Ad Fontes ← Search Library Verse Index

Leviticus 1:1–7:38

The Sacrificial System — OverviewTheme: Atonement / Typology / WorshipPericopeImportance: Significant
Sources
Reformed ConsensusReformation Study BibleCalvin (1560)Geneva Bible Notes (1599)John Trapp (1647)John Gill (1748)Matthew Henry (1714)Jamieson-Fausset-BrownBarnes (1832)MacLaren (1910)Cross-References (TSK)
Reformed Consensus
The opening chapters of Leviticus reveal that sinful humanity cannot approach the thrice-holy God except through blood-bought substitution, a principle Calvin recognized as foundational: the laying of the worshiper's hand upon the sacrificial head signifies the transfer of guilt and the acceptance of a life given in the place of another's forfeited life. The five main offerings — burnt, grain, peace, sin, and guilt — form a comprehensive liturgical grammar of atonement and communion, demonstrating that every dimension of the broken covenant relationship, whether willful transgression or inadvertent defilement, requires divine provision for repair. Geerhardus Vos and Meredith Kline both stress that this sacrificial system is fundamentally typological: its relentless repetition and its inability to finally purge conscience (cf. Heb. 10:1–4) are not failures of the system but its God-designed pedagogy, driving Israel forward to await the Antitype whose one oblation would accomplish what ten thousand bulls could only shadow. Matthew Henry rightly notes that the meticulous detail given to priestly procedure — the manipulation of blood, the arrangement of fat pieces, the disposal of ashes — insists that worshipers come to God on His terms alone, not their own inventions, a principle that stands as a permanent rebuke to will-worship in every age. Taken together, these chapters ground Reformed piety in the conviction that access to God is always and only by grace through ordained mediation, finding its eternal fulfillment in Christ, our Great High Priest and spotless offering.
Reformation Study Bible
Moses begins this manual on worship at the tabernacle by recording the laws of sacrifice. The laws are subdivided into sections addressed to the laity (1:1-6:7) and to the priests (6:8-7:38). Sacrifice in Israel involved the offering of selected domestic animals, grain, oil, and wine. All these products symbolized the worshiping Israelite, who, through the act of sacrifice, was giving himself back to God in some way. In every animal offering the worshiper placed his hand on the victim's head, thereby identifying himself with the animal, saying in effect, "This animal represents me.’ The animal sacrifices involved the animal's death, and so the sacrifices had atoning symbolism: the animal dying in the sinful worshiper’s place represented redemption from the death he deserved, There is then a common core of mean- ing and significance shared by all the sacrifices, But each sacrifice also had its own distinctive ritual features and religious emphases. This is indicated by the different names of the sacrifices, which some- times highlight the ritual distinctiveness (“burnt offering,’) and some- times the theologically distinctive feature (“peace offering, guilt offering"). Although the Lord, in response to Moses’ intercession (Ex. 32), had rescinded His verdict to judge the people for their idolatrous worship of the golden calf, the removal of their sin remained an unresolved prob- lem. These sacrifices provided an atonement for them and for Aaron, their priest, who led them into that sin (ch. 9). In contrast to Aaron, Jesus Christ, the High Priest of the new Israel, is without sin and never tempts His people to sin (Heb. 9:6-15). | tent of meeting, The tent shrine or tabernacle described in Ex. 26. | you shall bring. Israel must obey this manual of instruction on how to be fit to live in the presence of God. God, not humans, prescribes the way His people must live with Him. of livestock. Only unblemished (v. 3) domesticated animals could be offered. Wild animals, which cost nothing, could not be offered. | The burnt offering begins the list of sacrifices because it was the sacrifice offered most frequently. Its distinctive feature was that the whole animal, except for the skin, was burned on the altar. This symbolized the total consecration of the worshiper to God's service, and served to cover the sins of the worshiper (v. 4 and note). The reg- ulations begin by specifying the most expensive kind of animal that could be offered, the bull (vv. 2-9), and end with the cheapest, the young pigeon (vw. 14-17). | he shall offer. The layman offering the sacrifice (vv. 4-6, 9) was to kill, skin, cut up, and wash the animal, whereas the priest brings it to God by putting the blood and flesh on the altar. entrance of the tent. The screened-off courtyard surrounding the tab- ernacle of meeting. The great altar and a laver for washing the sacrifices stood in the courtyard (v. 9). | make atonement. Lit. “to cover over.” The death of the animal in place of the sinner “covers over” or shields the worshiper from the holy wrath of God. | pleasing aroma to the Lorp. The meaning of this phrase is seen most clearly in Gen. 8:21. Sacrifices averted God's anger, causing Him to look benevolently on the worshiper. The New Testament speaks of the death of Christ in similar language (Eph. 5:2). | Sheep and-goats were sacrificed in the same way as bulls w. 3-9. | A simpler procedure was prescribed for doves or pigeons, the offering of the poor. The priest carried out the whole ceremony, | grain offering. Usually offered in conjunction with an animal sacri- fice, it consisted of