Bible Commentaries

We now come to the third class of the offerings that were ordained under the law. The burnt offering and the meat offering were very closely connected: the first typifying the sacrificial death and blood-shedding of Christ in the excellence of His sweet savour before God; the second, the equally sweet savour of His perfect life in the energy of the Holy Spirit, tested even unto death. In the peace offering we have another aspect of His sacrifice which is based on the foregoing.

The very title of this offering would show us that it was to be brought by an Israelite whose conscience was in rest and peace before God. There was no compulsion about it; he just desired to bring it; In this respect it was the opposite to the sin or trespass offering, which was to be brought under compulsion by the Israelite, whose conscience was not in peace because of wrong-doing.

Again we notice that the animal offered might be taken from the herd or from the sheep or from the goats, and the animal must be without blemish. But. on the other hand more latitude was allowed for a female as well as a male might be brought. This is what we might expect, seeing that it is the response of the would-be worshipper that is before us here.

The laying of the hand upon the head of the victim, the shedding and sprinkling of its blood by the priests is the same as with the burnt offering, but now instead of the whole victim in its parts being burnt on the altar, only the fat from the inward parts was to be burnt for a sweet savour to the Lord. Since this inward fat would be the sign of an animal of health and vigour, it aptly symbolizes the excellence and energy of that devotion unto death which marked our blessed Lord. This came up as a sweet savour to God as the type indicates.

The fat then of the peace offerings was wholly claimed by God, and the last verse of the chapter states this very clearly. The fat must be burned on the altar, and the blood must be sprinkled on it round about. The people of Israel were to eat neither the one nor the other. The blood was the life of the victim and the fat was its excellence. This strict ordinance testified that man as a fallen sinner, has forfeited his own life, and has in himself no excellence in which he can stand before God. If he stands at all, it must be on the basis of the perfect life of Another poured out sacrificially before God, and in the excellence of the One who became the victim.

In this chapter we only learn what was to be done with the blood and the fat, which was God's portion. We have to turn to the law of the peace offering, given to us in Leviticus 7:11-34, to learn that in the peace offering not only the priest had his share, but that the offerer himself had his portion. So that communion with God, as to the excellence of the sacrifice of Christ, is a distinguishing feature of this offering. But its details should come before us when we reach chapter 7.

There is in our chapter, however, one slight intimation of this feature in verses Leviticus 3:11; Leviticus 3:16. Twice do we get the expression, "the food of the offering," which was made by fire, and which came up as a sweet savour to God. Now the word here translated "food" is far more frequently translated "bread," but whichever word we adopt as the better translation, we have conveyed to us the thought of food which provides a satisfying portion. And we are permitted to find a portion in that which is the "bread" of God.

As we have before noticed in these types, God begins from His own side of the matter and works down to us. Hence we start with the burnt offering and lastly come to the offerings for sin and trespass. On our side of the matter, we have to begin with the sin offering. Nothing is right, nor can we advance further, until our sins with all their guilt are settled. With the offering for sins Leviticus 4:1-35 is occupied.

In verse Leviticus 3:2 let us note two things. First, the sin that is contemplated is "against any of the commandments of the Lord." As before remarked, "sin is not imputed [put to account] when there is no law (Romans 5:13). We have now reached the time when the law, with its many commandments in detail, has been given, so that when any of these commandments had been broken, the sin was at once put to account against the transgressor, and this particular offering was instituted to make atonement for the sinner.

But second, the sins that were contemplated when this offering was instituted, were those committed "through ignorance." In this we see the compassion of our God shining out. He well knew the frailty and ignorance and forgetfulness that characterizes poor, fallen humanity, and this provision was made. Sin committed deliberately in cold-blooded defiance of God is not contemplated here; indeed we read in Hebrews 10:28, "He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses." Though God is a God of mercy, the law as such has no mercy in it, and therefore the merciful provision of the sin and trespass offerings only came into effect where the root of the sin was ignorance and not wilfulness.

