Table of Contents
Copyrights

Leviticus 1 - Commentary by Rev. John Schultz

Updated
2001-05-26; 14:31:56utc

Leviticus 1

Access to God chapter 1-10.

1. By Means of Sacrifices (The role of the bringer of the sacrifice.) 1:1 - 6:7.

a. The Burnt Offering 1:1-17 (The Holocaust)



A Scottish evangelist in Holland, Sydney Wilson, called the five sacrifices described in these chapters of Leviticus God's pictures of the cross of Christ. Four of the pictures are taken from the four directions the wind blows and one is taken from above. The first pictures is the one taken from above. We could say that this is the one closest to God. The burnt offering brings out that aspect of the death of Christ which is closest to God, which is most precious to Him.

As we have already seen, the instructions regarding these sacrifices, as well as regarding other commandments given in this book, were issued at various times and places. Some of the laws were received when Moses was on the mountain and when he was given the two tables of stone with the Ten Commandments. (See 7:38; 27:34) Other chapters are accounts of conversations God had with Moses after the construction of the tabernacle. The first chapters of Leviticus fall mostly in this latter category. In ch. 1:1 we read: "The LORD called to Moses and spoke to him from the Tent of Meeting." It could also be, however, that some of these conversations took place in the tent Moses erected before the construction of the tabernacle. In Exodus we read: "Now Moses used to take a tent and pitch it outside the camp some distance away, calling it the 'tent of meeting.' Anyone inquiring of the LORD would go to the tent of meeting outside the camp. And whenever Moses went out to the tent, all the people rose and stood at the entrances to their tents, watching Moses until he entered the tent. As Moses went into the tent, the pillar of cloud would come down and stay at the entrance, while the LORD spoke with Moses. Whenever the people saw the pillar of cloud standing at the entrance to the tent, they all stood and worshipped, each at the entrance to his tent. The LORD would speak to Moses face to face, as a man speaks with his friend. Then Moses would return to the camp, but his young aide Joshua son of Nun did not leave the tent."[ 1 ]

God used these moments of intimate fellowship with Moses to reveal Himself to the whole nation. Moses does not enter the tent to listen to God's voice, just for his own enjoyment. God has the whole nation in mind. How intimate this fellowship was we find expressed in Exodus: "The LORD would speak to Moses face to face, as a man speaks with his friend."
[ 2 ] That is the atmosphere in which these commandments were given.

The kind of sacrifice is not immediately identified in vs. 2, but the category is that of voluntary sacrifices, such as the burnt offering and the Fellowship Offering. We read: "When any of you brings an offering to the LORD, ..." The guilt offerings and sin offering were obligatory. A burnt offering was a free will offering, but it was a bloody sacrifice. This is a strange paradox. Killing and spilling of blood was not a part of God's original plan of creation. Death, also the death of animals, entered the world after sin had come in. And now, death become a bridge of fellowship with God. If a man seeks an intimate relationship with God, it has to be via the way of death. It is true that death did not exist before sin existed, but there was a principle of death, which we only know as dying. "The Lamb ... was slain from the creation of the world."
[ 3 ] The principle, however, is that of the dying of one in the place of another. Jesus did not die for Himself, and the sacrificial animal did not die for itself but was killed in the place of man.

It is not so much the principle of dying, but the fact that it was substitutional which was eternal. Death comes from the power of the devil, but it is also God's weapon of victory over the enemy, as C. S. Lewis states in his book Miracles.

It sounds normal to us that the sacrifice should be an animal. But in a world where human sacrifice was the accepted norm, the demand for animal sacrifice draws a clear line between that which is acceptable to God and that which is not. An animal could be sacrificed, a human being could not .

The regulations in this chapter pertain to three different offerings of the same category: Verses 3 - 10 concern a head of cattle; vs. 11 - 13 concern a ram or a male goat and vs. 14- 17 concern a pair of doves or turtle doves.. Except for these three distinctions there is no real difference in the sacrifices.

The animal to be sacrificed had to be a male without defect, at least for the first two sacrifices. It was not stated what the sex of the birds had to be. The animals of the Old Testament were a representation of a healthy young man, and in the New Testament this young man is our Lord Jesus Christ.

The animal had to be brought to the entrance of the tent. The mention of the place was important, because it involved the person who brought the sacrifice and his acceptability to the Lord.

