it may be as a purification for sin offering (7.7).

We have here an indication that when men have sinned against God in holy things by holding back from Him what is His due, the sacrifice has to be of sufficient value to cover the level of sin. We can therefore see clearly at what value God had assessed Jesus Christ Who was sufficient to meet the failures in this way of the whole world, and more, an incalculable amount.

5.17 ‘And if any one sin, and do any of the things which Yahweh has commanded not to be done, though he knew it not, yet is he guilty, and shall bear his iniquity.’

This, due to its direct connection with verses 15-16 would seem to refer to someone who has sinned against the Sanctuary in some other way than financial, otherwise it would be little different from 4.27. They in one way or another consider that they have offended against holy things, they have done what Yahweh has commanded not to be done. Now their conscience has smitten them. This may well especially have in mind those with a tender conscience, who become concerned about small details, with the aim of enabling them to obtain peace of mind for their guilty conscience. But there would be others as well who had sinned in this way more certainly. Either way they accept their guilt and that they must be punished accordingly (must ‘bear their guilt’).

5.18-19 ‘And he shall bring a ram without blemish out of the flock, according to your estimation, for a guilt offering, to the priest, and the priest shall make atonement for him concerning the thing wherein he erred unwittingly and knew it not, and he shall be forgiven. It is a guilt offering. He is certainly guilty before Yahweh.’

Again the offering is to be a ram without blemish, its required value to be estimated by Moses (‘your estimation’) according to the level of the failure. Its purpose is to remove the person’s guilt. Although the correct value ram has to be offered there is no extra compensation required. The sanctuary has not suffered financial loss. The priest will offer the ram as he would a purification for sin offering, and make atonement for the person in question, and he will be forgiven. It is a guilt offering.

‘He is certainly guilty before Yahweh.’ This comment may reflect that because this is a sin against the sanctuary there can be no question that he is guilty before Yahweh.

A Guilt Offering For Causing Financial Loss To A Neighbour By Dishonesty (6.1-7).

6.1 ‘And Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying,’

This introduction may suggest an additional revelation given at a different time, which is tacked on to the previous duo to make a threesome in accordance with the writer’s general practise of putting things in threes.

6.2-3 ‘If any one sin, and commit a trespass against Yahweh, and deal falsely with his neighbour in a matter of a deposit, or of bargaining, or of robbery, or have oppressed his neighbour, or have found that which was lost, and deal falsely with regard to it, and swear to a lie; in any of all these things that a man does, sinning in them,’

These sins too are against Yahweh, but not this time against the Sanctuary. They are sins against Yahweh’s people which require compensation as well as atonement, for they have suffered loss. They are evidence of financial dishonesty and greed. This is a reminder that to take false advantage of God’s people is to take false advantage of God. Here the command ‘you shall not covet’ has been broken.

The sins in mind are those of dishonesty with respect to a deposit not repaid when it should have been, the making of a false or unfair bargain, a deliberate theft, the sin of oppressing or crowding a neighbour for financial gain, that of finding something that was lost and keeping it, or the making of a lie on oath. If someone has done any of these things and is now faced up with his sin, either by conscience, or by neighbour pressure, or pressure from someone in authority (they are ‘found guilty’), he must fall in line with the requirement that follows.

6.4-5 ‘Then it shall be, if he has sinned, and is guilty, that he shall restore that which he took by robbery, or the thing which he has obtained by oppression, or the deposit which was committed to him, or the lost thing which he found, or any thing about which he has sworn falsely; he shall even restore it in full, and shall add the fifth part more to it, to him to whom it belongs shall he give it, in the day of his being found guilty.’

The first thing that he must do is make full restoration, and on top must add one fifth as a kind of fine. It is possible that this signifies a double tithe (two tenths). The one who has suffered loss in this case receives the compensation. These rules would not apply in the case of farm stock where the compensation might be much higher (Exodus 22.1-4).

6.6-7 ‘And he shall bring his guilt offering to Yahweh, a ram without blemish out of the flock, according to your estimation, for a guilt offering, to the priest: and the priest shall make atonement for him before Yahweh, and he shall be forgiven concerning whatever he does so as to be guilty by it’.

After restoring what was lost and paying one fifth compensation the person must now bring his guilt offering to Yahweh. It is to be an unblemished ram at a value estimated by Moses (‘your estimation’) in relation to the amount that had been lost and is now being restored. This will then be offered by the priest who will make the necessary atonement. Thus will the person be forgiven for what they were guilty of.

These three instances should make many of us think. How often do we give less than we should to God’s work. Will a man rob God?’ asked Malachi, but many of us do. Or have we treated holy things lightly? The way some people dress to meet up with God is in itself a disgrace. Do we owe Him no honour? Or is our behaviour and attitude in church fully pleasing to God? Or are there ways in which financially we get one over on others? These are questions on which we should examine ourselves.

But the basic lesson that comes over here is that when we put right a financial wrong we should pay compensation at one fifth. Then only can we come to God to find forgiveness.

Further Instructions With Regard To The Offerings And Sacrifices To Be Made To Yahweh (6.8-7.21).

These additions to the details of the offerings are split into three sections by the words ‘And Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying.’ In the first section is ‘the law of the whole burnt offering’ and ‘the law of the grain offering’, in the second is more detail about the grain offering referring to the daily grain offering of the priests, and in the third are ‘the law of the purification for sin offering’, ‘the law of the guilt offering’ and ‘the law of the peace sacrifices’. Yet they are united by the phrase ‘this is the law of --.’ This may suggest that the middle section has been inserted between the first and the third in order to amplify the description of the grain offering. But all are words of Yahweh given to Moses.

This is not just a repeat of what has gone before. It contains new instructions with regard to these offerings and sacrifices.

