Leviticus 22:29-33 & Concluding Notes

 "29 And when ye will offer a sacrifice of thanksgiving unto the LORD, offer it at your own will. 30 On the same day it shall be eaten up; ye shall leave none of it until the morrow: I am the LORD. 31 Therefore shall ye keep my commandments, and do them: I am the LORD. 32 Neither shall ye profane my holy name; but I will be hallowed among the children of Israel: I am the LORD which hallow you, 33 That brought you out of the land of Egypt, to be your God: I am the LORD." — Leviticus 22:29-33 KJV.

MISCELLANEOUS PRECEPTS REITERATED, 29-33.

29. A sacrifice of thanksgiving — See Leviticus 7:12-15, notes. At your own will — For your own acceptance. See verse 19, note.

30. On the same day it shall be eaten — Murphy wisely remarks: “Thanksgiving and parsimony do not go well together. To reserve any part of the thank-offering when there may be hungry mouths ready to partake of it would savour more of parsimony than of praise.” I am the Lord — The bountiful Giver ordains a thank-offering, to be conducted in harmony with his character. “Freely ye have received, freely give.”

Leviticus 17:1-9 - Blood (Part 1).

"1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 2 Speak unto Aaron, and unto his sons, and unto all the children of Israel, and say unto them; This is the thing which the LORD hath commanded, saying, 3 What man soever there be of the house of Israel, that killeth an ox, or lamb, or goat, in the camp, or that killeth it out of the camp, 4 And bringeth it not unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, to offer an offering unto the LORD before the tabernacle of the LORD; blood shall be imputed unto that man; he hath shed blood; and that man shall be cut off from among his people: 5 To the end that the children of Israel may bring their sacrifices, which they offer in the open field, even that they may bring them unto the LORD, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, unto the priest, and offer them for peace offerings unto the LORD. 6 And the priest shall sprinkle the blood upon the altar of the LORD at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, and burn the fat for a sweet savour unto the LORD. 7 And they shall no more offer their sacrifices unto devils, after whom they have gone a whoring. This shall be a statute for ever unto them throughout their generations. 8 And thou shalt say unto them, Whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers which sojourn among you, that offereth a burnt offering or sacrifice, 9 And bringeth it not unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, to offer it unto the LORD; even that man shall be cut off from among his people."  Leviticus 17:1-9 KJV. 

THE SACREDNESS OF BLOOD.

Since blood is the only means of atonement, it becomes important to impress upon the Hebrew mind not only the sacredness of the blood of the victims slain in sacrifice, but of the shed blood of all beasts and birds. Hence, when the sacrificial animals are slain for food, they must be killed at the door of the tabernacle, (1-6.) Sacrifices to demons are forbidden, (7-9,) and all blood eating, (10-16.)

THE PLACE OF SLAYING DOMESTIC ANIMALS FOR FOOD, 1-6.

Leviticus 6:14-30

"14 And this is the law of the meat offering: the sons of Aaron shall offer it before the LORD, before the altar. 15 And he shall take of it his handful, of the flour of the meat offering, and of the oil thereof, and all the frankincense which is upon the meat offering, and shall burn it upon the altar for a sweet savour, even the memorial of it, unto the LORD. 16 And the remainder thereof shall Aaron and his sons eat: with unleavened bread shall it be eaten in the holy place; in the court of the tabernacle of the congregation they shall eat it. 17 It shall not be baken with leaven. I have given it unto them for their portion of my offerings made by fire; it is most holy, as is the sin offering, and as the trespass offering. 18 All the males among the children of Aaron shall eat of it. It shall be a statute for ever in your generations concerning the offerings of the LORD made by fire: every one that toucheth them shall be holy. 19 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 20 This is the offering of Aaron and of his sons, which they shall offer unto the LORD in the day when he is anointed; the tenth part of an ephah of fine flour for a meat offering perpetual, half of it in the morning, and half thereof at night. 21 In a pan it shall be made with oil; and when it is baken, thou shalt bring it in: and the baken pieces of the meat offering shalt thou offer for a sweet savour unto the LORD. 22 And the priest of his sons that is anointed in his stead shall offer it: it is a statute for ever unto the LORD; it shall be wholly burnt. 23 For every meat offering for the priest shall be wholly burnt: it shall not be eaten. 24 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 25 Speak unto Aaron and to his sons, saying, This is the law of the sin offering: In the place where the burnt offering is killed shall the sin offering be killed before the LORD: it is most holy. 26 The priest that offereth it for sin shall eat it: in the holy place shall it be eaten, in the court of the tabernacle of the congregation. 27 Whatsoever shall touch the flesh thereof shall be holy: and when there is sprinkled of the blood thereof upon any garment, thou shalt wash that whereon it was sprinkled in the holy place. 28 But the earthen vessel wherein it is sodden shall be broken: and if it be sodden in a brasen pot, it shall be both scoured, and rinsed in water. 29 All the males among the priests shall eat thereof: it is most holy. 30 And no sin offering, whereof any of the blood is brought into the tabernacle of the congregation to reconcile withal in the holy place, shall be eaten: it shall be burnt in the fire." — Leviticus 6:14-30 KJV.

14. The meat offering — See Leviticus 2:1, note.

16. The remainder… shall Aaron and his sons eat — The reason of this requirement is “because it is most holy.” For a discussion of the question whether the priests were able to eat all the most holy things commanded them, see Concluding Note, chap. 7.