Having read right through this chapter we at once see that the instructions fall naturally into four sections, according to the position held by the person or persons committing the sin. Upon that depended the gravity of the sin in the sight of God. Sin might be committed by (1) the high priest himself; (2) the whole congregation of Israel; (3) a ruler; (4) one of the common people. Hence in each case certain differences come to light, though there are features that appear consistently in each of the four.

Let us first note these consistent features. In each case, when the sin was recognized it had to be confessed before God in a practical way by the bringing of the appropriate sacrifice to be killed before the Lord, and the guilty one had to lay his hand on the head of the victim, thus identifying himself with it. In the case of the whole congregation sinning this had to be done by the elders of the congregation, as representing the mass of the people.

This identification, however, may be distinguished from that which we saw in the case of the burnt offering, inasmuch as here it meant the identification of the victim with the sinner, so that the guilt of the sin was transferred from the sinner to the victim, which would die in his stead. In the case of the burnt offering it signified the reverse and complementary thought of the offerer being identified with the sweet savour and acceptance of the offering. Both these things unite in the antitype — the propitiatory and substitutionary death of our blessed Lord.

In each case the victim was slain. Death is the wages of sin, and no sentence can be pronounced as an alternative to that. This is acknowledged in our law courts. A prisoner may be sentenced to a fine, with imprisonment as an alternative. But we never hear a judge sentence a man to death, with the alternative of prison or anything else. In all its gravity the death sentence on sin stands alone. This is clearly foreshadowed here. In each case the blood of the victim was sprinkled before the Lord, though not in each case sprinkled in just the same way. The sprinkled blood testified before God that the death sentence was accomplished, and, "it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul" (Leviticus 17:11).

Also in each case certain parts of the inwards and all the fat was to be taken and burnt upon the altar just as the fat of the peace offerings was burned. Nothing is said as to this burning being for a sweet savour as was the case with the peace offerings. The fat truly spoke of the excellence of the victim, which was a needful thing if there was to be atonement made for sin, but the point now is the covering of man's sin, rather than the gratification that is brought to God.

Lastly, in each case there was the forgiveness of the sin in virtue of the sacrifice. In the first case, that of the anointed priest, this fact is not mentioned, but evidently he was no exception to the rule. If we would understand the nature of the forgiveness that is mentioned, we must read and consider Romans 3:25.

In that important verse the word translated "remission" is one that means a "passing over," and it is the only time the word occurs in Scripture. In that verse we find that in Christ and His propitiatory death God has declared His righteousness in passing over the sins of His people in His forbearing mercy during the ages before Christ came. Holy angels, who may well have known what is stated in Hebrews 10:4, that, "It is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins," may have wondered where was the righteous basis for the forgiveness offered in Leviticus 4:1-35. It was the death of Christ that declared God's righteousness in this, and vindicated His action. The sacrifices and the forgivenesses of Old Testament times were like promissory notes with a distant due date. The due date came when Christ died, and turned the notes into the pure gold of a divinely accomplished redemption.

Now consider the differences in the four sections. If the anointed priest sinned, then we have the most serious case of all. He was the appointed link between the people and God, and the whole people were involved with himself. So a young bullock without blemish had to be offered, and its blood had to be sprinkled not only on the altar without, but carried into the sanctuary and sprinkled seven times before the veil and on the horns of the altar of incense. In type, the worship of the people was interrupted in the sin of the man, who presented it before God in the fragrance of the incense. Until the blood was sprinkled there could be no priestly action before the Lord on behalf of the people.

We find just the same features in the second case, that of the sin of the whole congregation. In this case possibly the priest himself was not implicated, but even so he would be left without any people fit to be represented before the Lord, so in effect the result was very much the same. In both these cases, where the sin was of a gravity affecting all, the body of the victim was to be carried without the camp and burnt there.

To this fact Hebrews 13:11 refers, and the application for us is given in the next verse. The sacrifice of Christ was for others and had in view the whole people, thus fitting in with the type. When He suffered, the days of Israel's wilderness camp were over, and Jerusalem was their city. Well, He suffered without the gate of their religious centre. The place of the Christian now, even if by nature a Jew, is outside that religious system in association with the rejected Christ who died and lives again.

