Section I A Manual for Worship

Leviticus 1:1—7:38

The relationship of Leviticus to Exodus is indicated in the opening sentence of the book. In Exodus, God is speaking from the mountain. Here He speaks from the Tabernacle. Exodus closes with the account of the dedication of the Tabernacle, and the coming of the glory of God to fill it. Now God begins to speak to His people from the place where He has chosen to dwell among them. The word which He speaks has to do with how this people, now redeemed by the mighty hand of God, shall worship and serve their God. Leviticus is the handbook for worship of the ancient Hebrews. It begins with a manual for sacrifice.

A. INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE ISRAELITES, 1:1—6: 7

Immediately the reader is made aware of the divine origin and the consequent authority of the message that is being given. And the Lord called unto Moses, and spake unto him out of the tabernacle of the congregation (1). Moses is not permitted to go into the Tabernacle (Exod. 40:35), so God within speaks to Moses without. S. R. Hirsch suggests that the intention here is to establish the fact that the word of God came to Moses rather than simply arising within him as a product of his own religious consciousness.1 The word spoken is of supernatural origin.

The expression tabernacle of the congregation is better translated “tent of meeting” (RSV). The word for tabernacle is the common Hebrew word for “tent” ('ohel). The term translated congregation is from a Hebrew root (y'd) which means “to appoint.” Thus the best reading would be “tent of appointment.” Worship is not an option with the people of God. It is an obligation. God made an appointment with man at an appointed place (the Tabernacle). The appointment was intended for fellowship according to appointed procedures (cc. 1—22) and at appointed times (cc. 23—25). It is not the Hebrews who here decide how and when they will worship. Those decisions are initially made by God for the redeemed ones.

1. Law of the Burnt Offering (1:1-17)

a. God's command (1:1-2). This manual for worship begins with the offering of sacrifices: If any man of you bring an offering unto the Lord (2). The words bring and offering are both from the same basic root, which means “to come near, to approach.” Thus the question to which Leviticus addresses itself is how a Hebrew can live in “nearness” to God. And that involves offerings, or sacrifices. Offering (qorban) is the closest thing to a general term in the OT for “sacrifice.” It is the term used for all kinds of offerings that are presented to God. The root idea, though, is neither “sacrifice” nor “offering” as we understand these words. It means “a thing brought near.” It is used in the OT exclusively with reference to man's relation to God and indicates the purpose of this section of Leviticus; it was intended to instruct the Hebrews on how to draw near to God.

That worship involves sacrifice, or offerings, is a commonplace. Such sacrifice was by no means confined to Israel. It was an essential part of the religion of the world in which the Israelites lived.

Scholars have long sought to find a controlling idea behind religious sacrifices. Some have suggested that it is communion and is symbolized in a common meal. Others have emphasized propitiation, substitution, or joyous gratitude. It seems clear that sacrifice is a multi-faceted thing just as man's relationship to God is many-sided. It involves communion, but communion with God involves propitiation, gratitude, and petition. Thus our attention is turned back to the idea of nearness to God. All that is involved in drawing near to God is implicated in sacrifice. This explains the five varieties of offerings that are discussed in the following chapters: burnt, meal, peace, sin, and guilt (trespass) offerings. Each speaks of a different facet of nearness to God.

Leviticus assumes that when a man comes to God he will not come empty-handed. There is something about the relationship that makes it right and proper that a man should bring an offering. Since NT times it is easy to forget this. But one must always remember that, although the Christian believer may come boldly to God, he does not come with empty hands. Under the old covenant one came with his own gifts. Now the believer comes with God's own Gift, His Son, as the basis for his approach and his intimacy with the Divine.

The OT gifts were of different kinds. They could be animals from the herd or flock, birds, or cereal. They were accompanied by such things as salt, honey, frankincense, or wine. The purpose of all is given in v. 3, He shall offer it of his own voluntary will … before the Lord. The Hebrew is better translated: “He shall offer it for his acceptance before the Lord.” Thus the entire system described here is provided in order that man might draw near with acceptance. This necessitates sacrifice.

It was obvious to the Early Church that the foundations were laid here for the NT teaching of the necessity of the sacrifice of Christ for true fellowship between man and God. The Jewish understanding of John the Baptist's identification of Jesus as the Lamb of God, who would take away the sin of the world, is determined heavily by this Book of Leviticus.