wheat flour mixed with olive oil, incense, and salt. The mixture was baked, fried, or cooked, Like the other sacrifices, the grain offering symbolized the worshiper’s dedication of himself to God. | memorial. Only a handful of the grain offering was burned; the rest went to the priest (v. 3). Such offerings constituted an important part of a priest's income. | leaven nor any honey. Possibly omitted because they cause fer- mentation, which suggests corruption, | salt. Probably because it is indestructible by fire, salt symbolizes the enduring covenant between God and Israel (Num. 18:19 note). | firstfruits. See 23:9-14; Deut. 26:1-11. The Israelite was expected togive the first of his harvest to God, and on this occasion the grain offer- ing was prepared differently. | peace offering, Also called the “fellowship” or “covenant” offering. The Hebrew term used is related to the word shalom, meaning “peace, well-being.’ This sacrifice was unique in that the worshiper and his fami- ly could eat much of the meat, only a part being given to the priests or burned on the altar. It was a sacrifice brought when someone was seek- ing God's blessing or celebrating blessings received. It was offered to underline a solemn prayer (such as a vow), or when such a prayer was answered, or out of simple gratitude (7:16), Eating meat was a rare luxu- ry in ancient times and was usually something of a celebration. Moses prescribed that every animal killed for food must be offered in sacrifice first (17:3 note), so at least during the wilderness period every meal involving meat was preceded by a peace offering. | The choicest parts of the carcass were symbolically given to God by being burned. The kidneys symbolized the seat of the emotions (Jer. 17:10 text note). | as a food offering, The Old Testament insists that God supplies man with food, not vice versa (Gen. 1:29; Ps, 50:12-14). Therefore this comment must be understood figuratively, that God is pleased with the sacrifice offered in faith (cf. Heb. 11:4), just as human beings enjoy food. | neither fat nor blood. Fat from sacrificial animals belonged to God (v. 3). Eating blood means eating meat from which the blood has not been drained (1 Sam. 14:33). The theological reason for this ban is given in 17:11 (Gen. 9:4 and note). | With the words “If anyone sins” (4:2), Moses introduces his instruction to the laity regarding the sin offering. While all sacrifices make atonement for sin to some extent, atonement is the dominant con- cern of the sin offering. Sin and uncleanness make a person unfit to be in God's presence and also pollute the sanctuary, making it impossible for God to dwell there. The sin offering is designed to cope with this aspect of sin by purifying both the sinner and the sanctuary. The distinctive fea- ture of the sin offering is the use to which the sacrificial blood is put. In other sacrifices the animal's blood is splashed over the side of the altar, but in the case of the sin offering it could be applied to the horned cor- ners of the altar, or sprinkled inside the tabernacle tent (on the incense altar or veil), or even inside the Most Holy Place. Because the tabernacle and its furniture were closely associated with the people who met God there (Heb. 9:22 note), the people's sin defiled the tabernacle as well as themselves. Such pollution required cleansing. | These verses deal with four cases where persons of various ranks do something sinful “unintentionally” (v. 2 text note): the high priest (wv. 3-12), the congregation (wv. 13-21), a ruler (wv. 22-26), a common per- son (wv. 27-35). | anointed priest. The high priest. His sin has the direct consequence of “bringing guilt on the people” and requires the most expensive atonement, a bull. he shall offer. The sin and guilt offerings were compulsory after com- mitting certain sins, whereas the other offerings could sometimes be offered voluntarily when the worshiper felt so inclined. | The serious effects of high priestly sin are shown by the need to puri- fy “the veil of the sanctuary” (the veil separating the Most’ Holy Place from the Holy Place, Ex. 26:31-35). | the altar of fragrant incense. This piece of sacred furniture stood in front of the curtain leading into the Most Holy Place. It was cleansed by sprinkling with blood, the holy cleansing agent, making it possible for God to dwell in the tent. At the same time the high priest, who personi- fied the nation, was cleansed. | outside the camp. See Heb. 13:11-13 and notes. a clean place. Many places outside the camp contained impurity that would make the priest unfit to officiate in worship, He was to avoid these, and put the ashes left from the burnt offering in a designated clean place, where the remainder of the sacrificial bull was burned. | For sin involving the congregation as a whole, a procedure like that in vv. 3-12 is prescribed, with the community elders representing the people at the altar (v. 15). | A sin by a leader of a tribe or clan was not as serious a threat to the nation’s holiness as the first two cases (vv. 3-21). This is reflected in that he was required to offer only a male goat (v. 23), whose blood was applied, not within the tent but outside, to the altar of burnt offer- ing (v. 25). | Unintentional sins by ordinary Israelites were treated similarly to those of leaders, However they could offer a female goat instead of a male goat, and if they were poor, birds or grain (5:7-13). | It is debated whether this section belongs with what precedes (the sin offering, ch. 4) or with what follows (the guilt offering, 5:14-6:7). Because of the similarity