From vs. 5 we deduct that the entrance of the tent was the burnt offering altar. The entrance and the altar are identical, and access to God is via the altar. Evidently, the use of words is intentional. Man is only acceptable to God when he follows the right way and seeks fellowship with God via the sacrifice that was on the altar. The idea the good intention of man is what counts belongs to the realm of myths. But for the man who keeps the rules counts that he is pleasing to God. That is more than merely being acceptable. God rejoices actively and positively in the man who plays by the rules. It is good to let this truth work in upon us. The effect will be overwhelming. In vs. 4 it is explained further that the being acceptable to God is dependent upon the identification of the one who brings the sacrifice with the animal to be sacrificed. We read: "He is to lay his hand on the head of the burnt offering, and it will be accepted on his behalf to make atonement for him." Strong's gives the following definition of the word "accepted": ratsah as, "to be pleased with; specifically, to satisfy a debt." The word has the connotation of: " (be) accept (-able), accomplish, set affection, approve, consent with, delight (self), enjoy, (be, have a) favour (-able), like, observe, pardon, (be, have, take) please (-ure), reconcile self." The identification is brought about by the gesture of laying hands on the head of the animal, which symbolizes the unity between man and beast. The man who places his hand upon the head of the animal confesses that the animal has taken his place in what follows. What happens to the animal when it is slain, happens in principle with the man whose place it has taken. It is a substitution. The killing is substitutionary, but so is the acceptance. The whole scene is pregnant with meaning. It breathes the truth that Paul expounds: "God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God."
[ 4 ] There are three positive results of this identification which are mentioned in vs. 4: 1) it will be accepted, 2) it will be accepted on his behalf and 3) it will make atonement for him.

There is a fine difference between the "acceptable" in vs. 3 and the "it will be accepted" in vs. 4. In vs. 3 the man who brings the sacrifice is being accepted; in vs. 4 the animal is accepted as a sacrifice. The fact that it is "on his behalf" means that the acceptability is imputed to the man, as a payment on someone's account by a third person. "On his behalf" also stresses the positive blessing that comes to the man who does these things. And, finally, it states that it will make atonement for him. The Hebrew word is kaphar, which, according to Strong's, means, "to cover (specifically with bitumen); figuratively, to expiate or condone, to placate or cancel." In the KJV it is translated: "appease, make (an atonement, cleanse, disannul, forgive, be merciful, pacify, pardon, purge (away), put off, reconcile (make reconciliation)." So, literally it says that the burnt offering will cover the man who brings the sacrifice.

The man who brings the sacrifice has to kill the animal himself "before the LORD." This not only refers to the altar, but it is also a clear indication of the presence of the Lord. After this irrevocable act, the priest takes over. The work of the man who brings the sacrifice consists in bringing the sacrificial animal, in laying his hands on the head of the animal and in killing , skinning, and slaughtering it. If the animal is a head of cattle this is no mean job. If the priest had to do this for every sacrifice that was brought, he would be busy day and night. Later we shall see that the skin is given to the priest.

The first important thing the priest does is to sprinkle the blood around and upon the altar. The blood is not poured out at the foot of the altar but it is applied to it on all sides. Then the priest has to prepare the fire on the altar and arrange the pieces of meat upon the fire, with the head, the fat and the inner part, which had to be washed first. All this is burned to ashes. We shall see later, in ch. 6:8-13, that there are regulations which insure that this is done thoroughly. Three times in this chapter the rising of the smoke of the burning flesh is called "an aroma pleasing to the LORD" (Vs. 9, 13, 17). So, we read three different things about this sacrifice. Vs. 9 calls it "a burnt offering;" in vs. 13 we read that it is "an offering made by fire," and it is called: "an aroma pleasing to the LORD." These description indicate what is being offered, how it is offered and what the result of it is.

Before we further pursue the actual burning, we have to see that the one who brings the sacrifice has the choice as to what animal he wants to bring. It may be a young bull; it may be a sheep or a goat, or a bird, such as a young pigeon or a dove. The ritual of the sacrifice is basically the same in every instance. We do not read that the man has to put his hand on the head of the sheep or the goat, but this may be understood.

In vs. 5 we read that the bull is to be slaughtered before the LORD, and vs. 11 states that the slaughtering is to be done at the North side of the altar before the LORD. We conclude from this that the ark of the covenant stood north of the burnt offering altar. This is confirmed in Exodus.
[ 5 ] It seems that every reference to the residence of God is in the north. In Isaiah we read in the NIV, that the prince of Tyre, who is an image of Satan in that chapter, wants to set his throne "on the utmost heights of the sacred mountain" to supplant God.[ 6 ] The word for "sacred mountain" is tsaphown which Strong defines: "hidden, i.e. dark; used only of the north as a quarter." The KJV renders this verse as: "For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north." And Ezekiel saw a windstorm coming from the north in his first vision in which the glory of God appeared to him.[ 7 ] Astronomers confirm that there is a large black hole north of our North Pole.