The animals for sacrifice came either from the herd or the flock. They were domesticated animals. Wild animals were not acceptable. Jewish tradition suggests that this was because they cost the offerer nothing.

b. An offering of cattle (1:3-9). The Hebrew term translated burnt offering ('olah) means literally “that which goes up.” Since the 'olah was burned upon the altar completely (except for the hide, which went to the priest), it came to be called the burnt offering. Sometimes it is qualified by the adjective “whole.” In other sacrifices parts were eaten by the priests or even by the offerer himself. Here the offering all ascends to God for a sweet savor. Hirsch suggests that this indicates “the necessity for, and the aspiration to, ‘striving to rise higher.’”2 Micklem says that it “signifies total self-oblation to God in praise and love.”3 This self-giving and praise must not be separated from expiation, though, for v. 4 says it is to make atonement for him.

The whole of the offering is for God. It must meet His specifications. God is the One who determines what is given and how. It is to be a male without blemish (3). One wonders if thoughts of this offering were not in Paul's mind when he urged the Romans to present their bodies a living sacrifice, wholly acceptable to God (Rom. 12:1-2). Only the best is good enough for God, and that has to be given without reservation if man is to be accepted by Him.

The identification of the offerer and the offering is indicated in the expression, He shall put his hand upon the head of the burnt offering. This is prescribed for all animal sacrifices. Compare the peace offering (3:2), the sin offering (4:4), the ram of consecration (8:22), the Day of Atonement ritual (16:21), and even the presentation of the Levites as a wave offering (Num. 8:10). The practice is not specifically mentioned in connection with the guilt offering, but since 7:7 says that there was one ritual for the sin offering and the guilt offering, it may well be that this was part of that ritual too. Jewish tradition indicates that the hand was to be laid on with some pressure and that it was accompanied by the confession of sin. Targum Jonathan says: “He shall lay his right hand with firmness.” Other Jewish sources indicate that both hands were usually used. In other rituals this may have had different significance but here it seems to indicate a separation by the offerer of his gift to God and a full identification with it. Keil writes: “To render the self-sacrifice perfect, it was necessary that the offerer should spiritually die, and that through the mediator of his salvation he should put his soul into a living fellowship with the Lord by sinking it as it were into the death of the sacrifice that had died for him, and should also bring his bodily members within the operations of the gracious Spirit of God, that thus he might be renewed and sanctified both body and soul, and enter into union with God.”4

This identification was in order that the offering might make atonement for him (4). The Hebrew word means “to cover over.” Some have interpreted it as meaning “to cover the face of the one wronged.” In the Bible it means to cover the sin so that God, who cannot look with equanimity upon sin (Hab. 1:13), does not see it. The purpose again is in terms of nearness to God; it indicates “acceptance,” or “at-one-ment.” This nearness, of course, is not spatial but spiritual and personal. Such nearness cannot come without sacrifice. The animal was killed and the priests (5), identified as the sons of Aaron, drained the blood and sprinkled it round about upon the altar so that it touched all sides. The animal was then cut … into … pieces (6) and placed upon the altar to be burned.

Any true understanding of this requirement must involve a discussion of the role of the blood in its relation to life and to death. Snaith insists that the primary reason for disposing of the blood in this manner is because “it is taboo, too sacred and too dangerous for the ordinary man to handle.”5 Blood was forbidden to the Israelite, as 17:11 shows, perhaps because the blood represented life. Some thus hold that it here represents life released from the body and now presented to God.6 In this view the emphasis is not upon death but upon life. It seems unfair to the biblical evidence, however, to ignore the fact that the mass of references to blood in the OT involve death. When speaking of this sacrificial system and its relation to the sacrifice of Christ, it is necessary to emphasize that the basis of our fellowship with God includes Christ's death. Thus Paul says that “we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son.” This does not deny the release of life. So Paul adds, “Much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life” (Rom. 5:10).

The duties of the priests, the sons of Aaron (7), are clearly defined. It must be remembered that this arrangement represented a new departure in the life of the people of God. In the patriarchal period each family head acted as priest. Now, in the Mosaic covenant, a new order was being established that would prepare the way for understanding the ministry of Christ, the great High Priest, as seen in the letter to the Hebrews.