of 4:1 and 5:14, and the occurrence of the Hebrew term for “sin offering” throughout 4:1-5:13, many argue that the description of the guilt offering begins at 5:14. Alternatively, the occur- rence of the Hebrew word ‘asham (meaning “guilt,” or “guilt offering’) in 5:6, 7 has led some to conclude that the discussion of the guilt offering begins in 5:1. | These verses treat sins of omission, inadvertence, or rashness. The cases in view are (a) the sin of withholding evidence (v, 1); (b) the sin of contact with anything unclean (vv. 2, 3); and (c) the sin of careless oath- taking (v. 4). Sy | unclean. See note on chs. 11-16. | These sins require confession to God in the presence of a priest and a sin offering for the forgiveness of the sinner (cf. 1 John 1:7, 9). | The poor man’s sin offering is like the humblest burnt offering (1:14-17), except for the sprinkling of the blood (5:9; cf. 1:15). | See “The Atonement” at Rom. 3:25. | The items brought here as sin offerings resemble those of the grain offering of ch. 2, but no oil or incense is included. | Moses gives instructions to the laity regarding the guilt offer- ing. While the focus of the sin offering was upon the purification of the sinner, the guilt offering was concerned with restitution or reparation. Three types of sins requiring guilt offerings are mentioned: misuse of "the holy things of the Loro” (5:15, 16), supposed sin involving things that “ought not to be done” (5:17-19), and trespass against a neighbor's rights and property (6:2-7). | holy thing. A reference to tithes and offerings, as well as property dedicated to God (22:7, 10, 14; 27:28). add a fifth. In cases where a guilt offering was required, misappropriat- ed property also had to be restored plus a fifth (cf. 6:5). | As the phrase “though he did not know it” (v. 17) indicates, these verses concern the person who suspects he has transgressed against divine law or another person but is not sure. Sacrificial remedy is provided for those with an uneasy conscience. In this instance, there is no demand for reparation because the nature of the offense is uncertain. | Trespasses against a neighbor require restoration of the loss plus “a fifth” (v. 5), and the offering of sacrifice to God (cf. Matt. 5:24). | Having addressed the laity concerning the laws of sacrifice, Moses now addresses the priests, especially about their entitlement to a share in the sacrifices. | burnt offering. See note 1:3-17. Christ, the High Priest of the new covenant, offered the final burnt offering in His body: He was wholly con- secrated to God, suffering death for sin and bringing about the believer's death to sin (Rom. 6:2-7), | linen garment. Being white, this apparel probably symbolized purity. These garments were to cover their private parts (Ex. 20:26; 28:42 note; cf. Gen, 3:7, 21). | fire... shall be kept burning, This action was perhaps prescribed as a reminder of God's continual presence and the people's need for con- tinual atonement. The first burnt offering at the tabernacle was con- sumed by fire from God Himself (9:24). | grain offering, See ch. 2. As the grain offering represented, the fruits of obedience, it foreshadowed Christ's life of perfect obedience and thanksgiving to God. | shall become holy. This is a warning to laity not to touch food con- secrated to God in sacrifice. Contact with the sacred food would render a person ritually holy (v. 27 text note; Ex, 29:37). Those who incurred such holiness probably were temporarily placed under restrictions like those governing the activity of priests (21:1-8), | The priest's grain offering, mentioned here for the first time, had to be offered daily (6:20). Unlike these daily sacrifices, Ghrist our great High Priest offered Himself “once for all” (Heb, 7:27). | priest ... who is anointed. The high priest. | sin offering. See 4:1-5:13. Christ, the new covenant High Priest, offered the final sin offering, as He bore the punishment for the believ- er's sins (1 Pet. 2:24; Is. 53:5). | guilt offering. See 5:14-6:7. | peace offerings. See note 3:1. Here rules are given about the grain offerings that must accompany peace offerings, and how the meat must be eaten (vv. 15, 16). Christ now spiritually offers believers His flesh to eat John 6:54-58). In His flesh and blood believers find eternal life and have communion with the Father. Through that communion, believers are transformed more and more into Christ's image (2 Cor. 3:18). | thanksgiving sacrifice. The Hebrew word here translated “thanks- giving” can also mean “confession” (of sin or of faith in response to God's goodness and mercy). The sacrifice served to underline prayers for for- giveness and healing or as an expression of gratitude for prayers answered. | vow. People in dire straits might make vows promising something to God if He would answer their prayers (Gen. 28:20-22; 1 Sam. 1:11; 2:21). Such vows were usually accompanied by a peace offering when first made and then again when fulfilled. freewill offering. This spontaneous offering showed gratitude to God. 7:20 uncleanness. See note on chs, 11-16. be cut off. This language is a general expression for coming under God's curse, the exact meaning of which is determined by the context of Scripture. It may mean the penalty of execution (e.g., Ex. 31:14-15) or of death without children (18:14, 29; cf. 20:20). In any event, God put the offender to death, with or without human agency. | fat. See 3:3, 17. | eat no blood. This phrase refers to eating meat from which the blood has not been drained (1 Sam. 14:33). The reason for this ban is given in 17:11 and Gen. 9:4.