17. Not be baken with leaven — See Leviticus 2:4, note.

18. Statute for ever — Chap. 17, note. Every one that toucheth them shall be holy — This applies to persons and to things. The priest is forbidden to eat these oblations while ceremonially defiled, and the sacred utensils brought in contact with them must not be put to any secular use. Every layman who touched the most holy things became holy through contact, so that he must henceforth guard against defilement as scrupulously as the priests, but without their rights and prerogatives. This placed him in an awkward relation to secular things.

20. The offering of Aaron — Aaron, at his induction into the high priest’s office, and, according to Josephus, on every day of his continuance therein, and his successors, as we here interpret the words his sons, must offer three quarts of fine flour, half in the morning and half at night, as an oblation appropriate to the high priesthood. In the day — Some understand this to be only a consecratory oblation limited to one day; but those who credit the testimony of Josephus construe these words to signify from the day, or day by day.

21. In a pan… with oil — See Leviticus 2:5.

22. The priest of his sons — This justifies our note on verse 20, limiting the expression “his sons” to Aaron’s successors in the office of high priest as heads of the hierarchy. They had no technical designation in the Pentateuch — the word גָּד֨וֹל (gadhol), great, Leviticus 21:10, is not yet wholly technical — but were defined by the definite article the and the following relative clause. That is anointed — In the books subsequent to the Pentateuch we find the high priest indicated by the Hebrew words for great, or head. All the priests were anointed, but the high priest received a more copious unction. Leviticus 16:32; Psalm 133:1.

23. Wholly burnt… not be eaten — Since it was a thank offering to Jehovah it would be improper for the priest to eat it. To appropriate it to himself after presenting it to the Lord would destroy the vital element of sacrifice, self-denial. This law applies to all offerings of the priest, especially to his sin offering, the eating of which would imply that he could atone for his own sins, and that he had no need of a substitute prefiguring “the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.” The sin offering for a private individual or for a prince was to be eaten by the priesthood. That for the whole nation, since the priests were included, could not be eaten.

25. Sin offering — See Leviticus 4, notes. Before the Lord — See Leviticus 1:3, note. It is most holy — Literally, it is holiness of holinesses; a strong form of Hebrew superlative. See Leviticus 2:3, note.

26. The priest… shall eat — God required the priests to eat the flesh in order that they might “bear (away, or expiate) the iniquity of the congregation, to make atonement for them.” Leviticus 10:17. Eating symbolizes the complete reception of any thing. Jeremiah 15:16; John 6:51. Hence the priests, as God’s representatives, by their incorporation with the sin offering gave assurance of the completeness of the reconciliation, and demonstrated that the sacrifice which entirely removes guilt, is converted even into the nutriment of the holiest life. Jesus is both our propitiation and our bread of life. That offereth it for sin — Or expiates sin by it. The word expiates sin, in the Hebrew, is from the same radicals with sin offering. See 2 Corinthians 5:21.

27. Whatsoever shall touch the flesh thereof — Of this “most holy” sacrifice. No one but a consecrated person was knowingly allowed “to touch” or handle the offering. Shall be holy — Be deemed devoted to God’s service. When there is sprinkled upon any garment — Not intentionally, but accidentally, in the slaying of the sacrifice or otherwise. So sacred was the blood of the sin offering that not a drop was to be treated as common. Thou shalt wash… in the holy place — So that nothing connected with, or any wise belonging to, this holy service should be contaminated by contact with unsanctified persons or things. “As the sin offering in special sort figured Christ, who was made sin for us, (2 Corinthians 5:21,) so this ordinance taught a holy use of the mystery of our redemption.” The sacredness which was deemed to appertain to “the blood” of this most holy offering is strikingly typical of that most “precious blood” of our great sacrificial Victim of which Peter speaks in his epistle. 1 Peter 1:18, 19.

30. Blood… brought into the tabernacle — This refers to the sin offerings for the high priest and for the whole congregation, Leviticus 4:5, 16, the blood of which was brought into the tabernacle and the bodies burnt without the camp. The complete propitiation symbolized by the sprinkled blood and the flesh eaten by the priest could not be effected under the Levitical dispensation. When the flesh was eaten, the blood-sprinkling within the tabernacle was lacking; and when the blood was thus sacrificially treated, eating the flesh was prohibited. For the imperfection in the Old Testament remission of sins, see The Temporal and Spiritual Benefits of the Levitical Sacrifices. Jesus Christ made a complete atonement, having carried his blood into the holy place, “the true tabernacle,” and given his flesh to be the bread of eternal life to all believers. John 6:32-58.

CONCLUDING NOTES.

(1.) Modern scepticism finds a difficulty in that portion of the ritual of the altar which requires that the priest should eat in the sanctuary those sacrifices pronounced “most holy.” They were of eight kinds: (1.) The flesh of the sin offering for private individuals and princes. Leviticus 6:25, 26. (2.) The flesh of the trespass offering. Leviticus 7:1-6. (3.) The peace offering of the whole congregation. Leviticus 23:19, 20. (4.) The remainder of the sheaf. Leviticus 23:10. (5.) The remnant of the meat offering. Leviticus 6:16. (6.) The two loaves. Leviticus 23:17. (7.) The show-bread. Leviticus 24:9. (8.) The log of oil offered by the leper. Leviticus 14:10. There were at least fifteen other sources of revenue; some to be eaten by the priest’s family and others which might be sold. The chief difficulty arises from the offerings to be eaten by the males only while they were very few in number, Aaron, his two sons, three in all, as Colenso assumes. The following considerations may throw some light upon this subject: (1.) In the natural order of events Aaron, the older brother of Moses, would have had grandsons when he was approaching ninety years. These, though not consecrated priests, were permitted to eat the most holy things. Leviticus 7:6. (2.) The sacrifices were probably very infrequent till after the conquest of Canaan. Some writers infer from Amos 5:25, 26, the omission of all legal sacrifices in the wilderness. (3.) There is positive proof that the Levites, numbering more than eight thousand, (Numbers 4:48,) did eat of the fire-sacrifices, by some broad construction of the law. Joshua 13:14. Possibly the tasting of each sacrifice by the priest, and its assignment to the Levites on guard about the tabernacle, was a constructive priestly eating of the offerings. (4.) It seems to have been overlooked by all the objectors that “the children of Israel eat not of the sinew which shrank,” (Genesis 32:32,) and that the modern Jews not knowing what sinew this was, nor even which thigh was dislocated, judge it obligatory upon them to abstain from both the hind-quarters, the largest portion of the animal. It is reasonable to suppose that the modern Israelites are copying the practice of their fathers in the days of Moses, which, by virtue of its traditional authority, did not need to be enforced by a positive statute. These suggestions, while they do not entirely remove all objections, very much alleviate the difficulties of this subject.