This sacrifice is to be an offering made by fire … a sweet savour unto the Lord (9). Noth says concerning the sweet savor that this phrase “seems to stem from the cultic speech and thought-forms belonging to the land of the two rivers.” He notes that the flood narrative in the Gilgamesh Epic tells how “'the gods smelt the sweet savour' of the sacrifice offered after the flood.”7 Micklem comments that to suppose that this passage implies “that the God of Israel literally enjoyed the smell would be as foolish as to imagine that incense is used in Christian churches because God is supposed to like the odor of it.”8 What is clear is that man's religious activity is to be pleasing to God, and that when it is performed according to His Word, it pleases Him.

The cutting of the animal into pieces and the arrangement of them upon the altar so that the fire passed between them may be compared with Gen. 15:9-10, 17-18, where the covenant of God with Abraham is sealed by the passage of the divine fire between the pieces of the offering.

c. An offering of sheep, goats, or fowl (1:10-17). Verses 10-13 explain the offering from the flock of a ram or a male goat. The ritual instructions are brief, not repeating the obvious. The information is added that the killing of the animal shall be on the north side of the altar (11). This may be due to the fact that the ashes were on the east side (16), vessels for washing on the west (Exod. 30:18), and the ramp on the south.

The concern of ancient Hebrew law for the poor is revealed in the provision of 14-17 that small birds might be used for the burnt offering (cf. 5: 7). From this we see more clearly the status of Mary, the mother of Jesus, as revealed in Luke 2:24. Apparently the act of giving and the attitude behind the gift are of more importance than the value of the gift. Due to the size of the fowls (14) thus offered, the ritual was naturally different. There was no laying on of hands, and the blood was wrung out (15), not sprinkled. The first part of 17 has been explained, “Let it be broken open at the wings, but not cut in two” (BB). All of the bird that might be useful to man was thus to be offered to God.

2. Law of the Meal Offering (2:1-16)

a. Basic provisions (2:1-3). The way that time changes the meaning of words is illustrated for us in meat offering (1). This was the one offering that did not consist of meat. Rather it was a meal or cereal offering made from finely ground grain. The Hebrew word (minchah) denotes a gift or offering generally. It is used in Gen. 4:3 of Cain's offering, but in Gen. 33:10 it is used of Jacob's gift to his brother. In Judg. 3:15-18 it is used of tribute. When the word is used in connection with sacrifice, it carries either a broad meaning of something given to God or the narrower meaning found here of a grain or cereal offering. Such an offering was the result of human labor and the earth's fruit-fulness. It represented the consecration to God of the fruit of one's labor.

The offering seems to have been voluntary, as implied by the phrase and when any will offer a meat offering. The meat offering is commonly presented in the OT as accompanying the animal sacrifices (Num. 15:1-6). The ritual here is suitable both for this dual offering and for the presentation of a meal offering by itself.

The meal offering could be uncooked (1-3) or cooked (4-16). If uncooked, it was accompanied by oil and frankincense (2). The oil was a vital part of the daily food of the ancient Hebrew. As such it signifies in the OT gladness, nourishment, and prosperity. The Hebrew word (she-men) means “fatness, richness.” Note the use of the word in Deut. 32:13; Job 29:6; Isa. 61:3; Micklem suggests that it symbolized “a quickening and sanctifying power.”9 In the light of its connection with the anointing of the priests, and its use with the golden candlestick, Allis thinks that it symbolized “the gracio is presence of the Holy Spirit in illumination and sanctification.”10 Certainly the seasoning presence of the Holy Spirit in the work and worship of the believer is what makes him acceptable with God.

Frankincense was a whitish-yellow, aromatic resin which was bitter to the taste but very pleasant-smelling. It was used in the holy anointing oil (Exod. 30:34), as incense (Jer. 6:20), burned as perfume (Song of Sol. 3:6), offered with the shewbread (Lev. 24:7), and presented as a priceless gift to Christ (Matt. 2:11). Erdman says that it symbolized prayer and praise.11 Certainly there is biblical support for the notion that prayer and praise are eminently acceptable to God when men present their gifts to Him.

He shall take thereout his handful (2) is clarified thus: He “shall take out a handful of the fine flour and oil … and the priest shall burn it on the altar” (Berk.).