6.8 ‘And Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying,’

This statement again indicates the beginning of a new section.

The Law of the Whole Burnt Offering (6.9-13).

The concern here is more of maintaining the altar fir so as to properly consume the whole burnt offering than with the whole burnt offering itself.

6.9 ‘Command Aaron and his sons, saying, This is the law of the whole burnt offering. The whole burnt offering shall be on the hearth on the altar all night until the morning; and the fire of the altar shall be kept burning on it.’

We now have added information about the whole burnt offering which especially has in mind the morning and evening offerings (Exodus 29.38-42), which are themselves whole burnt offerings (Numbers 28.3-8). The whole burnt offering is to be allowed to burn all night, and the fire is to be kept alight under it, so as to ensure that it is properly consumed. The initial offering of such an offering may with much practise be quick, but the outworking of it takes the whole night. We too need to recognise that ‘full surrender’ an the evening is easy, but do we make it last through until the morning? Our dedication of ourselves must be wholehearted and lasting (Romans 12.1-2).

6.10 ‘And the priest shall put on his linen garment, and his linen breeches shall he put on his flesh, and he shall take up the ashes which have resulted from the fact that the fire has consumed the burnt-offering on the altar, and he shall put them beside the altar.’

When the morning comes the Priest must put on his priestly linen garment, and his breeches so that there is no danger of his private parts being exposed, (the breeches will be ‘put on his flesh’ i.e. they will cover his hidden parts. Compare here Exodus 20.26; 28.42-43). Then he must take up the ashes containing the remains of offerings and sacrifices, and put them on one side beside the altar. Activity on the altar involves what is holy and the Priest must thus be adequately clothed with ‘holy garments’, so holy that he must not leave the tabernacle wearing them. They are separated and set apart wholly to God’s service.

So must we ensure that when we go about God’s service we are properly prepared as far as it is possible. God desires no slapdash ways.

6.11 ‘And he shall put off his garments, and put on other garments, and carry forth the ashes outside the camp to a clean place.’

Then he will divest himself of the priestly garments, put on other clothes, and carry the ashes out to a clean place. It must be a clean place because the ashes are holy and must not be defiled. There they will remain with God.

The importance for us of these requirements is that they bring home the fact of the sacredness of dealing with the things of God. Not having such solemn ritual we can tend to forget with Whom we are dealing, and that we should not approach Him lightly. We need constantly to recognise that it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God, and although through Christ the fear has been mainly removed, we need to remember with Whom we have to do. Our God is a consuming fire. We must love and tremble at the same time, for He is a holy God.

6.12 ‘And the fire on the altar shall be kept burning on it, it shall not go out; and the priest shall burn wood on it every morning: and he shall lay the whole burnt offering in order on it, and shall burn on it the fat of the peace-offerings.’

At this stage the fire is not to be allowed to go out. Morning having come wood will then be placed on the fire to revive it, and then the morning whole burnt offering is to be placed on the wood, after which the fat of the peace offerings may also be burned on it.

6.13 ‘Fire shall be kept burning on the altar continually; it shall not go out.’

A perpetual fire is to be maintained on the altar. It may be questioned how this ties in with 1.7? The answer probably lies in how the fire was maintained. It was probably kept burning in a part of the altar space permanently when not in use, but moved into position and kindled with wood when it was needed. Thus when the whole burnt offering was to be offered the fire would be taken from where it was on the altar, placed in the centre and then fed with wood, as 1.7 says.

The continual flame is probably also to be seen as a symbol of the continual divine presence, reminding us continually of His never failing presence and of our responsibilities towards Him, so that recognising His requirements we offer ourselves afresh to Him daily.

We have here a reminder of what should be the intent of our lives, to come daily to Him Who is the continually burning Flame, so that through our offering of ourselves in Him and to Him, we too might continually burn and constantly reveal God’s glory. This will be brought about by our continually working out what He works in us (Philippians 2.13), and by our continually offering ourselves daily in worship and prayer through His word, so that we are wholly taken up with Him, and so that our continual offering of ourselves is received by Him. We have the assurance that the Flame will never go out. Our lives should therefore be a daily offering.

The Law of the Grain Offering (6.14-18).

This is dealing further with the grain offerings described in chapter 2 but concentrating more on the right of the priest to partake of them. It reminds us that it provides holy food for the priests. It is then followed by a description of the twice daily grain offering on behalf of the priests, of which they cannot partake.

6.14-15 ‘And this is the law of the grain offering. The sons of Aaron shall offer it before Yahweh, before the altar. And he shall take up from it his handful, of the milled grain of the grain offering, and of its oil, and all the frankincense which is on the grain offering, and shall burn it on the altar for a pleasing odour, as the memorial of it, to Yahweh.’

As in chapter 2, but in more abbreviated form, the grain offering is brought and offered to Yahweh mingled with oil and with the frankincense placed on it. Then a handful of milled grain and oil, (the memorial of it to Yahweh) together with all the frankincense, is offered by fire to Yahweh.

In this way are we to offer our gratitude for His many provisions for us, and dedicate to Him our daily labour, together with the pleasing odour of Christ, which is like the frankincense brought from afar to enhance our offering. Thus are we acceptable to God.

6.16 ‘And what is left of it shall Aaron and his sons eat: it shall be eaten without leaven in a holy place; in the court of the tent of meeting they shall eat it.’

Then what is left of the grain offering can be eaten by the priests, and they alone, for it is a whole offering. It is to be eaten without leaven in a holy place, in the court of the tent of meeting. It is a part of their ‘holy eating’ which prepares them for their ministry to the people.