Calvin (1560)
Leviticus 1:1-17 1. And the LORD called unto Moses, and spake unto him out of the tabernacle of the congregation, saying, 1. Vocavit autem Mosen, et loquutus est Jehova cum eo e tabernaculo conventionis, dicendo: 2. Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, If any man of you bring an offering unto the LORD, ye shall bring your offering of the cattle, even of the herd, and of the flock. 2. Loquere ad filios Israel, et dic illis, Homo quum offeret ex vobis oblationem Jehovae: ex animalibus, ex bobus, et ex pecudibus offeretis oblationem. 3. If his offering be a burnt sacrifice of the herd, let him offer a male without blemish: he shall offer it of his own voluntary will at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation before the LORD. 3. Si holocaustum oblatio ejus fuerit ex bobus, masculum immaculatum offeret: ad ostium tabernaculi conventionis offeret eum pro animi proposito in conspectu Jehovae. 4. And he shall put his hand upon the head of the burnt offering; and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him. 4. Et admovebit manum suam super caput holocausti: et accepturm erit pro ipso ad eum expiandum. 5. And he shall kill the bullock before the LORD: and the priests, Aaron's sons, shall bring the blood, and sprinkle the blood round about upon the altar that is by the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. 5. Mactabit autem juveneum in conspectu Jehovae, et offerent filii Aharon sacerdotes sanguinem, ae spargent illum in circiutu super altare quod erit ad ostium tabernaculi conventionis. 6. And be shall flay the burnt offering, and cut it into his pieces. 6. Et excoriabit holocaustum, concidetque in frusta sua. 7. And the sons of Aaron the priest shall put fire upon the altar, and lay the wood in order upon the fire: 7. Ponentque filii Aharon sacerdotis ignem super altare, et disponent ligna super ignem. 8. And the priests, Aaron's sons, shall lay the parts, the head, and the fat, in order upon the wood that is on the fire which is upon the altar: 8. Posthaec disponent filii Aharon sacerdotes frusta, caput, et adipem, super ligna superimposita igni qui est super altare. 9. But his inwards and his legs shall he wash in water: and the priest shall burn all on the altar, to be a burnt sacrifice, an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the LORD. 9. Intestina autem ejus et crura lavabit aqua, et adolebit sacerdos omnia super altare: holocaustum est oblatio ignita odoris quietis Jehovae. 10. And if his offering be of the flocks, namely, of the sheep, or of the goats, for a burnt sacrifice; he shall bring it a male without blemish. 10. Quod si de pecudibus fuerit oblatio ejus, de ovibus, vel de capris in holocaustum, masculum immaculatum offeret eum: 11. And he shall kill it on the side of the altar northward before the LORD: and the priests, Aaron's sons, shall sprinkle his blood round about upon the altar. 11. Mactabitque illud ad latus altaris ad aquilonem in conspectu Jehovae: spargentque filii Aharon sacerdotes sanguinem ejus super altare in circiutu. 12. And he shall cut it into his pieces, with his head and his fat: and the priest shall lay them in order on the wood that is on the fire which is upon the altar: 12. Et concidet eum in frusta sun, et caput ejus, et adipem ejus: ordinabitque ea sacerdos super ligna superposita igni qui est super altare. 13. But he shall wash the inwards and the legs with water: and the priests shall bring it all, and burn it upon the altar: it is a burnt sacrifice, an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the LORD. 13. Et intestina et crura lavabit aqua, efferetque sacerdos onmia, adolebitque super altare: holocaustum est, oblatio ignita odoris quietis Jehovae. 14. And if the burnt sacrifice for his offering to the LORD be of fowls, then he shall bring his offering of turtledoves, or of young pigeons. 14. Si autem de avibus fuerit holocaustum, oblatio ipsius Jehovae, tum offeret de turturibus aut de columbis oblationem suam. 15. And the priest shall bring it unto the altar, and wring off his head, and burn it on the altar; and the blood thereof shall be wrung out at the side of the altar: 15. Et offeret illam sacerdos super altare, et ungue secabit caput ipsius: et adolebit super altare, exprimeturque sanguis ejus super parietem altaris. 16. And he shall pluck away his crop with his feathers, and cast it beside the altar on the east part, by the place of the ashes: 16. Et removebit vesiculam ejus cum pluma ipsius: projicietque illam prope altare ad orientem ad locum cineris. 17. And he shall cleave it with the wings thereof, but shall not divide it asunder: and the priest shall burn it upon the altar, upon the wood that is upon the fire: it is a burnt sacrifice, an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the LORD. 17. Et findet illam cum alis suis, neque dividet, adolebitque eam sacerdos super altare, super ligna qum fuerint super igne: holocaustum est oblatio ignita odoris quietis Jehovae. 1. And the Lord called unto Moses. In these seven chapters Moses will treat generally of the sacrifices. But since we read of many things here, the use of which has passed away, and others, the grounds of which I do not understand, I intend to content myself with a brief summary, from whence, however, the reader may fully perceive that whatever has been left to us relative to the legal sacrifices is even now profitable, provided we are not too curious. Let those who choose to hunt for allegories receive the praise they covet; my object is only to profit my readers, and it will suffice briefly to sum up what I think useful to be known. Although in this chapter burnt-offerings only are treated of, yet the rule which is laid down respecting them has a more extensive application, since Moses teaches what animals God would have offered to Him, so as that they may be acceptable, and also by whom and with what ceremonies they are to be offered. He enumerates three kinds, of the herd, of the flocks, and of fowls; for the case of the red heifer, from which the ashes of atonement were made, was different and peculiar; and here the question is as to the ordinary sacrifices, by which private individuals used either to atone for their sins or to testify their piety. He commands, therefore, that the cattle as well as the lambs and kids should be males, and also perfect and free from all blemish. We see, then, that only clean animals were chosen for the sacrifices, and again that all clean animals did not please God, but only domestic ones, such as allow themselves to be directed by the hand and will of men. For, though deer and roes are sometimes tamed, yet God did not admit them to His altar. This, then, was the first rule of obedience, that men should not offer promiscuously this or that victim, but bulls or bull-calves of their herds, and male lambs or kids of their flocks. Freedom from blemish is required for two reasons; for, since the sacrifices were types of Christ, it behooved that in all of them should be represented that complete perfection of His whereby His heavenly Father was to be propitiated; and, secondly, the Israelites were reminded that all uncleanness was repudiated by God lest his service should be polluted by their impurity. But whilst God exhorted them to study true