(2.) A careful study of the law of sacrifices, in which provisions so ample are made for those who minister about holy things, would enforce upon the Christian Church the duty of affording an adequate support to the Gospel ministry, in accordance with St. Paul’s argument in 1 Corinthians 9:7-14, showing that in this particular Judaism was an exemplar to Christianity.

Concluding Notes on Leviticus Chapter 1

( 1.) It will be observed that in each of these burnt offerings there are very minute directions given respecting the manner of proceeding, but in the last two the most important item, the atonement, is omitted. Hence our inference that only the first was distinctly expiatory seems to be legitimate. But this involves the following difficulty: Only the most costly offering availed for the forgiveness of sins, and hence the poor man is left unforgiven. This compromises the Divine character, implying that he is a respecter of the persons of the rich. This cannot be admitted for a moment. The only other explanation is, that the expiatory character of the last two is to be inferred from the first, or, that burnt offerings from Abel down to Moses were always understood to be expiatory. For an extended discussion see Pre-Sinaitic Sacrifices (Part 1),  Pre-Sinaitic Sacrifices (Part 2), and Pre-Sinaitic Sacrifices (Part 3).

(2.) The private whole burnt offering was offered on the following occasions: 1.) At the consecration of priests, (Leviticus 8:18; 9:12.) 2.) At the purification of women, (Leviticus 12:6-8.) 3.) At the cleansing of lepers, (Leviticus 14:19.) 4.) At the removal of other ceremonial uncleanness, (Leviticus 15:15, 30.) 5.) At an inadvertent breach of the Nazarite’s vow, or at its end. Numbers 6:11, 14 and Acts 21:26. Free will burnt offerings were accepted by God on any solemn occasion. The public occasions were: 1.) The daily morning and evening sacrifice of a lamb. 2.) The same, doubled, on the Sabbath, so that sixteen lambs were offered each week in the regular service. 3.) At the new moons, the three great festivals, the great day of atonement, and the feast of trumpets; generally two bullocks, a ram, and seven lambs. The entire number of animals required for all these public burnt offerings was more than a thousand annually.

Leviticus 1:7-17

"And the sons of Aaron the priest shall put fire upon the altar, and lay the wood in order upon the fire: 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: 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. 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. 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. 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: But he shall wash the inwards and the legs with water: and the priest shall bring it all, and burn it upon the altar: it is a burnt sacrifice, an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the LORD. 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. 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: 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: 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." — Leviticus 1:7-17 KJV.

7. Put fire upon the altar — So long as the altar was stationary the fire was never to go out. See Leviticus 6:13. When the altar was transported, the fire was probably carried in a censer and put on the altar in its new location. See Numbers 4:16. 

 Lay the wood — Such a ritual could not be executed in the dessert of Sahara. Wood still abounds in the Sinaitic Peninsula, and charcoal has for centuries been the chief article of export. 

 In order — The sacrifice was to be made with decency and deliberation. 

 8. Shall lay the parts — The victim was to be cut in pieces to facilitate the burning. Since the whole burnt offering symbolizes complete self-consecration, the pieces may typify that dedication of self in detail, which eminent saints assure us insures the more perfect work of the fire Divine in the person of the Sanctifier. “Yield… your members as instruments of righteousness unto God.” See Romans 6:13. 9. 

His inwards — The intestines, because they contained impurities, could not be burned until they had first been cleansed. According to Maimonides the ablution was three times repeated. Thus there is strikingly set forth that inward holiness required by God of all his people, and the provision made for its attainment in the washing of regeneration and the renewing of the Holy Ghost. “I will put my law in their inwards, and write it in their hearts.” Jeremiah 31:33. “Having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience.” Hebrews 10:22. 

And his legs — The lower parts, below the knees, having contracted defilements in walking, were unfit to lay upon the altar until cleansed. “Lord, not my feet only.” — Peter. 

All on the altar — Of most of the other offerings a portion might be given to the Lord in the persons of his priests, and a part might be given back to the offerer to share with his friends, (Leviticus 7:15;) but the burnt offering must all lie upon the altar till the fire has changed it into an odour of sweet smell, and wafted it, on the curling smoke, to heaven. The spiritual import of this self-dedicatory sacrifice is obvious. If we would obtain a thorough and pervasive holiness through all our collective powers and parts, we must, without mental reservation, surrender ourselves entirely unto the God of peace till, through the Holy Ghost, he sanctifies us wholly. Romans 12:1; 1 Thessalonians 5:23. 