In the same way may all who are ‘sanctified in Him’ (1 Corinthians 1.2; Hebrews 2.11) as a royal priesthood (1 Peter 2.9) can partake of Christ as the living bread Who has come down from Heaven to give life to the world (John 6.33), partaking of Him daily through faith from His word, so that we never hunger, and coming to Him daily in confident trust so that we never thirst (John 6.35). And for this, like the priests, we should go aside into a dedicated place before we go out into the world, so that, daily receiving of Him, we might take blessing to the world (compare Galatians 2.20). What we receive is most holy.

6.17 ‘It shall not be baked with leaven. I have given it as their portion of my offerings made by fire; it is most holy, as the sin offering, and as the guilt offering.’

This grain offering was in no way to be baked with leaven. This confirms that it could certainly be baked if required, but not with leaven. There must be within it no ‘corrupting’ influence of the outward created world. It must be as from God, as received by His people. And this is because it is a portion of the offerings made by fire, the offerings which belonged to Yahweh, but of which he was willing for His priests to partake. They were most holy offerings, as were the purification for sin and guilt offerings (some of which could also be partaken of by the priests). They could only be eaten by His holy priests within His holy tabernacle. And they must be totally pure.

So should we in our quiet moments receive the unleavened word, uncorrupted by outward influences, receiving it into our hearts from God. There is a time for more detailed study with the help of outward influences, but there is also a time when He and His word and ourselves should be alone together, when we partake of the unleavened word. The warning is constant. Beware of the corrupting influence of the world with its sinful and spiritually harmful pleasures, its glittering offers that draw us from the way of righteousness, (the deceitfulness of riches), and its prizes offered if only we will compromise the truth!

6.18 ‘Every male among the children of Aaron shall eat of it, as his portion for ever throughout your generations, from the offerings of Yahweh made by fire: whoever touches them shall be holy.’

And the portions of the grain offerings after the memorial has been offered are for Aaron’s sons ‘for ever throughout their generations’, that is, into the foreseeable future. They were of the offerings of Yahweh made by fire, but His priests could partake of them, for they were holy to Him. And whoever touched such offerings were to be holy. This was a warning to any others not to touch them, for if they were made holy like the priests, but were not of the priestly family, they would strictly have to be put to death as an offering by fire to Yahweh. (Alternately they would have to live priestlike lives without the benefits of being a priest. Possibly, however, this was one of the offences that could be dealt with by the guilt offering for trespass in the holy things if done unwittingly - 5.15). Only those whom God had made holy, could be holy and live. It is dangerous to presume on God.

In the same way all who are His and sanctified in Him may continually partake of Christ and of His word. But we must beware, for we are touching holy things. By it we are continually sanctified and must ever therefore recognise our responsibility of priesthood and service to the world. Once we have partaken there is no release. We are His for ever.

Further Revelation On The Grain Offering: The Regular Grain Offering (6.19-23).

Information is now given about the regular morning and evening grain offering, offered along with the continual whole burnt offering. None of this could be partaken of, even by the priests, it was wholly offered by fire to Yahweh.

6.19 ‘And Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying,’ 6.20 ‘This is the oblation of Aaron and of his sons, which they shall offer to Yahweh in the day when he is anointed, the tenth part of an ephah of milled grain for a grain offering perpetually. A portion of it in the morning, and a portion of it in the evening.’

This regular twice daily grain offering was first offered on the day when Aaron was anointed and consecrated along with his sons (Exodus 29). It was then to be offered twice daily continually thereafter on behalf of the priests. It was made up of a tenth part of an ephah of milled grain at each offering. There would be two portions, one for the morning and one for the evening offering, each portion being the tenth part of an ephah (about 2 dry litres each portion). Compare for this Exodus 29.40; Numbers 28.5.

6.21 ‘On a flat-pan it shall be made with oil; when it is soaked, you will bring it in: in baked pieces shall you offer the grain offering for a pleasing odour to Yahweh.’

This was to be mixed with oil and baked on a flat pan. Once the whole was ready it was to be brought in and offered in baked pieces (just as the sheep was offered in pieces) as a grain offering. No frankincense was necessary as it was offered with the whole burnt offering. It was for a pleasing odour to Yahweh, an offering of joy and thanksgiving.

In this we see a picture of the offering up of the One Who above all was a pleasing odour to God. He was grain from God, milled by men, and thus able to be a satisfactory offering to Him, the bread that came down from Heaven to suffer and die (John 6.51), Who became a pleasing odour to God.

And we, as His priesthood, are called through Him to offer up our worship and praise in His name, accepted for His sake (Hebrews 13.15), ourselves a pleasing odour to Him.

6.22-23 ‘And the anointed priest who shall be in his stead from among his sons shall offer it. By a statute for ever it shall be wholly burnt to Yahweh. And every grain offering of the priest shall be wholly burnt. It shall not be eaten.’

This grain offering is to be offered by the anointed priest at the time, a descendant of Aaron, perpetually into the future. It was primarily his responsibility to provide it. This is an everlasting statute. And as the priest’s offering it must be wholly burnt up. It must not be eaten. It is an offering made by fire (2.2, 9). It is wholly His.

This reminds us that there is that in Christ of which we may partake, for we are His priesthood and we need to receive life and power from Him, but there is that which was offered on our behalf, of which we cannot partake, or even have any real understanding, for it is the means of our atonement and acceptance which was beyond understanding. We can only stand back and glorify God for it daily.

The Law of the Purification for Sin Offering (6.24-30).

6.24 ‘And Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying,’

If the previous section was inserted here this may have been put in to take up the first section again, reminding us that it is a revelation from Yahweh to Moses. Otherwise it may have been a fresh revelation, but continuing the previous one.

6.25 ‘Speak to Aaron and to his sons, saying, This is the law of the purification for sin offering. In the place where the whole burnt offering is killed shall the purification for sin offering be killed before Yahweh. It is most holy.’