The portion of the meal offering which was burned was called a memorial. This term ('azkarah) occurs only seven times in the OT, six in relation to the meal offering and once in connection with the frankincense which was burned with the presentation of the shewbread. Study of the usage of the verb “to remember” (zakar) in recent years has pointed out significant theological overtones.12 When God remembers, a new situation develops in which help is available for the righteous, and judgment confronts the unrighteous. The converse of this implies that, when man remembers the faithfulness of God, new faith and obedience result. This becomes obvious when one recalls the role of “remembrance” in the institution and celebration of the Lord's Supper (Luke 22:19; I Cor. 11:24-25). At the heart of worship is a remembering by man and God of both covenant commitment and covenant promise.

The identification of this offering as a thing most holy (3) means that it could be eaten only by the male descendants of Aaron, the priests. Gifts to the Lord were either most holy (qodesh qodashim), reserved for the priests alone; holy (qodesh), to be used for the maintenance of the families of the priests; or simply offerings (qorbanim), which were for the maintenance of the Tabernacle or later the Temple. The reference in Mark 7:11 to “corban” is to a gift willed to Temple maintenance upon the death of the owner, which was thus not available for family needs.

b. The baked cereal offering (2:4-11). The cooked meal offerings could be prepared in three ways: (i) baked in the oven (4), (ii) cooked on a flat pan (5), or (iii) prepared in the fryingpan (7).

Neither leaven nor honey (11) were to be used. These could be offered as firstfruits but not as offerings to be burned upon the altar. The Hebrew seemed to feel that fermentation implied disintegration and corruption; it thus implied uncleanness. In the rabbinical writers leaven is often used as a symbol of evil. Pagan writings show a similar attitude. Plutarch said: “Leaven is born of corruption, and corrupts that with which it is mixed … (A) 11 fermentation is a kind of putrefaction.”13 Jesus in the Gospels (Matt. 16:6; Luke 12:1) uses leaven figuratively of the false teachings of the Pharisees and the Sadducees. Paul speaks of “the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth” (I Cor. 5:7-8). The proscription of leaven in the Passover feast is another matter. There the unleavened bread was a reminder of Israel's bondage and was called “bread of affliction” (Deut. 16: 3). Honey seems to have been widely used in sacrifices among Israel's neighbors.14 Perhaps this is why honey and milk, both important elements of the diet, were not offered in sacrifice.

As leaven was forbidden in the meal offerings, salt was required (13). Salt carried great value in the ancient world, and it was necessary for life. It symbolized permanence in that it gave resistance to corruption. It also indicated fellowship and fidelity in that covenants were sealed with a common meal in which salt was an important element. To share a man's salt was to establish a bond between host and guest. Note how God calls His covenant with Aaron and his sons (Num. 18:19) and His covenant with David and his descendants (II Chron. 13:5) covenants of salt. Hirsch suggests that, just as salt preserves meat from the influences of decay about it, so the covenant should protect the contracting parties from external influences detrimental to the bond established.15

c. Meal of firstfruits (2:12-16). This meal was composed of the tender, young grain in the ear, roasted and ground (14). It was presented to God as a proclamation that all increase comes from God. Just as the firstborn son and the firstborn of the flock and the herd belonged to God, the firstfruits of the field were given to Him. All was God's, but His acceptance of the firstfruits as representative of the whole meant that man was free to use the remainder in gratitude.

In 2:8-16 we see the spiritual meaning of “The Meat Offering.” (1) The meat (meal) offering involves worship and service, 8-10; (2) All fruits of man's labor belong to God, 12, 14; (3) The instructions for the meal offering are noteworthy: oil—the Holy Spirit; frankincense—prayer; no leaven—purity; no honey—nothing to ferment or decay; salt—preservation; fire—God's acceptance; sweet savor—God's pleasure, 9, 11, 13, 15 (G. B. Williamson).

3. Law of the Peace Offering (3: 1-17)

To understand fully the peace offering, the reader should look also at 7:11-34. There it is seen that this offering is essentially a common meal in which priest and worshiper share and in which the choicest parts are given to God. His oblation (1) is an “offering” (RSV) or “present” (Berk.). In contrast to the burnt offering, only a portion is burned. The fat which is not intermingled with the flesh of the animal and which can be peeled away from intestines and kidneys is to be offered with the kidneys and the caul (lobe or appendage) of the liver (4-5). If it is a Palestinian sheep with its unusually fatty tail, the fat of the tail is to be offered too. All of this was placed upon the burnt offering of the day and consumed.

The giving of the fat to God corresponds to the disposal of the blood. The fat was looked upon as the “saved up riches of the animal,” “a store against any future want.”16 Thus it is used metaphorically in the OT for the richest and the best. Such rightfully belongs to God. Having given this to God, the remainder of the animal was for priest and people to enjoy.