An offering made by fire — The term אִשֵּׁ֛ה (ishsheh) is generic of every kind of sacrifice by fire, and once even where no fire is used except for baking. Leviticus 24:7, 9. 

A sweet savour unto the Lord — The anthropomorphism so clearly implied here is scarcely to be avoided. It is impossible for us to form a conception of pure spirit. Hence our ideas naturally clothe themselves in material forms, and we think of Jehovah as a man whose nostrils are regaled with the delicious odours diffused through the air. Stripped of its impressive imagery, and expressed in the cold phrase of modern philosophy, the Orientalism becomes this: God receives with delight every true act of worship. 

10, 11. Offering… of the flocks — The burnt offering of a sheep or goat differed from that of the herd in these particulars: — The sheep was to be killed on the side of the altar northward, for reasons not assigned: the impressive ceremony of laying the hand upon the head of the victim is absent; and also the declaration that it shall be accepted for an atonement. Hence we infer that either this offering, as well as that which follows, was not expiatory, or that the peculiar nature of the burnt offering was well understood. See Concluding Note, (1.)

14. Offering… of fowls — In a descending scale Jehovah adjusts his requirements to the ability of the offerer, from a bull to a pigeon.

Turtledoves — These are first spoken of as appropriate for sacrifice in Genesis 15:9, where Abram is commanded to offer one, together with a young pigeon, in addition to larger sacrifices. The admission of a pair of turtledoves for a burnt offering is a step of condescension lower than the concession of the young pigeons, since the former are not property, not being domesticated. For the practicability of the sacrifice of the turtledove in the wilderness see Introduction, (4.) For a few months in winter this bird was absent from Palestine seeking a warmer climate. Hence “the voice of the turtle in the land” (Song of Solomon 2:12) was the grateful sign of spring. Thus the poor could bring their tame pigeons, and the poorest, with a little effort, might capture and offer to the Lord a pair of turtledoves, an offering eminently appropriate on account of their imagined fidelity and devotion to each other, which might be taken as symbolizing devotion to God. 

Young pigeons — These are too well known to require description. This offering was always possible. See The Sacrificial Animals. 

Wring off his head — Rather, pinch it off and lay it on the altar. The blood was then to be pressed out at the side of the altar. 

16. Crop with his feathers — The Hebrew may be so rendered, but in the estimation of the best scholars it does not here signify feathers, but filth in the crop and connected viscera. 

Place of the ashes — Rather, fat-ashes. The indestructible portions of the offering were to be taken from the altar and placed on the east side till they were removed without the camp. Chap. 6:11.

17. Cleave it with the wings — The breast bone was to be split and the body laid open, so that there would be a wing on each side; but the halves were not to be completely separated from each other.

The Temporal and Spiritual Benefits of the Levitical Sacrifices

We propound a question of more than ordinary interest when we inquire into the precise benefit which accrued to the devout Hebrew from his faithful observance of the law of offerings. The answer to this inquiry will elucidate the important question of the nature and extent of the blessing promised to the believer in Jesus Christ, who presents him to the Father as his great sin offering. The moral delinquencies of man are of two kinds — offenses against society, which are called crimes, and are punishable with temporal penalties, and offenses purely spiritual, or sins, which await the fires of the judgment day. The Levitical law added, also, ceremonial offenses or impurities. Under the theocracy this distinction is in a measure lost, the different kinds of offenses being blended together and treated as sins. The first benefit to the sincere offerer was exemption from the temporal punishment of death. Yet all crimes could not be so expiated as to escape judicial death. Offenses which disorganize and destroy society — murder, adultery, and cursing of parents, and sins especially offensive to God, as profanation of his holy day and blasphemy of his holy name were beyond the efficacy of the sacrifices as to their power to screen the guilty from physical death. But minor offenses — usually punished by the civil magistrate — if freely confessed with all possible restitution, together with ceremonial impurities, found an exemption from death in the blood sprinkled on the altar. But what did those blood sprinklings and those blazing altars do for guilty souls? Did they relieve the burdened conscience, effecting exactly such a change as penitent believers in Christ now experience in the pardon of their sins and the witness of the Spirit of adoption? There are several answers. First, that there was to the sincere Hebrew the same subjective phenomena as now attend justification by faith; the same conscious relief; and the same joy in the assurance of reconciliation: not flowing from the blood of the victim, but from the blood of its great Antitype appropriated by an anticipatory faith. But the insuperable objection to this is, that there is not in the Pentateuch the first hint of the Lamb of God, the reality of which the victim bleeding on the Hebrew altar is but the shadow. Hence there is no ground laid for faith to build upon in any objective revelation of the Sacrifice to be offered on Calvary. The second view seems to be endorsed by Origen, Theodoret, Erasmus, and Luther, in their explanation of the term ἱλαστήριον in Romans 3:25. It is, that there was in the blood of animals slain in sacrifice by Divine appointment an inherent efficacy to take away the sins of the devout offerer, without any apprehension by faith of the Heaven-appointed Victim yet to pour out his blood. "As the lid of the ark of the covenant, when sprinkled with blood, imparted to the Israelite a firm confidence of the forgiveness of his sins, in like manner the Saviour, and especially his death, is the security for our redemption to which we may believingly look." To the same conclusion Bonar comes. "The sin passes away; it is an instantaneous, complete, perpetual pardon."

THE PRETERMISSION OF SINS.