The purification for sin offering is to be slain in the same place as the whole burnt offering, that is to the north of the altar (1.11) in the court of the tabernacle. But the thought is as much that it should be slaughtered there because it is most holy, for these are two most holy offerings. The holiness of the offering from the start is being stressed, so that the regulations that follow will be seen in all their seriousness.

6.26 ‘The priest who offers it for sin shall eat it: in a holy place shall it be eaten, in the court of the tent of meeting.’

Once its blood and fat with its innards have been offered, the priest who offered it for sin may eat of it. He has been caught up in the holiness of the sacrifice and is therefore in a fit state to do so. And he must eat it in a holy place, in the court of the tent of meeting. Thus is the holiness of the purification for sin offering doubly stressed. All of it is holy, For God has worked through it to neutralise and blot out sin and make holy what once bore sin. All that connects with it is brought within its holiness.

6.27 ‘Whatever shall touch its flesh shall be holy; and when there is sprinkled of the blood from it on any garment, you shall wash that on which it was sprinkled in a holy place.’

It is so holy that whatever touches its flesh is made holy, and if any of the blood falls on a piece of clothing it must be washed in a holy place. This all brings out the divine power that is at work in the act of purification of a sinner. It is the Holy One at work.

6.28 ‘But the earthen vessel in which it is boiled shall be broken; and if it be boiled in a bronze (or ‘copper’) vessel, it shall be scoured, and rinsed in water.’

Thus the earthen vessel in which the meat is boiled must be broken after use, and if it is boiled in a bronze or copper vessel it must be scoured out and rinsed with water. The absorbent earthen vessel may have absorbed something of the offering. It is therefore too holy to be used again. In the case of the metal vessel there is no absorption. It may therefore be cleansed. (Besides which the earthenware was easy to break, not so the bronze vessel, and if not broken properly it might have been used improperly).

6.29 ‘Every male among the priests shall eat of it. It is most holy.’

But any true male priest may eat of it (even if he is not fitted for service because of some blemish, as long as he is ritually clean - 21.18-23). But only they. For it is most holy.

It is difficult to see how the holiness of the offering could be more emphasised. When God is at work in purification He makes all holy. Thus can we know that when we are purified by the One Who made Himself an offering for sin, He makes us completely holy.

6.30 ‘And no purification for sin offering, of which any of the blood is brought into the tent of meeting to make atonement in the holy place, shall be eaten. It shall be burnt with fire.’

But there is something even more holy than a purification for sin offering, and that is an offering which is brought within the tent of meeting to make atonement in the Holy Place, the purification for sin offerings for the priest and for the community. They are so holy that they are taken to a clean place outside the camp and burned for Yahweh. (And the same will be true of the offerings on the Day of Atonement - chapter 16). How holy then are those who are cleansed in the blood of Jesus!

The Law of The Guilt Offering. (7.1-7).

The overwhelming sense of the holiness of the purification for sin offering now carries over into the consideration of the Guilt Offering. Its holiness is immediately emphasised. And we are also now informed that the priests can partake of the meat of the guilt offering as long as it is in a holy place, as they can presumably of the purification of sin offering, for there is one law for them both.

7.1-2 ‘And this is the law of the guilt offering. It is most holy. In the place where they kill the whole burnt offering shall they kill the guilt offering; and its blood shall he sprinkle on the altar round about.’

Like the purification for sin offering, the guilt offering too is killed in the place where the whole burnt offering is killed. This would seem to emphasise the priority of the whole burnt offering. That is at the head of all offerings. But the purification for sin and guilt offerings are so holy that they are carried out in the same place as the whole burnt offering.

And the blood of the guilt offering is sprinkled on the altar round about as with the whole burnt offering. This identical application of the blood confirms that the whole burnt offering is also to be seen as an atonement offering as well. But it is different from that for the purification for sin offering where purification for sin on a larger scale has primary importance.

7.3-4 ‘And he shall offer of it all its fat; the fat tail, and the fat that covers the innards, and the two kidneys, and the fat that is on them, which is by the loins, and the covering on the liver, with the kidneys, shall he take away, and the priest shall burn them on the altar for an offering made by fire to Yahweh. It is a guilt offering.’

No animal has been identified as yet but this would seem to point to a sheep because of the fat tail (3.9). But he is clearly only summarising and therefore it probably signifies that it could alternatively be a (5.6). The point again being emphasised is that the fat and all the innards are to be offered to Yahweh on the altar, as an offering by fire to Yahweh. Thus the blood and the fat are offered in the usual way. It is then emphasised that it is a guilt offering.

7.6 ‘Every male among the priests shall eat of it. It shall be eaten in a holy place. It is most holy.’

But the remainder of the guilt offering may be eaten by the priests in a holy place, but only by them for it is most holy.

7.7 ‘As is the purification for sin offering, so is the guilt offering; there is one law for them: the priest who makes atonement by it, he shall have it.’

Indeed it is like the purification for sin offering, as with the one, so with the other. There is one law for both of them. And they are both most holy. So the main new stress here is on the similarity between the purification for sin offering and the guilt offering, and the holiness of them both, and that the meat and skins from both go to the priests (with some exceptions).

Brief Comments About The Whole Burnt Offering and the Grain Offering (7.8-10).

Spurred on by reference to the guilt offering meat as being the priest’s portion, this summary concludes by describing what belongs to the priests of the other offerings.

7.8 ‘And the priest who offers any man's whole burnt offering, even the priest shall have to himself the skin of the whole burnt offering which he has offered.’

In the case of the whole burnt offering the priest who offers the offering receives the animal’s skin or hide. These skins were very valuable and were later a source of great revenue for the priests.

It would seem that the priests received the skins of most whole burnt offerings, purification for sin offering, and guilt offerings, but not the skin of peace sacrifices which went to the offerer.