The killing of the pigeons is done differently from the killing of the other animals. Now it is the priest who kills the bird by wringing off its head. If the man who brings the sacrifice would kill the birds, the problem would be to catch the blood and sprinkle it on the altar. The blood of the bird would spout all over and could not be caught in a bowl. The tearing open of the wings seems a senseless act. If the bird were still alive, this would be an inhuman cruelty. There the priest does it after the animal is dead. The severing of the wings symbolizes the act of complete surrender. The bird gives up its right to open its wings and fly, so to speak. In the same way, the man who sacrifices the bird gives up his soul so it will no longer be able to soar. It means death in its most complete form. The tearing of the wings is a symbolic substitution of the surrender to God of that which is of the most vital value to man.

Now, what does all this mean? We said already that the burnt offering was God's first picture of the cross of Christ. It represents that aspect of the sacrifice of our Lord which is closest to the heart of the Father. It is the image of "the Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world."
[ 8 ] The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews speaks about "the blood of the eternal covenant.[ 9 ] Evidently, before the creation of the world, there was an agreement between the Father and the Son; the Son promised complete surrender to the Father, even before anything was created. The Father promised complete renewal following this act of surrender. That is why the verse reads: "May the God of peace, who through the blood of the eternal covenant brought back from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great Shepherd of the sheep, equip you with everything good for doing his will, and may he work in us what is pleasing to him, through Jesus Christ, to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen."[ 10 ] We know how this was acted out on our planet. The death and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ is the outcome of this covenant. His act of complete surrender to the Father was the ultimate expression of love. The essence of the covenant, as it was made in Heaven, was spiritual. The death at Golgotha was the physical expression.

Jesus' death on the cross was, first of all, a surrender in love of the Son to the Father: of God to God. This level of surrender to God is inaccessible to us. Yet, the burnt offering involves us in this aspect of Jesus' death. The apostle Paul makes this point in his exhortation in Eph. 5:1-2, where he says: "Be imitators of God, therefore, as dearly loved children and live a life of love, just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God." The burnt offering expresses a divine principle of the giving of one's life for someone else in the Name of Christ. It is a statement of God's eternal love which can only become our part by the filling of the Holy Spirit.

It is obvious that this burnt offering has nothing to do with sin, or even with our human nature. It is a purely divine affair. The human element in it is that Jesus Christ fulfilled the divine terms of the covenant in His human body in His death on the cross, and He saw the divine promise fulfilled in His own resurrection. As far as the Father is concerned, the cross, in the first place, is a symbol of the love of His Son. The only way we can partake in the burnt offering is if we partake in the divine nature. The burnt offering is the greatest gift we can ever present to God; it is the only sacrifice of which no man can eat. It is exclusively for the Lord. David says: "May he remember all your sacrifices and accept your burnt offerings."
[ 11 ]

The law of the burnt offering was not new. Even before it became part of the Israelite worship service in Sinai and the desert-journey, it had been an existing sacrifice. Noah is the first person mentioned to bring a burnt Offering.
[ 12 ] Later Abraham was going to sacrifice Isaac as a burnt Offering.[ 13 ] And the Israelites asked Pharaoh's permission to go into the desert to bring burnt offerings. It is possible that the term "burnt offering" is sometimes used as a general word and that it stands for everything that is sacrificed to God.

The Hebrew word is `olah , which, according to Strong's Definitions means: "a step or (collectively, stairs, as ascending); usually a holocaust (as going up in smoke): " The KJV translates it with "ascent, burnt offering (sacrifice), go up to."


[ 1 ] Ex. 33:7-11

[ 2 ] Ex. 33:7-11

[ 3 ] Rev 13:8

[ 4 ] II Cor. 5:21

[ 5 ] Ex.40:22

[ 6 ] Isa. 14:13

[ 7 ] Ezek. 1:4

[ 8 ] Rev. 13:8

[ 9 ] Heb. 13:20

[ 10 ] Heb. 13:20,21

[ 11 ] Ps. 20:3

[ 12 ] See Gen. 8:20

[ 13 ] See Gen. 22

Copyright (c) 1999, 2000
E-sst, LLC
All Rights Reserved
Please see the License at Copyrights for restrictions and limitations
Note: Copyright does not apply to KJV text.


Table of Contents
Copyrights