The third view is based on the explicit statements of Divine inspiration. The writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews reiterates, in various phrases, the declaration that the blood of bulls and of goats cannot take away sins. Hebrews 10:4. Between this assertion and the assurance given by Jehovah that "the priest shall make atonement for him, and it shall be forgiven him," (Leviticus 6:7,) we have a seeming contradiction, of which the best explanation is afforded by St. Paul, who, in explaining the ἱλαστήριον, is very careful to say that "Christ Jesus is set forth to be 'the propitiation,' 'the mercy seat,' through faith in his blood, to declare his (God's) righteousness for the passing over (πάρεσις, the pretermission) of sins that are past (in ages gone) through the forbearance of God." The doctrine of St. Paul is, that the atoning death of Jesus justifies God, by removing his seeming low estimate of sin, or indifference towards it, in passing over and forbearing to punish the sins of penitent, blood-offering Hebrews in past ages. See on Romans 3:25, also Alford and Bengel. The latter says, that "pretermission, (forgiveness,) in the Old Testament, had respect to transgressions until (ἀπολύτρωσιν) redemption of them was accomplished in the death of Christ. Hebrews 9:15. The objects of pretermission are sins; the object of forbearance are sinners." Says Alford, "Where sins are continually called to mind, there, clearly, the conscience is not clear from them. Very similar is the assertion of Ebrard, when speaking of the blood of bulls as incapable of taking away sins: 'It was shed, not as the instrument of complete vicarious propitiation, but as an exhibition of the postulate [assumed need] of vicarious propitiation.'" How far this pretermission of sins applies to pious pagans is a question beyond the range of our present inquiry. See on Acts 17:30. Respecting the emotional experience attending sacrificial forgiveness as thus explained, we have no explicit statements in the Scriptures. But from such expressions as the testimony that his ways "pleased God," given to Enoch, (Hebrews 11:5;) "blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven," (Psalm 32:1); "the secret of the Lord is with them that fear him," (Psalm 25:14); and from the joy that rings out its hallelujahs through the Psalms, we infer that the Holy Spirit, though not yet doing his official work as the Paraclete, the Spirit of adoption, was by his essential presence assuring obedient Israelites of the gracious forbearance of Jehovah towards them in passing over their sins. This implies that the sacrifices were not offered as a dead opus operatum, or mechanical and soulless performance, but with that devout and penitent state of heart which alone can appropriate spiritual good. When this was absent the "vain oblations" of apostate Israel became "an abomination" (Isaiah 1:11-15) to Jehovah, and he proclaims to the sinning nation, "I desired mercy (philanthropy and justice) and not (mere) sacrifice." Hosea 6:6.

The Ceremonial Function of the Blood

The most cursory reader of [Leviticus] must be impressed with the prominence that is given to the shedding of blood, and to the vast amount of blood which must have been poured out in the service of the tabernacle and temple, making them perpetually reek with streams of gore, like a slaughter-house whose floor is ever crimsoned by the ceaseless work of death.

The directions for the treatment of the blood are very minute and often repeated. It was the centre of the whole system of sacrificial rites. There must be some deep significance in this stream of blood flowing ever fresh through all the Hebrew worship. It is found in Leviticus 17:11, correctly translated, "For the life (נֶפֶשׁ, nephesh) of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that maketh an atonement by means of the life. (בַּנֶּפֶשׁ, banephesh.) In Genesis 2:7, we find that the immaterial principle breathed by Jehovah Elohim into the nostrils of the dust-made statue, constituting it a living soul, is this נֶפֶשׁ (nephesh). Here we find the importance attached to the blood. The blood is the נֶפֶשׁ (nephesh), and the human soul is the נֶפֶשׁ (nephesh). The substitutional atonement, נֶפֶשׁ (nephesh) for נֶפֶשׁ (nephesh), irrational soul for rational soul, is inevitable in the scheme of human redemption. In the treatment of the blood it was required to be sprinkled or spilled from the vessel, and cast abroad around the altar, to be scattered in drops by means of a bunch of hyssop, to be smeared with the finger upon the horns of the altar, not, as one fancifully suggests, because the horns were the highest part of the altar, and nearest to heaven, but because it was the refuge of the accidental man-slayer (Exodus 21:14,) and in clinging to the horns he must lay hold of blood. 1 Kings I:50; 2:28. Finally, the remainder was to be poured out at the base of the great altar, from which, in the temple of Solomon, there were sewers to conduct it away into the brook Kedron. There must have been something like this in the tabernacle in the wilderness, since, in addition to the sacrifices, every animal slain for food in or near the camp was to be slain at the door of the tabernacle.

The emphatic and reiterated prohibition of eating blood is expressly founded on the declaration that it is the נֶפֶשׁ (nephesh), or animal soul. Leviticus 17:10, 11. So deeply was this interdict engraven on the heart of the Jews, that even the first Christian council in Jerusalem classify it with the violation of the law of purity contained in the seventh commandment. Acts 15:29.

The Order of the Levitical Sacrifices

At the first view there seems to be no prescribed order in which these different kinds of oblations are to be offered to Jehovah. There is a prevalent, yet erroneous, idea that this was left wholly to the option or caprice of the worshipper. But a more careful inspection discloses two key-texts which open the question of the order. 

The first is found in Leviticus 5:6, 7, where the law directs that the poor man may bring two fowls instead of a lamb or a kid; one for a sin offering, and the other for a burnt offering. The priest is explicitly directed to offer the sin offering first, and then the burnt offering. 

The second key-text is still more valuable, inasmuch as it opens to us the order of the three classes of offerings. It is found in chap. 8 — the order of offerings at the consecration of Aaron and his sons; the sin offering, the whole burnt offering, and the ram of consecration, which answers to the peace offering. 