7.9-10 ‘And every grain offering that is baked in the oven, and all that is dressed in the frying-pan, and on the baking-pan, shall be the priest's who offers it. And every grain offering, mingled with oil, or dry, shall all the sons of Aaron have, one as well as another.’

All that remains of the grain offerings after the burning of the memorial part were also intended for the priests. The cooked ones went to the priest who offered them, the uncooked ones to all the priests. The latter could be kept longer.

All these provisions meant that the priests did not have to concern themselves about obtaining a living. Their living was provided for them, and their families would be provided for from the tithe of the firstfruits. As Paul said, ‘those who wait on the altar have their portion with the altar’ (1 Corinthians 9.13). They could thus devote themselves entirely to their duties.

And as Paul was pointing out, these provisions are a reminder to us that we too should make sure that those whom we acknowledge to have been called by God to full time ministry are provide for materially by those who benefit from their ministry. This includes missionaries, for they serve there on our behalf.

The Law of the Sacrifice of the Peace Offerings (7.11-21).

Finally the peace or wellbeing sacrifices are dealt with. These are of three types, the thanksgiving offering, which was a way of expressing thanks to God for particular blessings received, the votive offering or offering in respect of completing a vow, and the freewill offering, which was simply offered with the purpose of paying tribute to God and acknowledging Him as Lord, an offering made simply out of love for God.

7.11 ‘And this is the law of the sacrifice of peace offerings, which one shall offer to Yahweh.’

The purpose of what follows is to explain further concerning the peace or wellbeing offerings. The first type is the thanksgiving offering. This was a common offering as any animal that was put to death had to be offered in one way or another, and where there was no special reason for making an offering, thanksgiving might be an obvious choice. It would partly depend on how long he wanted his feast to last.

7.12-13 ‘If he offer it for a thanksgiving, then he shall offer with the sacrifice of thanksgiving unleavened cakes mingled with oil, and unleavened wafers anointed with oil, and cakes mingled with oil, of milled grain soaked. With cakes of leavened bread he shall offer his oblation with the sacrifice of his peace offerings for thanksgiving.’

If his offering is a thanksgiving sacrifice he is to offer with it unleavened cakes mingled with oil, wafers anointed with oil and milled grain cakes soaked in oil, and with these he is to offer cakes of leavened bread. A full feast is being provided for those who will partake. As suggested earlier, leaven can be offered because this is a thanksgiving offering.

But there is no mention of the offer of a memorial portion (2.2), what is offered to the priest is said to be for his consumption. The provisions for grain offerings earlier may suggest that here the leavened bread is not to be offered as a sacrifice made by fire (2.11). Note the wording which keeps the leavened bread separate from the other grain offerings. Does ‘with cakes of leavened bread he shall offer his oblation’ indicate that they are brought along to be added once the oblation has been offered? Or is the memorial portion of the oblation not offered at all? The quantity of different types of grain offerings might make that difficult. It would require a handful of each. The probability therefore is that the leaven is not offered by fire.

7.14 ‘And of it he shall offer one out of each oblation for a contribution to Yahweh. It shall be the priest's who sprinkles the blood of the peace-offerings.’

And of these cakes that are brought the priest is to have his portion. He is to have one of each type of oblation (the grain ‘contributions’ or ‘heave offerings’). It may be that he waves these before Yahweh to indicate that they have been offered to Him and then he retains them for his own use. It would seem therefore probable that these oblations are not offered on the altar. (This is not a whole offering to Yahweh). The remainder are available for those invited to the feast or asked to share the meat. Of the meat of the sacrifice he receives the special portions reserved for the priest, the breast and the right thigh (verses 32-34; Exodus 29.26-28). The remainder is available for the feast, which may be held where the offerer desires, or for giving to those present at the sacrifice for them to take home.

7.15 ‘And the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace-offerings for thanksgiving shall be eaten on the day of his oblation; he shall not leave any of it until the morning.’

The whole feast must be finished off before morning. Nothing must be left. It is a thanksgiving offering and therefore the offerer should be generous in his invitations. The whole picture is an incitement to generosity and hospitality. Those who have much should share it with others in order to show their genuine gratitude to God.

7.16 ‘But if the sacrifice of his oblation be a vow, or a freewill-offering, it shall be eaten on the day that he offers his sacrifice; and on the morrow that which remains of it shall be eaten, but what remains of the flesh of the sacrifice on the third day shall be burnt with fire.’

On the other hand in the case of the votive or freewill offering the meat may be allowed to last two days. But no flesh from the peace sacrifice shall be left for a third day. What is left until then must immediately be burned. This provision has in mind that the cooked meat in a hot country would tend to become uneatable by the third day, and even dangerous to eat. The purpose was to save those who ate the meat from partaking of bad meat.

7.18 ‘And if any of the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace-offerings be eaten on the third day, it shall not be accepted, neither shall it be imputed to him who offers it: it shall be an abomination, and the soul who eats of it shall bear his iniquity.’

Indeed if the eating of the meat continues into the third day it will both annul the sacrifice and bring judgment on the offerer. His offering will not be accepted, nor will the benefits that should have accrued from it in atonement and acceptance of worship offered be forthcoming. There will be no peace or wellbeing, only judgment. All who partake of it then must take what is coming. The point here is not to spoil the party but to ensure that no one ever does keep the cooked meat until the third day. The judgment on them may well simply be the consequences of their action resulting in stomach problems, severe food poisoning or even death.

‘It shall be an abomination (piggul).’ This is a technical term used to describe the condition of sacrificial meat which has not been eaten in the proper time (19.7; Isaiah 65.4; Ezekiel 4.14). The root probably signifies impurity.

Further Pointers

7.19 ‘And the flesh which touches any unclean thing shall not be eaten; it shall be burnt with fire. And as for the flesh, every one that is clean shall eat of it.’