sincerity, so he abundantly taught them that unless they directed their faith to Christ, whatsoever came from them would be rejected; for neither would the purity of a brute animal have satisfied Him if it had not represented something better. In the second place, it is prescribed that whosoever presented a burnt-offering should lay his hand on its head, after he had come near the door of the tabernacle. This ceremony was not only a sign of consecration, but also of its being an atonement, [249] since it was substituted for the man, as is expressed in the words of Moses, "And it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him." (Ver. 4.) There is not, then, the least doubt but that they transferred their guilt and whatever penalties they had deserved to the victims, in order that they might be reconciled to God. Now, since this promise could not have been at all delusive, it must be concluded that in the ancient sacrifices there was a price of satisfaction which should release them from guilt and blame in the judgment of God; yet still not as though these brute animals availed in themselves unto expiation, except in so far as they were testimonies of the grace to be manifested by Christ. Thus the ancients were reconciled to God in a sacramental manner by the victims, just as we are now cleansed through baptism. Hence it follows that these symbols were useful only as they were exercises unto faith and repentance, so that the sinner might learn to fear God's wrath, and to seek pardon in Christ. 5. And he shall kill the bullock. The ceremony of killing is subjoined, viz., that the priest should prepare the victim itself, and pour its blood upon the altar, for it was not allowable for a private person to kill the victim with his own hands, but what the priest did in their name was transferred to them. [250] But this is worth remarking, that although they brought the pledge of reconciliation from their home, yet that the ministers of expiation were to be sought elsewhere, since no one was competent for so illustrious an office, save he who was graced by the holy unction of God. It was, therefore, plainly manifested that all mortals are unworthy of coming near God to propitiate Him, and that the hands of all are in a manner polluted or profane except those which God himself has purged. For the honor of sacrificing came from nowhere else but from the grace of the Spirit, of which the external anointing was a pledge. We now understand how it was that individuals offered sacrifices to God, and yet that the priest alone performed this office. The altar was sprinkled with the blood, that the people might know that the blood poured from the victim did not fall on the ground, but was consecrated to God, and breathed, as it were, a sweet savor; just as now the blood of Christ appears before His face. I pass by the rest, since it does not seem worth while to enlarge on the third kind of offering, i.e., of the birds. Yet we must recollect that thus far Moses only speaks of the burnt-offerings, whose flesh was burned; for this was not the case with all, as we shall see hereafter. Although, then, it is twice said that "the priests shall lay the parts, the head and the fat," etc., we must not understand it as if he only commanded the fat and the head to be burned, but that nothing was to be left the skin. Some think that phdr pheder, [251] is a dissevered head, nor do I reject their opinion, provided we do not exclude the fat. Whatever was filthy in the victim, God would have to be washed, that it might not contaminate it. The question now arises why it was burned either wholly or partially. My own opinion is, that by the fire the efficacy of the Spirit is represented, on which all the profit of the sacrifices depends; for unless Christ had suffered in the Spirit, He would not have been a propitiatory sacrifice. Fire, then, was as the condiment which gave their true savor to the sacrifices, because the blood of Christ was to be consecrated by the Spirit, that it might cleanse us from all the stains of our sins. This God would have more fully represented in the burnt-offerings, yet no victim was offered of which some part was not consumed by fire. Footnotes: [249] Lat., "piaculum." Fr., "mais aussi de la malediction a cause du peche." [250] "It is interesting to notice here, (says Bonar, in loco,) that Outram, Witzius, and others, seem to have proved that in patriarchal ages every man might offer his own sacrifice. The patriarchal ages were taught that every man must take Christ for himself personally. In the Mosaic economy, however, this is altered; there is another truth to be shewn forth. Any one ( 2 Chronicles 30:17 ) might kill the animal -- any common Levite, or even the offerer himself -- for there may be many executioners of God's wrath. Earth and hell were used in executing the Father's purpose toward the Prince of Life. But there is only one appointed way for dispensing mercy, and therefore only priests must engage in that act that signified the bestowal of pardon." He appears, however, to be singular in his opinion that any but a Levite might kill the victim. [251] This word only occurs here, and in ver. 12, and chap. 8:20. S.M. says that the Jewish expositors declare it to mean that fat, or network of fat which is found upon the liver, and with which the severance (locus de-collationis) of the head was covered, when the head was put upon the fire. It is not easy to discover who may have said that it meant a dissevered head. -- W. "Some translate it (says Poole, in loco) the body, or the trunk of the body, (whence, perhaps, C.'s error.) So the ancient Hebrews quoted in Fagius; so Vatablus, Grotius, Malvenda, Mercerus in Bochart."
Geneva Bible Notes (1599)
And the {a} LORD called unto Moses, and spake unto him out of the tabernacle of the congregation, saying, The Argument - As God daily by most singular benefits declared himself mindful of his Church: he did not want them to have opportunity to trust either in themselves, or to depend on others, either for lack of physical things, or anything that belonged to his divine service and religion. Therefore he ordained various kinds of duties and sacrifices, to assure them of forgiveness for their offences (if they offered them in true faith and obedience.) Also he appointed the priests and levites, their apparel, offices, conversation and portion; he showed what feasts they should observe, and when. Moreover, he declares by these sacrifices and ceremonies that the reward of sin is death, and that without the blood of Christ the innocent Lamb, there can be no forgiveness of sins. Because they should not give priority to their own inventions (which God detested, as appears by the terrible example of Nadab and Abihu) he prescribed even to the least things, what they should do, what beasts they should offer and eat, what diseases were contagious and to be avoided, how they should purge all types of filthiness and pollution, whose company they should flee, what marriages were lawful, and what customs were profitable. After declaring these things, he promised favour and blessing to those who keep his laws, and threatened his curse to those who transgressed them. (a) By this Moses declares that he taught nothing to the people but that which he received from God.