When a ruler or one of the common people sinned, the animals brought for sacrifice were of lesser value. The blood was applied to the altar without, but not carried to the sanctuary within. Correspondingly the body of the victim was not to be burned without the camp. What was to be done with these bodies we are not told here. When we come to the law of the sin offering we find that it provided very holy food for the priests and their sons.

Details concerning the trespass offerings follow in Leviticus 5:1-19 and the first 7 verses of Leviticus 6:1-30. A trespass might be committed against one's fellow as well as against God and His holy things and a number of ways are specified in which trespass could take place.

The sacrifices enjoined reveal two things. First, that a trespass against God in His holy things is a more serious matter than a trespass against man, consequently the offerings prescribed in verses Lev_6:15, 18, and also in Leviticus 6:6 are of a more substantial sort than the others. To touch an unclean thing, or to state something on oath erroneously has not the same gravity before God as to defile holy things or to do violence and deceit to one's neighbour and thus dishonour the name of the Lord.

For these lesser trespasses a lamb or kid, or two young pigeons might be brought; and of these two one might be offered as a burnt offering after the first had been offered as a trespass offering. Again, if so poor that a man could not bring even two pigeons! he might bring so little as the tenth part of an ephah of fine flour and the priest might offer as a trespass offering even that. When fine flour was offered as a meat offering there must be with it both oil and frankincense. Here both these are expressly excluded. The sweet savour element was wanting in that which had compulsorily to be offered in atonement for the wrongdoing of sinful men.

We read in Hebrews 9:22, that "almost all things are by the law purged with blood." Here is a case in point, which made it necessary to put the word, "almost," before the word, "all." In the case before us we see the kindness of God considering the very great poverty of some of His erring people. The priest might eat the residue as though it had been a meat offering, but nevertheless the handful was burned as a sin offering.

Another thing marked these trespass offerings, where the rights of men had been infringed. The trespasser had not only to bring his offering to God but he had to make amends to the one whom he had trespassed against. If the evil had brought loss in the holy things of God, he had to make amends, as we see in Leviticus 5:16. And so also if a man had suffered loss, as we see in Leviticus 6:3. Reparation had to be made on the same basis in both cases. What had been lost originally had to be repaid and a fifth part added to it. Nothing more just than this can be found. Many a robber would not mind doing a bit of imprisonment if he be allowed to retain the gain he has made. But to lose all he made plus a fifth part beyond takes all the glamour from the wrong-doing.

In the light of this we see how very exceptional was the statement of Zacchaeus, recorded in Luke 19:8. He could say, "If I have taken anything from any man by false accusation, I restore him fourfold." This was going far beyond that which the law demanded, and by the man of the world it would have been considered over-scrupulous honesty; so much so that if anyone merited salvation Zacchaeus must have done so. All such thoughts were brushed aside by the Lord when He said, "The Son of Man is come to seek and to save that which was lost."

The most virtuous observance of the law in one of its details does not compensate for the infringement of it in other details. Hence we read "Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in His sight" (Romans 3:20). Zacchaeus had to receive salvation as a true "son of Abraham," that is as a believer — see, Galatians 3:7.

We cannot doubt that the principles laid down in verses Leviticus 3:2-5, have their application today to any wrongdoing or offence against man on the part of a Christian. Even if done inadvertently, the believer should be most careful to make reparation, as full as may be within his power. The fact that we are not under law, but under grace with its higher standards, should make us most careful not to fall below the standard which the law has set in this matter.

From Leviticus 6:8 to the end of Leviticus 7:1-38 we have the law of the various offerings. In each case the "law" furnishes further details as to how the offering was to be presented to the Lord and, more particularly, how the priests were to deal with the parts that were not burned before Him.

Again the burnt offering comes first. Since all was consumed on the altar, the law concerning it was simple. Every morning the wood was to be laid on the altar and the burnt offering consumed upon it; but so it was to be in the evening and all the night the fire on the altar was to be kept burning. Never was the fire to go out, and the very ashes were to be dealt with in a reverent manner.