All who are clean may eat of the sacrificial flesh, thus anyone in an unclean state is excluded. However, in minor cases of uncleanness, cleansing from uncleanness was finalised by the evening (‘shall be unclean until the evening’) so that such people merely have to wait until the evening, around nightfall.

But any of the flesh which touches anything unclean is to be burned with fire. This is first because what is unclean is not fit to come in contact with what has been made holy, even the lowest level of holiness, so that the holiness is marred by the uncleanness. Man are being made to face up to what God is. So these laws are intended to make people continually aware of, and to think about, the holiness of God. But it also has in mind that such contact might have made the flesh hygienically dangerous. This contact with what was unclean might occur while carrying the meat to their houses. Whatever flesh touches anything unclean must be burned.

The concept of cleanness and uncleanness is a complicated one, and connected with the idea of holiness. Just as there were grades of holiness, so there were grades of cleanness and uncleanness. We will come across it in more detail later. Much of it had to do with death in one way or another, or that which was seen as grossly unpleasant. They had to see that such things were in total contrast to the living God, and must be kept apart from what was separated to Him. God was clean. But within the idea undoubtedly lay questions of hygiene. God protected people through his religious laws. No people washed more than Israelites, even though the washing was not strictly for hygienic reasons. But we need not doubt that God had that in mind.

7.20 ‘But the soul who eats of the flesh of the sacrifice of peace-offerings, which pertain to Yahweh, having his uncleanness on him, that soul shall be cut off from his people.’

Furthermore any who deliberately come to partake while in an unclean state are to be ‘cut off from among the people’. This is a warning to take uncleanness seriously. The person who is unclean must not partake until their uncleanness has been ‘cleansed’. For many that will be when evening comes. But for those whose uncleanness is to last more than a day, it is clearly of a more serious nature. They may be a danger to others as well as to themselves. They therefore must not participate of the holy flesh. ‘Cut off’ probably indicates the death sentence (19.8). It is a serious offence. But it may indicate expulsion from the camp, or even a period of exclusion, to be then remedied by a guilt offering.

Such uncleanness can arise in various ways. Making love with one’s wife while she was menstruating, having certain skin diseases, having a discharge from the sexual organ, menstruating, coming in contact with dead matter, and so on.

7.21 ‘And when any one shall touch any unclean thing, the uncleanness of man, or an unclean beast, or any unclean abomination, and eat of the flesh of the sacrifice of peace-offerings, which pertain to Yahweh, that soul shall be cut off from his people.’

Indeed no one who has touched anything unclean, whether man’s uncleanness, or an unclean beast, or an unclean small creature may partake of the peace sacrifice. Such people are defiled and not fitted to eat what has come from the tabernacle. They may also bring and spread disease. The ‘abomination’ may refer to some well known vermin. Once again God’s holiness is brought to man’s attention, but once again also possible sources of disease are avoided.

All these laws of uncleanness taught people to keep to that which was wholesome and good, and to avoid things that might cause harm to the people as a whole. Much disease might have been avoided had they been followed. Especially in the wilderness avoiding these things could only be a good thing, and this was one of the purposes of the laws.

Further Instructions Concerning The Fat And The Blood Of Offerings and Sacrifices (7.22-27).

Further emphasis is now placed on the fat and the blood of animals. As we have already seen the fat of sacrificial animals has to be offered on the altar to God, and the blood must be applied accordingly. But now we are reminded again that no fat or blood may be eaten, although certain fat may be used for other purposes. Had modern man observed these suggestions much heart disease and flabbiness might have been avoided.

7.22 ‘And Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying,’

Once again we are reminded that this is divine revelation given through Moses..

7.23-25 ‘Speak to the children of Israel, saying, You shall eat no fat, of ox, or sheep, or goat. And the fat of that which dies of itself, and the fat of that which is torn of beasts, may be used for any other service; but you shall in no wise eat of it. For whoever eats the fat of the beast, of which men offer an offering made by fire to Yahweh, even the person who eats it shall be cut off from his people.’

No fat of any animal which could be offered as an offering or sacrifice is to be eaten. Where the animal dies naturally, or is torn by wild animals, the fat may be used for other purposes, but it may not be eaten. And to eat the fat of such animals incurs the death sentence, or at the best expulsion from the camp of Israel. This would certainly suggest that most of the fat is in mind, not just that round the vital parts.

7.26 ‘And you shall eat no manner of blood, whether it be of bird or of beast, in any of your dwellings. Whoever it be who eats any blood, that soul shall be cut off from his people.’

And the same applies to the blood of the animals. Indeed the blood of no animals or birds at all may be eaten. Again the penalty is death or permanent expulsion.

Religiously speaking the idea here was to prevent the partaking of the essential life of creatures. It counteracted the beliefs of certain of those with whom Israel came in contact who sought to do exactly that. It emphasised the uniqueness of man in God’s eyes. When man sought power and life he should look to God for it, not seek to drain it from lower creatures. But hygienically speaking it also unquestionably saved Israel from many of the diseases that inflicted mankind. We do well to regard the hygienic advice especially when we go to countries where hygienic standards are not observed. It may be that to us nothing is ‘unclean’. But it can certainly be dangerous.

That From The Peace Offerings and Sacrifices Which Pertains To The Priests (7.28-36).

7.28 ‘And Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying,’

Once again it is said to be a matter of divine revelation through Moses.

7.29-31 ‘Speak to the children of Israel, saying, He who offers the sacrifice of his peace-offerings to Yahweh shall bring his oblation to Yahweh out of the sacrifice of his peace-offerings: his own hands shall bring the offerings of Yahweh made by fire; the fat with the breast shall he bring, that the breast may be waved for a contribution before Yahweh. And the priest shall burn the fat on the altar; but the breast shall be Aaron's and his sons'.’