John Trapp (1647)
And the LORD called unto Moses, and spake unto him out of the tabernacle of the congregation, saying, And the Lord called. — A continuation of the former history, from the rearing of the tabernacle to the numbering of the people; being the history of one month only.
John Gill (1748)
And the Lord called unto Moses,.... Or "met him", as the phrase is rendered in Numbers 23:4 . The word translated "called", the last letter of it is written in a very small character, to show, as the Jews (b) say, that he met him accidentally, and unawares to Moses: other mysteries they observe in it, as that it respects the modesty of Moses, who lessened himself, and got out of the way, that he might not have the government laid upon him, and therefore the Lord called him; or to denote the wonderful condescension of the Lord, whose throne is in heaven, and yet vouchsafed to dwell in the tabernacle, out of which he called to Moses, and from Mount Sinai, and out of the cloud (c). The word "Lord" is not in this clause, but the following, from whence it is supplied by our translators, as it is in the Syriac version, and as the word "God" is in the Arabic version; the two Targums of Jonathan and Jerusalem paraphrase it,"the Word of the Lord called to Moses,''by an articulate voice, though it may be it was a still small one; and which some think is the reason of the smallness of the letter before mentioned; and Aben Ezra says that Moses heard it, but all Israel did not hear: and spoke unto him out of the tabernacle of the congregation; from off the mercy seat, between the cherubim over the ark, where the glory of the Lord, or the divine Shechinah and Majesty took up its residence, and from whence the Lord promised to commune with Moses, Exodus 25:22 , saying; what follows concerning sacrifices; which shows, that these were not human inventions, but of divine institution, and by the appointment of God. (b) Vid. Buxtorf. Tiberias, c. 15. p. 39. (c) R. Abraham Seba, Tzeror Hammor, fol. 92. 1. 2.
Matthew Henry (1714)
,2 The offering of sacrifices was an ordinance of true religion, from the fall of man unto the coming of Christ. But till the Israelites were in the wilderness, no very particular regulations seem to have been appointed. The general design of these laws is plain. The sacrifices typified Christ; they also shadowed out the believer's duty, character, privilege, and communion with God. There is scarcely any thing spoken of the Lord Jesus in Scripture which has not also a reference to his people. This book begins with the laws concerning sacrifices; the most ancient were the burnt-offerings, about which God here gives Moses directions. It is taken for granted that the people would be willing to bring offerings to the Lord. The very light of nature directs man, some way or other, to do honour to his Maker, as his Lord. Immediately after the fall, sacrifices were ordained.
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown
THE THIRD BOOK OF MOSES, CALLED LEVITICUS. Commentary by Robert Jamieson CHAPTER 1 Le 1:1-17. Burnt Offerings of the Herd. 1. the Lord … spake … out of the tabernacle—The laws that are contained in the previous record were delivered either to the people publicly from Sinai, or to Moses privately, on the summit of that mountain; but on the completion of the tabernacle, the remainder of the law was announced to the Hebrew leader by an audible voice from the divine glory, which surmounted the mercy seat.God commands Moses concerning free-will burnt.offerings of bullock or sheep; male without blemish, Lev 1:1-3 . The offerer to lay his hand on the head of the offering, that it might be accepted for him, Lev 1:4 . The bullock to be slain, and its blood sprinkled on the altar, Lev 1:5 . Its parts to be consumed by fire, Lev 1:7-9 . Of sheep or goats, Lev 1:10-13 . Of fowls, as turtledoves and young pigeons; their blood to be wrung out at the side of the altar, Lev 1:14-17 Moses stood without, Exo 40:35 , waiting for God's call. Out of the tabernacle of the congregation; from the mercyseat in the tabernacle.
Barnes (1832)
The Lord - In the Hebrew text of Leviticus, Jehovah יהוה yehovâh is the name by which God is usually called. Where אלהים 'ĕlohı̂ym occurs, it is generally with a possessive pronoun, so as to designate Him as the God of the chosen people ( Leviticus 2:13 ; Leviticus 11:45 ; Leviticus 18:21 ; Leviticus 19:12 , Leviticus 19:14 , Leviticus 19:32 , etc.). The tabernacle of the congregation - Rather, the tent of meeting. See Exodus 22:21 note. When Jehovah (Yahweh) was about to give His people the Law of the Ten Commandments Exodus 19:3 He called to Moses from the top of Mount Sinai in thunders and lightnings and a thick cloud. When He was now about to give them the laws by which their formal acts of worship were to be regulated, He called to Moses out of the tabernacle which had just been constructed at the foot of the mountain. Exodus 25:22 .