In this we may learn two things. First, that the sweet savour of the sacrifice of Christ is ever before God. In the value and fragrance of His work propitiation has been effected, and so God still goes forward with an erring people. But second, that the fire was never to go out because it typified the consuming judgment of God, the claims of which could never be satisfied by the shadow sacrifices demanded by the law. Only when the all-sufficient sacrifice of Christ had been accomplished could the words be written, "There is no more offering for sin" (Hebrews 10:18). Today we may rejoice that "the fire upon the altar" has indeed gone out, though the fire of God's wrath will yet burn against sinful men, who have rejected His grace, when they reach a lost eternity.

The law of the meat offering occupies verses Leviticus 6:14-18 and is mainly concerned with that part of the offering which was not burnt as a sweet savour, and so was to be eaten by Aaron and his sons. It was food for the priestly family only; that is, for the males who would normally officiate as priests. It was to be treated as a most holy thing. Leaven was to be completely excluded, and it was to be eaten in the tabernacle precincts. In the next chapter we find that those who were permitted to eat of the peace offerings had to be ceremonially clean, and this doubtless applied to the priests who partook of the meat offerings. Today every saint is constituted a priest, but we need to be morally clean to digest inwardly the excellencies of the life of our blessed Lord, which were so wholly offered to God.

Verses Leviticus 6:19-23 deal with the special meat offering of Aaron and his sons in the day of his anointing. This was to be offered half in the morning and half at night, but all was to be burnt as a sweet savour and none was to be eaten. Not till the priest was anointed and fully qualified was he permitted to partake, but in his anointing the sweet savour was to go up to God.

The remainder of the chapter is occupied with the law of the sin offering. Verse Leviticus 6:25 shows how closely it was linked with the burnt offering, and just because it had definite reference to sin its holiness is specially emphasized. Both offerings found their fulfilment in the sacrificial death of Christ, but the burnt offering typified the Godward side of it, more connected with propitiation, while the sin offering typified the manward side, connected with substitution.

Parts of the sin offering were to be eaten by the males of the priestly families, but only in the tabernacle and its court and not in their homes. But to this there was an exception. If the blood had been brought into the holy place for reconciliation, as was to be the case when the priest himself sinned or the whole congregation was involved in sin, then none of it was to be eaten. The body of the animal was to be burned without the camp, as we saw in chapter 4. In ordinary cases the priests did eat, and this may remind us today that though the sin may be on the part of another the saint in priestly condition may take it home to himself, while helping the other. We find something in the spirit of this when we read Galatians 6:1, Galatians 6:2.

Leviticus 7:1-7 records the law of the trespass offering, which is the same as for the sin offering. As verse Leviticus 6:7 says, "there is one law for them." In verses Leviticus 6:8-10 we have a supplementary detail, first as to the skin of the burnt offering, which was to be for the offering priest, who was permitted to have the externals of the sacrifice, the inwards of which were wholly for God. We may apply this by reminding ourselves that though we may be allowed to share in the sweet savour of the death of Christ, we only touch the externals. The inward excellence, as known to God, must ever be beyond us.

Then all of the meat offerings which was left for the consumption of the priests, if baked or fried was to be the portion of the offering priest. If mingled with oil and dry, it was to be shared equally among all the sons of Aaron. Thus a distinction was made between priests who were passive in any given matter and the priest who was active. All believers are priests but not all priests are in action.

The law of the peace offering extends from verse Leviticus 6:11 to verse 34. The order of the offerings is changed, and here it comes last, the reason being, we suppose, that, while in the other cases the participators were only the priests, here the common person, who brought the offering was permitted to have a share. A peace offering might be brought for a thanksgiving (verse Leviticus 6:12) or in connection with a vow or voluntary offering (verse Leviticus 6:16) and in the latter case the time for eating was extended to two days. There was the portion for God, a portion for the priest and a portion for the offerer, but the communion based upon a voluntary offering endures longer than that based upon thankfulness for some benefit conferred.