In other words, the conscience of the offerer was first to be ceremonially purged from sin to render him acceptable to God before he could dedicate his entire being to him. After this the self-consecratory burnt offering is in order; then the peace offering or the meat offering may be presented, as a medium of communion with Jehovah, who gives the largest part of the peace offering back to be eaten by the offerer and his friends in a joyful sacrificial feast. The beautiful correspondence of these offerings, in this order, to justification, sanctification, the communion of the Holy Ghost, and the communion of saints, will be pointed out in the notes.

It is remarkable that both these key-texts should have escaped the keen eye of Keil, who says that these laws "contain no rules respecting the order in which they were to follow one another, when two or more sacrifices were offered together."

The Sacrificial Animals in Leviticus

No small proof of the Divine origin of this sacrificial system is found in the kinds of animals prescribed for the altar. They were domestic, with the exception of the turtledove, which may be styled semi-domestic. This requirement involves two important elements of sacrifice: — that of property, and of affection. Wild animals are unappropriated. No man claims them as his peculiar possession. Hence Jehovah did not appoint for his altar even such wild animals as he pronounced clean. In the Orient there was a familiarity with his flock on the part of the shepherd-owner which amounted to tenderness and love. He individualized his flock and called each sheep by name. In the case of poor men the flock was often folded beneath the same tent or roof with his children, and the lambs were family pets. Nathan, in his reproof of David, spake of no unusual circumstance when he described the little ewe lamb which grew up with the children of the poor man, eating of his own meat, and drinking of his own cup, lying in his bosom, and which was unto him as a daughter. 2 Samuel 12:3. Hence when a Hebrew led a lamb or a kid to the tabernacle or the temple, he laid more than its money value upon the altar: the affections of his heart and of his family gave to the lamb a multiplied value in the eyes of Jehovah. We who are familiar only with the customs of western nations think of an animal given to sacrifice as one taken at random from a drove of ten thousand grazing on the pasturage of the wilderness, or on the hills of Bashan. Again, the animal must be clean, and hence all the more valuable to the owner, because it was the means of life — next in value to life itself. No swine's blood could atone for sin or be a thank offering pleasing to Jehovah, although the proud and polished Athenians crowding the Pnyx to legislate for the Demos would enter upon no business until pigs' blood had lustrated the place.

None but clean herbivorous and graminivorous animals were acceptable to Jehovah. These symbolize innocency of heart, a quality required in all acceptable worship; while the carnivorous animals, living by destroying the lives of other animals, and fitly representing the spirit of fraud, robbery, and oppression among men, were appropriately forbidden for sacrifice. Another reason for this prohibition was, that no portion of an unclean animal could be appropriated to the priest; nor could the offering be bestowed upon the offerer, to be eaten by him and his friends, as in the peace offering. Moreover, the animals prescribed for the altar are prophetic of the future occupation of the people. Until the sacrifice of the Lamb of God for the sins of the world they will always be a pastoral and agricultural nation. Though living on the seacoast, they will never, so long as their ritual retains its significance, abandon the fields and become sailors. Though the great lines of traffic from Egypt and Greece pass through Canaan to Arabia and India, the Israelites will never, while residents of their own land, become a mercantile nation. Though Tyre, and Sidon, and Damascus, close upon their borders, may enrich themselves by manufactures, the religion of the Hebrew will give an agricultural cast to the nation so long as it continues to slaughter bullocks, sheep, and goats on Mount Moriah. The census of modern nations among which Jews are scattered, shows that scarcely one is engaged in tilling the soil or in the care of flocks, Since there is no need of sacrificial animals to prefigure the Lamb of God, the tastes of the whole nation have been changed from bucolics to banking and brokerage, from olive-yards to pack-peddling, throughout the world. How curious, and yet cogent, this incidental proof that the Jew now needs no other sacrifice for sin than that made on Calvary.

The turtle-dove, prescribed for the offering of the poor man, is found in amazing numbers wherever the palm-tree flourishes, every tree being a home for two or three pairs of these elegant, semi-domestic birds. A recent traveller testifies that he has frequently, in a palm-grove, brought down ten braces or more without moving from his post. We adduce this witness to answer the objection that this requirement for sacrifice could not be met by the Israelites in the wilderness. The pigeon is to this day domesticated in the East in enormous numbers. They are kept in dovecots in all the towns and hamlets of Palestine. Before King Solomon imported gallinaceous fowls from India, they were probably the only domestic poultry known to the Hebrews. The only difficulty is in the supply of pigeons in the wilderness. It has been asserted that there was no such supply unless we suppose that the Israelites fled from Egypt with dove-cages in their hands. There is nothing absurd in this supposition. The declaration of Moses, "there shall not a hoof be left behind," is only another expression for the assurance that all their property should be brought with them out of Egypt. Exodus 10:26. The doves were the property of the poor as much as the herds and flocks were the wealth of the affluent.

The Classification of Levitical Sacrifices

With respect to their origin, sacrifices may be classified thus:

TRADITIONAL.
Burnt offerings.
Meat offerings.
Peace offerings.

LAW-CREATED.
Sin offerings.
Trespass offerings.

With respect to the material of the offerings, they are thus classified:

ANIMAL.
Burnt offerings.
Peace offerings.
Sin offerings.
Trespass offerings.

VEGETABLE.
Meat or Food offerings for the altar
Incense and Meat or Food offerings in the holy place
Wine of the drink offering.