The peace offering seems to imply that the offerer is in fellowship with God. Otherwise he would not be permitted to eat of the flesh of the animal. Keil says that the object was “invariably salvation,” either thanksgiving for salvation already received or supplication for salvation desired. Here salvation must be taken in the fullest sense. The Hebrew root of the word for peace (shalom) means “to be whole, sound, complete.” As Keil continues, the word here denotes “the entire round of blessings and powers, by which the salvation or integrity of man in his relation to God is established and secured.”17 A study of the references to this sacrifice in the historical books supports this claim in that it reveals that the peace offering accompanied the burnt offering in times of great joy (II Sam. 6:17, et al.) and also in times of greatest need (Judg. 20:26, et al. ). In Lev. 7:11, 16 we see that the peace offering could be a praise offering, a vow offering, or a freewill offering—an expression of one's sense of dependence upon and need for God in most varied circumstances.

The sacrifice could come from the herd (1, cattle), the flock (6, a sheep), or it could be a goat (12). Since the animal offered did not go to the altar, its sex and its age are not prescribed. It must nevertheless be without blemish (1, 6). The offerer must lay his hand upon the head (2, 8, 13), kill the animal, and present the parts to be offered to the priest who burned them upon the altar. The portion presented was the food of the offering made by fire unto the Lord (11), for a sweet savour (16). It is not necessary to see in this any reference to feeding God, as was found among Israel's neighbors. The God of Israel was not thus dependent upon His worshipers. He longed for fellowship with them, and wanted them to think of this peace offering as a fellowship meal. Note the use of the word “sup” even in a NT passage like Rev. 3:20. And consider the role of the Lord's Supper in the Christian Church.

The seriousness with which the ancient Hebrew was to take this legislation is indicated by the expression a perpetual statute for your generations throughout all your dwellings (17). This expression occurs 17 times in Leviticus.

4. The Law of the Sin Offering (4:1—5:13)

Our attention now is turned from the sweet savor offerings to the sin offering and the trespass offering. The importance of this shift is indicated by the introductory words, And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying (4:1). This formula becomes more common later in Leviticus, but this is the first occurrence since 1:1. In the remainder of the book it appears 28 times. Andrew Bonar, impressed by the frequency of this and similar formulas, remarked that there is no book that “contains more of the very words of God than Leviticus.”18

This attribution of the institution and the regulation of these sacrifices to God must be more than just a claim that Israel's sacrifices were different from those of their neighbors. Is this not the Old Testament's way of making clear to its readers that salvation is not merely the result of human religious sensitivity or reason? Salvation is based on sacrifice, and sacrifice that atones is instituted by God. The emphasis in the Hebrew sacrificial system is on something that is done for man. It is true that the man who sacrifices is involved in that he brings the offering, lays his identifying hand upon it, and kills it. The atoning work, however, is something that is done for him. The priest acts as mediator in a system instituted by God. The role of Christ is prophetically written into these rituals.

a. Rules for the offerings (4:1-35). The sin offering and the trespass offering represent a new type of sacrifice, that of expiation. Nothing was said in cc.l—3 about the occasions when the burnt offering, the meal offering, and the peace offering were to be presented. The sweet-savor offerings were voluntary. But here the sin offering and the trespass offering are described and the occasions on which they are to be offered are stipulated. These are obligatory for all who are within the covenant who become guilty of things which ought not to be done (2). The ritual for different classes is given: (a) the anointed priest (3-12), (b) the congregation (13-21), (c) a ruler (22-26), and (d) any of the common people (27-35). The animal used in the sacrifice varied with the importance of the person or persons who had sinned. The sacrifice for a priest (3) or for the whole congregation (14) was a bull. That for a ruler (22) was a kid of the goats, a male without blemish (23), while that for the common people (27) was either a she-goat (28) or a ewe Iamb (32).

The seriousness of the guilt apparently varied with the position of the one sinning. The priest's sin was more serious than that of a ruler or a common man. As a representative of the people before God, his sin brought guilt upon all of the people. He seems thus to have defiled the very holy place itself. The blood from the sin offering for him was placed upon the horns of the altar of sweet incense (7) in the holy place, while that from the sin offering of ruler or commoner was placed upon the horns of the altar of burnt offering (25, 30) in the court of the Tabernacle. The blood from the offering for the whole people was handled as was blood from the sacrifice for the priests (cf. 7 and 18). Perhaps this was due to the fact that Israel was supposed to be a “kingdom of priests” (Exod. 19:6). The difference in the sin offering for the priest and for the people is seen likewise in that the flesh of the animals sacrificed for them was burned without the camp (cf. 12 and 21). The flesh of the sacrifices for rulers or commoners seems to have been eaten by the priests.