Here again the holiness of the offering is enforced. The partaker must himself be clean, and that which he eats must be preserved from contamination. Hereby we are reminded that we must be clean not only in ourselves but also in our ways and associations. No communion with God is possible apart from that. In this connection too we are told that both fat and blood were prohibited. The life and excellence of the victims was wholly for the Lord.

The special portion of the officiating priest was to be the right shoulder of the victim. The breast that was waved before the Lord was also to be the portion of the priests. We find an allusion to this in 1 Corinthians 10:18. Even in Israel those who did eat of the sacrifices were identified with the altar. It imposed at once special cleanliness in person and ways upon the common person who partook, as we have just seen, and the priests were all their lives set apart for God. Today every true believer is a priest and must never forget he is identified with the Christ who died.

The few verses that close the chapter give a summary of the things we have briefly considered, and enforce the fact that though many of the details laid down may at first sight seem to be of a rather trifling nature, they are nevertheless the things "which the Lord commanded Moses... in the day that He commanded the children of Israel to offer their oblations." Similarly we may read 1 Corinthians 12:1-31; 1 Corinthians 13:1-13; 1 Corinthians 14:1-40, and think that the instructions given through Paul for the order of the assemblings of the church of God, are some of them rather trifling; but let us not overlook verse 37 of chapter 14. The "commandments of the Lord" through the Apostle Paul are no less binding than the commandments of the Lord through Moses, though we are now under grace and not law.

Leviticus 8:1-36 is occupied with the record of how Moses himself acted in complete obedience to the divine command when he came to the point of the consecration of Aaron and his sons. We saw how all was to be done when we read Exodus 29:1-46, we now are permitted to see how carefully Moses obeyed, so that presently he received the commendation "My servant Moses.. is faithful in all Mine house" (Numbers 12:7). Thus, in the consecration of Aaron and his sons there was the bathing all over (verse Leviticus 6:6), typical of the new birth; then the application of the blood of sacrifice (verses Leviticus 6:23-24), typical of the redeeming blood of Christ; then the application of the oil (verse Leviticus 6:30), typical of the gift of the Holy Spirit. Today no one becomes a priest except they are the subject of a work wrought in them — the new birth — and know the efficacy of the blood of Christ, shed for them, and have received the gift of the Holy Spirit, bestowed upon them.

But we notice of course that, as had been directed, Aaron had the anointing oil not merely sprinkled but poured upon his head (verse Leviticus 6:12). Here he stands as a type of our Great High Priest, the Lord Jesus Christ, who needed no application of the blood but was anointed with the Spirit in His solitary perfection. We have an allusion to this in Psalms 138:2, where the unity of brethren that is so good and pleasant, is likened to the "ointment" or oil that was poured so copiously upon Aaron's head that it ran down beard and garment even to the skirts of it. The outpouring of the Spirit upon the church today, and the effusion that is to mark the world to come, according to Joel 2:28, are both in the nature of an overflow from our High Priest on high.

In our chapter we also learn that Moses applied both blood and oil to the tabernacle and altar and other vessels of the sanctuary, and this is alluded to in Hebrews 9:21, as far as the blood is concerned. It shows that the whole of this earthly system stood before God on that basis. For us it typified that the cross of Christ, coupled with the gift of the Spirit, forms the foundation of all our blessing. But all through this chapter it is not merely the blood shed, but also the blood applied. And that, not only to the tabernacle and its vessels, but also to the persons of the priests: right ear, right hand, right foot. The order is significant. By the ear we hear the word of God. By hand and foot we act and walk according to that which we hear. The movements of the priest are to be controlled by what he hears.

At the end of this chapter (verses 31-36), we see that Moses, who was the mediator of this earthly system, carefully instructed Aaron and his sons as to the seven days that followed their consecration. They were to eat the flesh of the ram of consecration, as had been made plain in Exodus 29:1-46, and also they were to abide in the tabernacle and its court for the seven days, until the atonement for themselves and the whole system was completed. In this way the claims of the holiness of God were to be pressed upon them.