As expressing the feelings of the offerer, the sacrifices fall into the following classes:­

FOR THE RELIEF OF THE CONSCIENCE FROM A SENSE OF GUILT:
Sin offering.
Trespass offering.
Burnt offering. [Post-Mosaic and probably ante-Mosaic.]

SELF-CONSECRATION
Burnt offering.
Meat offering

THANKSGIVING AND COMMUNION.
Meat offering
Peace offering.

INTERCESSION
Incense.

In addition to these general sacrifices, others of a personal and special character were required in peculiar circumstances, such as for vows fulfilled, for purification from ceremonial uncleanness, for consecration to the priesthood, and for the healed leper. These, being too divergent in their nature to be grouped together and described in general terms, will be treated of in the commentary. The heave, wave, thank, and free-will offerings are subordinate to the principal sacrifices.

An inspection of the first three chapters will convince the reader that the altar sacrifices therein described are spoken of as already well known to the Hebrews. The three which we have called traditional were all probably known to the patriarchs. We find no record of offerings made by the Israelites in Egypt. The request of Moses to Pharaoh for permission to go out of the land to offer sacrifice without giving offence to the religious scruples of the Egyptians (Exodus 8:26) seems to imply, that, except in a furtive way, animal sacrifices had not been offered by Israel in Egypt. But the recollection of them had been cherished. Hence we call these "traditional" in distinction from the two "law-created" sacrifices — the sin and trespass offerings.

Levitical Offerings Described

In the Levitical ritual there are various offerings prescribed, each expressed by its appropriate term. In addition there are general terms including all offerings. Of the latter are the קָרְבָּ֖ן, korban, from a verb signifying to approach. As no inferior could approach a superior to ask a favour or to do obeisance without a gift in his hand, this gift of access was called korban. It includes all offerings, bloody and bloodless; all altar and non-altar oblations. For the abuse of this term by an ungrateful son, shirking the support of his parents, see note on Matthew 15:5.

Another term, general in its primary use but specific afterwards, is the  מִנְחָה , mincha, from an old verb signifying to give. Originally it was used to express any gift, from man to man (Genesis 32:13) or man to God. Its specific meaning, especially when joined with korban, is meat offering, or food offering; in the Mosaic law, always bloodless.

The  זֶבַח , zebach, from the verb to slaughter animals, especially in sacrifice, always signifies a bleeding victim; the blood being the central and essential idea. By prefixing a letter to the same word the term altar was made, signifying, primarily, “killing place.” It is natural to connect the notion of expiation with this offering.

The term אִשֶּׁה , ishsheh, is also generic, including all fire-made offerings, and once the show bread, (fire baked.) Leviticus 24:7. It is used also to signify every kind of sacrifice and offering.

The special terms for sacrifices are the following: —

The  עֹלָה , olah, the whole burnt offering, in Greek generally ὁλοκαύτωμα, holocaust, derives its name from going up, first upon the altar, and then to heaven in the smoke. It was always bloody, the entire animal, except the sprinkled blood, being consumed by the fire.

The  שֶׁלֶם , shelem, is the peace offering, or thank offering. It is frequently joined with zebach, and then literally signifies a victim of requitals, or a slain offering of peace. It was always bloody.

The חַטָּאת , chattath, is the sin offering. It is a law-created and bloody sacrifice to relieve the conscience from a sense of guilt. Its primary meaning is sin, ἁμαρτία. Its secondary signification is sin offering. 2 Corinthians 5:21. In the prophets it is used to signify punishment.

The אָשָׁם , asham, is the trespass offering, law-created for particular faults or sins enumerated in the law. Gesenius says that the precise point of difference between the last two has hitherto been sought in vain. The Septuagint translates it by πλημμελεια, a false note in music, faultiness. Like the sin offering, it required the slaughter of a victim.

The נֶסֶךְ , nesek, is the drink offering, always connected with the meat offering or the peace offering, and with the confirmation of covenants.

Pre-Sinaitic Sacrifices (Part 3)

Our conclusion, therefore, respecting the ante-Mosaic sacrifices, is, that they were the medium of intercourse with God adapted to the expression of the religious feelings of the offerer. Hence they were chiefly eucharistic, but not entirely destitute of the expiatory element. This conclusion is confirmed by an examination of the occasions on which the patriarchs built their altars and offered their victims. If any feeling was predominant in the bosom of Noah when, beside the vacant ark, he reared his altar and laid thereon oblations “of every clean beast,” (Genesis 8:20,) it was one of gratitude to that mercy which had made his family the sole survivors of a drowned world. In the smoke of that great sacrifice curling up toward heaven, Ararat witnessed a thank offering rather than a sin offering, though the heart of the offerer may not have been destitute of a sense of unworthiness and sinfulness. For it is reasonable to suppose that Noah intended the effect which his sacrifice actually produced in the mind of God. That effect was clearly piacular. “I will not again curse the ground any more for man’s sake.” Genesis 8:21. Abraham offered his first victim, as we interpret the altar-building, (Genesis 12:7; 13:18, 25,) not when some unusual sense of sinfulness was felt, but when he had received for his seed the promise of Canaan. But when he is twice convicted of prevarication — first to Pharaoh and then to Abimelech — through the faltering of his faith in the protecting power of Providence, we search in vain for the sacrifices offered in atonement for these sins. The same is true of Isaac’s similar offence against the truth. Genesis 26:7-11. In that critical hour in Jacob’s history when he retired alone by the Jabbok, the very fact that he was destined on the morrow to meet his injured brother must have brought vividly to his memory that act of fraud by which he had so deeply wronged him. Yet no altar was built, no victims from his numerous flocks were selected to expiate his sin. Not till the hairy Esau had returned to the shaggy fastnesses of Mount Seir did Jacob build an altar to the El-Elohe-Israel. Genesis 33:20.