Other than the above difference, the ritual for the various classes was the same. The offerer brought his sacrifice, laid his hand upon its head, killed the animal, and gave it to the priest. The officiating priest there sprinkled the blood before the Lord, smeared some of it upon the horns of the altar, and then poured out the rest at the base of the altar of burnt offering; he burned the fat, the kidneys, and the caul (lobe or appendage) of the liver upon the altar of burnt offering. The influence of this ritual upon the NT understanding of Jesus' death is seen in the use of this terminology and these concepts in the Epistle to the Hebrews (Heb. 9:10-23; 10:19-22).

The name of the sin offering (chattath) is a noun based on the verb “to miss [a mark], to fall short.” This is appropriate in that the offering is intended to cover sins through ignorance (22, bishgagah). Often these are referred to as sins committed “unwittingly.” The opposite of such sins are those committed “with a high hand” (Num. 15:30, “presumptuously”; cf. Exod. 14:8); these were sins for which there were no sacrifices. The difference does not seem to be in the realm of knowledge as much as in the attitude of the heart. The sin “with a high hand” is committed with an attitude of haughty defiance of God, while that committed “through ignorance” arises from human weakness. Thus Keil can say: “But sinning ‘ in error’ is not merely sinning through ignorance (vss. 13, 22, 27, 5:18), hurry, want of consideration, or carelessness (5:1, 4, 15) but also sinning unintentionally (Num. 25:11, 15, 22, 23).”19

Here the NT believer can sense something of the inadequacy of the Levitical sacrificial system. There was no provision for the more heinous sins such as blasphemy, adultery, and murder. In the story of the exposure by Nathan of David's sin against Bath-sheba and Uriah there is no reference to sacrifice. The ininability of this system to provide for the “presumptuous sin” points up the need for a better way—the way found in Christ.

b. Trespasses requiring a sin offering (5:1-13). Three cases are now enumerated that demand a sin offering. The first has to do with a man who has seen or come to know something that has bearing upon a case but who has refused to disclose what he knows when called upon by the magistrate. The translation hear the voice of swearing (1) is confusing. The Hebrew word for voice is translated by Hirsch as “demand.”20 There are a number of occasions where “voice” could be translated “entreaty, request, demand” (cf. Gen. 3:17; 4:23). The RSV thus renders the expression “a public adjuration to testify.” Moffatt translates the verse, “If anyone sins by remaining silent when he is adjured to give evidence as a witness of something he has seen or known.” To adjure is to put on oath, on penalty of a curse.

It must not be assumed that a Hebrew, if he had concealed truth or misrepresented facts to the detriment of another, was freed from guilt by offering a sin offering. Verse 5 shows that he had to confess his sin, and 6: 5 indicates that he had to make proper restitution. For examples of men keeping silence until put under oath, see Josh. 7:19; Judg. 17:2; Matt. 26:63; John 9:24. The fact that restitution is implied for this offense may be indicated by the statement, He shall bear his iniquity (1); in subsequent cases the text says only that the party involved is guilty (2-4).

The second case has to do with uncleanness contracted through touching an unclean beast (2, a wild beast), unclean cattle (domesticated animals from herd or flock), unclean creeping things (lit. “swarming things”), or the uncleanness of man (3). Leviticus 12—15 gives an extended discussion of cases of uncleanness. See the treatment there. Here the person seems to have defiled himself unknowingly and thus to have neglected the prescribed purificatory rites (11:24-31). Upon finding out about his uncleanness, the Hebrew was responsible for performing the needed sacrifice.

The third case involves a rash promise. If a man vows foolishly to do something that is evil (4), he would be wrong to keep the vow. He is guilty, though, of having made such a vow. If he promises to do something good and is unable to do it, he is guilty for this failure. In both cases the guilty one must confess (5) and present his sin offering. In 6, this is called a trespass offering. The actual discussion of trespass offerings does not begin until 5:14. The use of the term here is undoubtedly due to the fact that trespass means “guilt.” There is, of course, a close relationship between the sin offering and the trespass offering.