All this having been carried out according to God's order, the eighth day arrived, and proved to be a very special occasion. With this Leviticus 9:1-24 is occupied. All is still under the direction of Moses, but, having been installed, Aaron is now the chief actor. He had to offer first for himself and then for the people, and it is to be noted that in both verses Leviticus 6:2-3 the sin offering is mentioned before the burnt offering. At the beginning of the Book the burnt offering came first, and the sin and trespass offerings came last, typifying Christ and His sacrifice as viewed by God. But here the application to us is typified, and until our sins are settled we can present nothing at all to God. Hence the sin offering must of necessity come first, and the others follow.

Verse Leviticus 6:8 records the slaying of the sin offering which was for himself. Since he was now the anointed priest, and all the people were represented in him, the carcase of the victim was burned "without the camp" (verse Leviticus 6:11), according to the instructions. Verse Leviticus 6:15 records the sin offering for the people, and this was dealt with "as the first," since, when the whole people were in question, the procedure was to be the same as for the anointed priest.

In verses Leviticus 6:12-14 we have the burnt offering for himself and in verse Leviticus 6:16 the burnt offering for the people. These offerings were followed by both meat and peace offerings (verses Leviticus 6:17-21), but no mention is made of a trespass offering, for as yet there had been no time for cases of actual trespass to have occurred.

When all this was accomplished, the great event of the eighth day came to pass. First, the newly installed priest lifted up his hand toward the people and blessed them. Then both Moses and he went into the tabernacle and coming out again gave a blessing, but this time as through the mediator as well as through the priest. Whatever the people might prove themselves to be, the attitude of God toward them was one of blessing. When we read the four verses that close the Gospel of Luke, we at once feel how far more wonderful were the uplifted hands and the blessing of the Lord Jesus, just as He ascended into heaven, to take up His High Priestly work there, having accomplished on earth propitiation by His blood.

But second, an even greater event was the appearing of the glory of the Lord in the sight of all the people, and coupled with this fire came out from Him and consumed the burnt offering on the altar. The effect upon the people was instantaneous. No man can stand in the presence of the glory of God, for all have come short of it, as we read in Romans 3:23.

The instructions as to how the various sacrifices were to be offered have already been before us, but not till the consecration of Aaron do we read of them actually being made, so we may say that at the start it was the hand of God that lit on the altar the fire to consume the burnt offering, which was never to go out, as we have already seen. It was God's fire and not man's fire which consumed the sacrifice, and the typical force of this is easily seen.

Thus far the hand of the faithful Moses had been on all the events of the day, but before it closed the two elder sons of Aaron broke away from under his direction and offered incense on "strange fire" before the Lord. The incense was right but the fire was wrong. As far as we know, the only instruction that had been given in this matter is found in Exodus 30:7, Exodus 30:8, where the fire is connected with the lighting of the lamps in the holy place. They may have thought that if the incense was right any fire would do to bring out its fragrance. But no, the fire must be God's fire and not man's. Let us learn from this that though in our worship the words we use are altogether right, if the energy behind their utterance is of the flesh, all is wrong. Worship must be by the Spirit of God, and we have indeed to say,

"Then let Thy grace mould every word

That meets Thy holy ear."

They used strange fire, and the fire of the Lord came out and consumed them. This may appear to us very drastic judgment, but it is evidently God's way at the beginning of any new movement to emphasize His holiness in a severe way. So it was with the first man who broke the sabbath, and with Achan, just as Israel entered the land; and with Ananias and Sapphira at the beginning of the church. Many similar transgressions may have occurred in the respective histories without such a judgment.

We add the simple yet solemn reflection that everything that is committed to the hands of men breaks down at the outset. It was so in the Garden of Eden, and again when the law was given, in the episode of the golden calf, and so it is here. The priesthood having been established, on the very day on which they began to officiate failure supervened and Nadab and Abihu died, that so God might be sanctified before all the people. Though the people might mourn, the claim of God on the priests was such that no mourning became them. The claims of natural relationship were set aside.