The argument of Richard Watson, (Institutes, vol. ii, p. 171,) from the ante-Mosaic distinction of clean and unclean animals, does not demonstrate the expiatory character of the early sacrifices. The argument derived from the prohibition of eating blood because it is the life of the animal, (Genesis 9:4,) together with Job’s reference in his burnt offering to the sin of his children, (Job 1:5,) renders it probable, but by no means conclusive, that the patriarchs distinctly apprehended the necessity of a vicarious atonement for sin. But we cannot, on the ground of these inferences, announce it as a positive truth; nor can we, with Keil, assert that “we never meet with any allusion to expiation in the pre-Mosaic sacrifices of the Old Testament:” for while there is no undisputed instance of forgiveness through sacrifice, there may be an allusion to expiation in the circumstances just cited.

— Commentary on Leviticus.

Pre-Sinaitic Sacrifices (Part 2)

If the patriarchal sacrifices were instituted by the Creator, it is reasonable to suppose that they were not positive and arbitrary requirements, with no hint of the reasons on which they were grounded — man’s dependence on omnipotent power and his exposure to offended justice. This revealed reason would involve the element of propitiation. But if sacrifices were the natural outgrowth of man’s religious nature — the expression of his deepest spiritual necessities — they must have had some reference to sin, the saddest fact in his consciousness. In either case, whether they were ordained of God or were spontaneous with man, the notion of expiation would not have been entirely absent.

At the same time it is reasonable to suppose that this idea was not distinct and prominent in the minds of the patriarchs, because the holiness of God had not yet been emphatically disclosed — that bright background on which the grim deformities of sin are portrayed. To the patriarchs God always turned the benignant and merciful side of his nature. He talks with Abraham as a friend, putting him quite at ease in his presence, and his wife laughs with incredulity while hearing the words of promise from the Lord’s lips. There is no inspiration of painful awe, no putting off the sandals to stand upon ground sanctified by the tread of the most holy Jehovah. From Adam to Moses there is no specific revelation of the holiness of the Supreme One. We look in vain in the book of Genesis, the record of patriarchal life, for the words holy and holiness as descriptive of the Divine character.

The hour for the revelation of this attribute did not arrive till the exiled Moses, at Horeb, turned aside from his flock to “see this great sight,” the bush burning yet not consumed. Exodus 3:3. The footsteps of the inquisitive Hebrew shepherd are suddenly arrested by the awful words, “Draw not nigh hither!” A new aspect of Jehovah’s nature is from this hour to be unfolded with ever-increasing splendour: “I am holy.” Sin having now, for the first time since the fall, its proper measure, becomes, by contrast, “exceeding sinful,” and needs to be purged from the conscience by blood distinctly expiatory.

We arrive at the same conclusion when we trace the history of man through the period in which he had only that internal sense of right and wrong called the unwritten law; which, indeed, constitutes him a subject of God’s moral government, and renders him amenable to the penalties of violated law, but is without that vivid apprehension of guilt which overwhelms his soul when that law, still legible within, takes on the form of an objective code written in stone by the finger of God amid the quakings of burning Horeb. Now, as never before, he regards himself as a sinner. “The law entered, that the offence might abound.” Romans 5:20. Now he needs relief from conscious guilt by a method of expiation bearing the unmistakable signature of his offended God. His forgiveness must be as authentically announced as his guilt has been glaringly demonstrated. Hence the provision for the typical purgation of the conscience is the logical sequence of the decalogue. Sinai has rendered the institution of the sin offering a necessity for the peace and salvation of the penitent sinner. 

— Commentary on Leviticus.

Pre-Sinaitic Sacrifices (Part 1)

In approaching the great sacrificial book of the Bible, it becomes necessary to survey, and briefly discuss, the sacrifices offered before the institutions of that legal code of ritualism contained in Leviticus. From Abel to Moses altars were built and victims flamed sending heavenward their “savour of sweet smell.” As the decalogue thundered forth from the summit of Sinai was not the first revelation of the moral law, so the Levitical system set up at the base of Horeb was not the first exposition of access to God by sacrifice.

As the Hebrews went forth from Egypt with the moral law written on their hearts to receive it engraven upon stone, so they entered the wilderness with the vague feeling that their God was to be approached by oblations — to receive in that wilderness a minute and elaborate code of sacrificial laws to be executed by a divinely-appointed priesthood.

The nature of the patriarchal sacrifices is still a question among theologians. Orthodox polemics generally deem it incumbent on them to demonstrate the expiatory character of these sacrifices, while the rationalistic school quite unanimously deny this as an unwarrantable assumption. Several evangelical writers take the same view. To neither party is there scriptural ground for dogmatism, for the sacred oracles are silent respecting the origin and nature of the early sacrificial offerings. Hence they go beyond the sacred record, who, in their zeal for orthodoxy, inform us that Cain’s sacrifice was rejected because there was no blood in it, betokening his need of the death of another as a satisfaction for his sin, while Abel’s was accepted because it had that vital element, rendering it pleasing to his Creator. Sacred history not only contains no such declaration, but it plainly intimates another cause for the difference between the two offerings. God expostulates with the wrathful fratricide, and explicitly declares that the imperfection of his offering lies in the moral state of the offerer: “If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted?” In Hebrews 11:4 the writer declares that Abel’s acceptableness was because of his faith, leaving us to infer that the lack of this element was the radical defect in Cain’s oblation. 

— Commentary on Leviticus.