When a man brings the sacrifice of his peace offerings he must bring them himself in person. There is no question of sending a representative. And he must bring to the priest the fat and the breast, the fat so that it can be burned on the altar by the priest, it is an offering by fire, and the breast so that it can be ‘waved’ before Yahweh, after which it will belong to the priests. It is his ‘contribution’. ‘Waving’ was a way by which the offering could be made to Yahweh by presenting it with certain movements towards the altar, possibly by moving it from side to side. It was then as it were handed back by God to the priest for his consumption.

7.32-33 ‘And the right thigh shall you give to the priest for a set-aside offering out of the sacrifices of your peace-offerings. He among the sons of Aaron who offers the blood of the peace-offerings, and the fat, shall have the right thigh for a portion.’

As well as the breast the priest is to receive the right thigh. This is to be a ‘set-aside offering’, a special contribution or levy to the priests. This again is to be offered to Yahweh, (some suggest by waving up and down - hence the translation ‘heave-offering), followed by it becoming the priest’s. The thigh was one of the choice portions for important guests (see 1 Samuel 9.24). Thus the right thigh was set aside for the priest. The officiating priest receives the breast and the thigh as his portions. The detail with which this is spelled out demonstrates how important this was seen to be. God’s representative was to be well provided for.

Discoveries at Lachish from not long after the time of Moses have revealed many right foreleg bones of animals. This would suggest that they had been set aside there for some special purpose, which would tie in with what is to happen here. It would seem that whoever dwelt there also carried out a similar practise to this so that they were all gathered in one place.

7.34 ‘For the wave-breast and the set-aside thigh have I taken of the children of Israel out of the sacrifices of their peace-offerings, and have given them to Aaron the priest and to his sons as their portion for ever from the children of Israel.’

It is now stressed by repetition that the wave breast and the set-aside thigh of the peace sacrifices are to be Israel’s perpetual contribution to those who acted as their mediators and representatives before God, to Aaron and his sons into the distant future.

This continual repetition is a further emphatic reminder to us that we are responsible for the physical wellbeing of those whom we look to for sustenance in the things of God, and for those whom we send out in our name to take His word to others. Every time that we partake of meat we should consider the fact that we should lay aside an equivalent money portion to represent the breast and the thigh for those who thus serve God. They should benefit in proportion to the good things that we receive.

7.35-36 ‘This is the measured portion of Aaron, and the measured portion of his sons, out of the offerings of Yahweh made by fire, in the day when he presented them to minister to Yahweh in the priest's office; which Yahweh commanded to be given them by the children of Israel, in the day that he anointed them. It is their portion for ever throughout their generations.’

These portions are now described as the ‘measured portion’ for those who have been anointed as God’s appointees. They were portions out of the offerings made by fire, and therefore belonged to Yahweh. And on the very day that he first anointed Aaron and his sons as priests over Israel he allocated to them these portions ‘throughout their generations’. They were therefore sacrosanct.

By this we learn that God has a special concern for those whom He calls to serve Him, and guarantees their full physical provision from the people of God. A poor minister in a wealthy church is a contradiction against God’s will, and a sign of His people’s disobedience. Rather should His people recognise that how they provide for their leaders in God is an indication of their genuine dedication to God’s will. On the other hand the leaders in their turn should be utilising any such benefits in the service of God, not for their own aggrandisement. A minister who misuses what is given to him for his own ends is a disgrace in the eyes of God. The purpose is for him to be properly fed, not so that he can live luxuriantly.

The Colophon (7.37-38)

These final verses read like a colophon, the ‘title’ regularly put at the end of a clay tablet to identify it and date it. The traces of a number of such colophons, and of the catch phrases which open a tablet, can be found in Genesis, for example where it is regularly said, ‘this is the family history of ---’ (Genesis 2.4; 5.1; 6.9; 10.1;11.10, 27; 25.12, 19; 36.1,9; 37.2). See also Numbers 3.1.

7.37-38 ‘This is the law of the whole burnt offering, of the grain offering, and of the sin-offering, and of the guilt offering, and of the consecration, and of the sacrifice of peace-offerings, which Yahweh commanded Moses in mount Sinai, in the day that he commanded the children of Israel to offer their oblations to Yahweh, in the wilderness of Sinai.’

Note how the title (in footnote) of the record is first stated, ‘the law of the whole burnt offering --- which Yahweh commanded Moses in/by Mount Sinai’. Then the date ‘in the day that He commanded --- their oblations to Yahweh’. Then the place, ‘in the wilderness of Sinai.’ In those days dating was always in terms of significant events (compare Amos 1.1 ‘two years before the earthquake’). Whether this colophon covers from 1.1 onwards, or whether it refers to the material from 6.8 we do not, of course, know. Such colophons were incorporated into the text and the divisions became blurred. They do, however, indicate clearly that some of the material at least was early in written form.

The title as it is here indicates that the record deals with the sacrifices and offerings outlined in the previous seven chapters, which were initially commanded by Yahweh to Moses in Mount Sinai. However the date refers to when the actual command came for them to offer their oblations to Yahweh, which may have been some time later. This date may be when they were recorded in writing on this tablet or papyrus. It may explain why in 1.1 it is said to be spoken from the tent of meeting. It was a repetition, possibly in more detailed and expanded form, of what Moses had been told earlier.

We have here therefore clear evidence of Mosaic authorship of at least part of this material provided in a way that later centuries would not conceivably have introduced. They might have introduced such ideas, but not in the form of a colophon. And the unity of the material and the ancient words and ideas tend to confirm that it is to Moses that we should look for it all. The text is extremely well preserved.