MacLaren (1910)
Leviticus THE BURNT OFFERING A PICTURE AND A PROPHECY Leviticus 1:1 - Leviticus 1:9 . In considering the Jewish sacrificial system, it is important to distinguish the symbolical from the typical value of the sacrifices. The former could scarcely be quite unnoticed by the offerers; but the latter was only gradually made plain, was probably never very generally seen, and is a great deal clearer to us, in the light of Christ, the Antitype, than it could ever have been before His coming. As symbols, the sacrifices expressed great eternal truths as to spiritual worship and communion, its hindrances, requisites, manner, and blessings. They were God’s picture-book for these children in religious development. As types, they shadowed the work of Jesus Christ and its results. The value of the sacrifices in either aspect is independent of modern questions as to their Mosaic origin; for at whatever period the Priest’s Code was promulgated, it equally bears witness to the ruling ideas of the offerings, and, in any case, it was long before Christ came, and therefore its prophecy of Him is as supernatural, whether Moses or Ezra were its author. I make this remark, not as implying that the new theory is not revolutionary, but simply as absolving a student of the religious significance of the sacrificial system from entering here on questions of date. The ‘burnt offering’ stands first in Leviticus for several reasons. It was derived from patriarchal times; it was offered twice daily, besides frequently on other occasions; and in its significance it expressed the complete consecration which should be the habitual state of the true worshipper. Its name literally means ‘that which ascends,’ and refers, no doubt, to the ascent of the transformed substance of the sacrifice in fire and smoke, as to God. The central idea of this sacrifice, then, as gathered from its name and confirmed by its manner, is that of the yielding of the whole being in self-surrender, and borne up by the flame of intense consecration to God. Very beautiful is the variety of material which was permitted. The poor man’s pair of pigeons went up with as sweet an odour as the rich man’s young bull. God delights in the consecration to Him of ourselves and our powers, no matter whether they be great or small, if only the consecration be thorough, and the whole being be wrapped in the transforming blaze. It is worth while to try to realise the strange and to our eyes repulsive spectacle of the burnt offering, which is veiled from us by its sacred associations. The worshipper leads up his animal by some rude halter, and possibly resisting, to the front of the Tabernacle, the courts of which he dared not tread, but which was to him the dwelling-place of God. There by the altar he stands, and, first pressing his hand with force on the victim’s head, he then, with one swift cut, kills it, and as the warm blood spouts from the mangled throat, the attendant priest catches it in a basin, and, standing at the two diagonally opposite corners of the altar in turn, dashes, with one dexterous twist, half of the contents against each, so as to wet two sides of the altar with one throw, and the other two with the other. The offerer then flays the reeking carcase, tossing the gory hide to the priest as his perquisite, and cuts up the sacrifice according to a fixed method. His part of the work is done, and he stands by with bloody hands while the priests arrange the pieces on the pile on the altar; and soon the odour of burning flesh and the thick smoke hanging over the altar tell that the rite is complete. What a scene it must have been when, as on some great occasions, hundreds of burnt offerings were offered in succession! The place and the attendants would look to us liker shambles and butchers than God’s house and worshippers. Now, if we inquire into the significance of the offering, it turns on two points-expiation and burning. The former it has in common with other bloody sacrifices, though it presents features of its own, even in regard to expiation. But the latter is peculiar to it, and must therefore be taken to be its special teaching. The stages in the whole process are five: the presentation, laying on of hands, slaughter, sprinkling of blood, and burning of the whole carcase. The first three are alike in this and other sacrifices, the fourth is modified here, and the last is found here only. Each has its lesson. The offerer has himself to bring the animal to the door of the Tabernacle, that he may show his willing surrender of a valuable thing. As he stands there with his offering, his thoughts would pass into the inner shrine, where God dwelt; and he would, if he were a true worshipper, feel that while God, on His part, already dwelt in the midst of the people, he, on the other hand, can only enter into the enjoyment of His presence by sacrifice. The offering was to be ‘a male without blemish’; for bodily defect symbolising moral flaw could not be tolerated in the offerings to a holy God, who requires purity, and will not be put off with less than a man’s best, be it ox or pigeon. ‘The torn and the lame and the sick,’ which Malachi charged his generation with bringing, are neither worthy of God to receive nor of us to offer. When he pressed his hand on the head of the sacrifice, what was the worshipper meant to think? In all other instances where hands are laid on, some transference or communication of gifts or qualities is implied; and it is natural to suppose that the same meaning attaches to the act here, with such modifications as the case requires. We find that it was done in other bloody sacrifices, accompanied with confession. Nothing is said of confession here; but we cannot dismiss the idea that the offerer laid his sins on the victim by that striking act, especially as the very next clause says ‘it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him.’ The atonement was made, as we shall see, by the application of the blood to the altar; but the possibility of the victim’s blood atoning for the offerer depended on his having laid his hands on its head. We may perhaps go farther than ‘transference of sins.’ Might we not widen the expression, and say ‘identification,’ or, to use a word which has become so worn by religious controversy that it slips through our fingers unnoticed, ‘substitution’? Did not the offerer say in effect, by that act, ‘This is I? This animal life shall die, as I ought to die. It shall go up as a sweet savour to Jehovah, as my being should.’ The animal invested with this representative character is next to be slain by the offerer, not by the priest, who only performed that part of the ritual in the case of national or public sacrifices. That was distinctly a vicarious death; and, as inflicted by the hand of the person represented by the animal, he thereby acknowledged that its death was the wages of his sin, and allowed the justice of his condemnation, while he presented this innocent life-innocent because not that of a moral being-as his substitute. So far the worshipper’s part goes. But now, when the act of expiation is to be symbolically represented, and, so far as outward sacrifice could, is to be accomplished, another actor appears. The priest comes forward as mediator between God and man, and applies the blood to the altar. The difference between the sprinkling of the blood, in the burnt offerings and in the other sacrifices, which had expiation for their principal object, in some of which it was smeared on the horns of the altar, and, in the most solemn of all, was carried into the holiest place, and sprinkled on the mercy-seat, suggests that the essential character of the burnt offering was not expiatory, though expiation was the foundation on which alone the essential character could be reared. The application of the blood was the formal act by which atonement was made. The word rendered ‘to make atonement’ means ‘to cover’; and the idea conveyed is that the blood, which is the life of the sacrifice, covers the sins of the offerer, so as to make them powerless to dam back the love or to precipitate the wrath of God. With this act the expiatory portion of the ritual ends, and we may here pause to look back for a moment on it as a whole. We have pointed out the double bearings of the Mosaic ritual as symbolical and as typical or prophetic. In the former aspect, the emphatic teaching of this rite is that ‘the wages of sin is death,’ that ‘without shedding of blood there is no remission,’ that God has appointed sacrifice as the means of entering into fellowship with Him, and that substitution and vicarious penalty are facts in His government. We may like or dislike these thoughts; we may call them gross, barbarous, immoral, and the like, but, at all events, we ought not to deny that they are ingrained in the Mosaic sacrificial system, which becomes unmeaning elaboration of empty and often repulsive ceremonies, if they are not recognised as its very centre. Of course, the meaning of the sacrifices was hidden from many a worshipper. They became opaque instead of transparent, and hid the great truth which they were meant to reveal. All forms labour under that disadvantage; but that they were significant in design, and largely so to devout hearts in effect, admits of no reasonable doubt. That which they signified was chiefly the putting away of sin by the sacrifice of innocent life, which stood in the place of the guilty. Of course, too, their benefit was symbolical, and the blood of bulls and goats could never put away sin; but, under the shelter of the outward forms, a more spiritual insight gradually grew up, such as breathes in many a psalm, and such as, we cannot doubt, filled the heart of many a worshipper, as he stood by the bleeding sacrifice on which his own hands had laid the burden that had weighed so heavy on himself. How far the prophetic aspect of the sacrifices was discerned, is a more difficult question. But this at least we know-that the highest level of evangelical prophecy, in Isaiah’s wonderful fifty-third chapter, is reached from this vantage-ground. It is the flower of which these ordinances are the root. We need not enlarge upon the prophetic aspect of the sacrifice. The mere negative sinlessness of the victim points to the ‘Lamb without blemish and without spot,’ on whom, as Isaiah says, in language dyed through and through with sacrificial references, ‘the Lord hath made to meet the iniquity of us all,’ and who Himself makes ‘His soul an offering for sin.’ The modern tendency to bring down the sacrificial system to a late date surely sins against the sacred and all-explaining law of evolution, in the name of which it is attempted, inasmuch as it is an unheard-of thing for the earlier stages of a religion to be less clogged with ceremonial than the later. Psalmist and prophet first, and priest afterwards, is not the order of development. The remaining part of the ritual was, as we have pointed out, peculiar to the burnt offering. In it alone the whole of the sacrifice was consumed on the altar, with the exceptions of the skin, which was given to the priest, and of the contents of the intestines. Hence it was sometimes called ‘a whole burnt offering.’ The meaning of this provision may be apprehended if we note that the word rendered ‘burn,’ in Leviticus 1:9 , is not that which simply implies destruction by fire, but is a peculiar word, reserved for sacrificial burnings, and meaning ‘to cause to ascend in smoke or vapour.’ The gross flesh was, as it were, refined into vapour and odour, and went up to God as ‘a sweet savour.’ It expressed, therefore, the transformation of the sinful human nature of the worshipper, by the refining power of the fire of God, into something more ethereal and kindred with the heaven to which it rose. Or, to put the thought in plainer words, on the basis of expiation, the glad surrender of the whole being is possible and will ensue; and when a man yields himself in joyful self-surrender to the God who has forgiven his sins, then the fire of the divine Spirit is shed abroad in his heart, and kindles a flame which lays hold on all the gross, earthly elements of his being, and changes them into fire, kindred with itself, which aspires, in ruddy tongues of upward-leaping light, to the God to whom the heart has been surrendered, and to whom the whole being tends. This is the purpose of expiation; this is the summit of all religion. One man has realised to the full, in his life, what the burnt offering taught as the goal for all worshippers. Jesus has lived in the constant exercise of perfect self-surrender, and in the constant unmeasured possession of ‘the Spirit of burning,’ with which He has come to baptize us all. If we look to Him as our expiation, we should also find in Him the power to yield ourselves ‘living sacrifices,’ and draw from Him the sacred and refining fire, which shall transform our grossness into His likeness, and make even us ‘acceptable to God, through Jesus Christ.’
Cross-References (TSK)
Exodus 40:38; Leviticus 1:2; Exodus 19:3; Exodus 24:1; Exodus 29:42; John 1:17; Exodus 25:22; Exodus 33:7; Exodus 39:32; Exodus 40:34; Leviticus 1:1; Leviticus 1:3; Leviticus 1:10; Leviticus 1:14; Exodus 40:35; Exodus 40:1; Exodus 32:18; Leviticus 4:1; Leviticus 5:1