But we should not in the detail ignore the import of the words. Here were God’s directions to His people, first given at Mount Sinai, and then from the tent of meeting, concerning how they should approach Him, and what steps they could take in order to worship Him properly, be acceptable before Him and find forgiveness of sins. They were of vital importance.

Final Summary.

We will now very briefly draw together the strands of what we have learned. The offerings and sacrifices divide up into five.

• 1) The Whole Burnt Offering (‘olah - that which goes up). This offering was presented basically in worship and dedication, and for the purposes of atonement. It was the foremost of the offerings. Apart from the skin or hide which was given to the priest it was totally offered up to Yahweh as an offering made by fire and presented a pleasing odour to God. It was offered up morning and evening in the daily offerings and in all the great festivals, including the Day of Atonement. It was symbolic of Christ offering Himself up as pleasing to God, shedding His blood for us and making atonement for us, drawing us into Himself that we might be fully dedicated to God and find atonement through His blood. It basically represented being accounted righteous through faith, and full acceptance in Him.
• 2) The Grain Offering (minchah). This offering was in praise and gratitude for the provision of the basics of life, grain and olive oil, and an offering of daily labour as a love offering to God. Worship was expressed by adding frankincense, a foreign product which meant that the offering was on behalf, not only of Israel, but of the whole world. A memorial handful was offered by fire along with the frankincense, the remainder was partaken of by the priests, except when it was a priest’s offering. It was regularly offered along with the whole burnt offering (in which case the frankincense was omitted). It was an offering made by fire and presented a pleasing odour to God. It was symbolic of Christ as the corn of wheat who fell into the ground and died and Who would thus produce much fruit, and of Jesus as the bread of life Who would feed and satisfy those who constantly come to Him in trust and obedience.
• 3) The Peace Sacrifice (zebach shelamim and various). This offering was one offered from a sense of wellbeing and with a desire to be at peace with God and man. In one form the blood and the fat, with the vital parts, were offered to God as an offering, and the flesh was eaten by the worshippers, with breast and thigh going to the priest. It was an offering made by fire and presented a pleasing odour to God. It symbolised Jesus the Prince of Peace Who came to make peace between men and God through the blood of His cross, and Whose flesh and blood we can partake of through faith in His sacrifice for us, so that we might have eternal life and enjoy fullness of life and peace with both God and men in loving fellowship.
• 4) The Purification For Sin Offering (chatta’ah ). This was specifically an offering for sin when it became known, but was also offered at the great festivals, in recognition of the sin of Israel, and especially at the Day of Atonement. Its aim was purification for sin, cleansing in the sight of a holy God, as well as atonement. At its lesser levels it could be partaken of by the priest. It was an offering by fire and presented a pleasing odour to God, but only in a secondary way. Its main purpose was purification from sin. The blood from it was daubed on the horns of the altar(s) to purify the altar, and thrown at the base of the altar to sanctify it and make atonement for it, and for the people, for the altar represented the offerings of the people. It symbolised Christ as offering Himself once-for-all as a purification for sin offering on our behalf so that we might be made pure before God. Its concern was being clean in the sight of God, pure as He is pure (1 John 3.1-2).
• 5) The Guilt Offering (’asam). This was a kind of sin offering, but was for more specific sins where confession or restitution needed to be made. It was mainly personal, and is a reminder that we need to deal with individual sins, confess them to others where it will do good, and make restitution for any loss we have caused. Like the purification for sin offering it symbolised Christ as dying for us so that we might be forthright in dealing with specific sins.
  Go to Home Page for further interesting articles
  Leviticus 8-10
  Leviticus 11-16

  IS THERE SOMETHING IN THE BIBLE THAT PUZZLES YOU?

  If so please EMail us with your question and we will do our best to give you a satisfactory answer.EMailus.

  FREE Scholarly verse by verse commentaries on the Bible.

  THE PENTATEUCH

  GENESIS ---EXODUS--- LEVITICUS 1.1-7.38 --- 8.1-11.47 --- 12.1-16.34--- 17.1-27.34--- NUMBERS 1-10--- 11-19--- 20-36--- DEUTERONOMY 1.1-4.44 --- 4.45-11.32 --- 12.1-29.1--- 29.2-34.12 --- THE BOOK OF JOSHUA --- THE BOOK OF JUDGES --- PSALMS 1-17--- ECCLESIASTES --- ISAIAH 1-5 --- 6-12 --- 13-23 --- 24-27 --- 28-35 --- 36-39 --- 40-48 --- 49-55--- 56-66--- EZEKIEL --- DANIEL 1-7 ---DANIEL 8-12 ---

  NAHUM--- HABAKKUK---ZEPHANIAH ---ZECHARIAH --- THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW ---THE GOSPEL OF MARK--- THE GOSPEL OF LUKE --- THE GOSPEL OF JOHN --- THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES --- 1 CORINTHIANS 1-7 --- 8-16 --- 2 CORINTHIANS 1-7 --- 8-13 -- -GALATIANS --- EPHESIANS --- COLOSSIANS --- 1 THESSALONIANS --- 2 THESSALONIANS --- 1 TIMOTHY --- 2 TIMOTHY --- TITUS --- HEBREWS 1-6 --- 7-10 --- 11-13 --- JAMES --- JOHN'S LETTERS --- REVELATION

  --- THE GOSPELS

  Leviticus,commentary,whole,burnt,offering,grain,meal,cereal,sin,guilt,trespass,
  sacrifices,peace,thanksgiving,freewill,Jacob,Israel,Genesis,Canaan,Egypt,
  Aaron,Levite,Yahweh,God,Sinai,cakes,tabernacle,tent,meetingpriest,high,fat,
  altar,blood,memorial,oblation,elders,congregationclean,unclean,uncleanness,
  turtledoves,pigeons,holy,most