The basic compassion inherent in the law is reflected in 7-13. In NT times the law was looked upon as a burdensome thing. Jesus accuses the scribes and Pharisees of making the law unbearable for men (Matt. 23:2-4). This Leviticus passage reveals concern for the poor. If a man could not bring a lamb, he could bring two turtledoves, or two young pigeons (7). If even this was too much, he could bring the tenth part of an ephah (seven pints) of fine flour (11). Note the similarity between this passage and 1:14-17.

Two birds were demanded and one of these was for a burnt offering (10). Allis points out that in the sin offering only the fat was burned upon the altar.21 Since in the case of a bird it would be impossible to remove the fat, the flesh of one bird was consumed upon the altar as representing the Lord's portion of the sin offering (called a burnt offering because it was completely consumed upon the altar), while the other was given to the priest as representing his portion of the sin offering.

The offering of meal as a sin offering differed from the regular meal offering in that no oil or frankincense accompanied it. The memorial handful was burned upon the altar with the offerings made by fire (12). Thus it was mingled with the offerings on the altar and attained the value of a blood sacrifice and is no exception to the principle that “without shedding of blood is no remission” (Heb. 9:22).

5. The Law of the Guilt Offering (5:14—6: 7)

The word that is translated trespass (15) comes from a root which means “to act unfaithfully, or treacherously.” The context for this offense is the covenant. It must be kept in mind that these laws are not provided for men generally. They are given for the people of Israel, men who have committed themselves to a covenant with the Lord and have thus assumed certain responsibilities. The Lord is to be their God and they are to be His people. Undoubtedly this is why there is no provision for deliberate, willful violations of the covenant—sinning “with a high hand.” Such sin would put the violator outside of the very covenant which these laws define. Note the wording: If a soul commit a trespass, and sin through ignorance.

Two cases are cited demanding the trespass (guilt) offering. One is an unintentional withholding of the holy things of the Lord. This refers to tithes, offerings, firstfruits, and the like. These belonged to God and were to be given to the priests. The offerer was to bring an offering, a ram without blemish out of the flocks, comparable in value to the loss which the priests had suffered. The meaning of the original is not entirely clear in the reference to thy estimation by shekels of silver. It appears to mean that a money value was to be placed upon the offering in order to calculate the amount of the fifth part (16, one-fifth of the value) which was to be paid in restitution as a fine. The shekel of the sanctuary (15) is identified in Exod. 30:13 as being based on the Phoenician measurement rather than the Babylonian shekel, which was of less value. The moral basis of the Levitical legislation is obvious here. Micklem says:

Leviticus is concerned with the ritual of the sin offering, but that there is no superstitious idea that the offering of itself avails to take away sin is clear from the demand of penitence. There is no suggestion that apart from penitence there is atonement. If we raise the theological objection that God requires nothing but repentance for forgiveness, we overlook the demand for restitution so far as this may be possible. The true penitent says not only “I am sorry” but also “What can I do about it?”22

The second case of a guilt offering involves acts which are forbidden in the covenant law which demand restitution but which are unknown to the offender (17-19). Since no one knows what the loss has been, or even whether there has been a loss, the offerer brings the trespass offering without the added compensation. Note the desire to guard against the slightest offense. When seen in the light of the covenant and its gracious redemption, such a sacrifice is seen as the natural desire of the tender conscience to express positively its gratitude and its dependence. Note the attitude of Job in Job 1:5. The ideal is blamelessness.

The close of this section (6:1-7) deals with injuries done to a neighbor in matters of property. These concern deceit with respect to a deposit left for security by a neighbour, robbery, unjust gain by oppression (2), or appropriation of something found that belongs to another (3). These are the closest to conscious and willful acts of sin found in this section (5:14—6: 7). They are matters that would not usually be known without disclosure by the offender. If discovered, such actions were punishable. See Exod. 22:7-13 for the legal procedures involved. The context shows the inseparable relationship here between religion and ethics in Israel. To sin against another within the covenant was to sin against the God of the covenant. Thus one's relationship to his neighbors intimately affected his relationship to the Lord. The Lord is the Guarantor of the neighbor's property. To sin against a neighbor is to sin against God.

The word fellowship (2) seems to indicate a transfer of material goods in which something has been placed in another's hand. The LXX translates it koinonia. It would probably have to do with a business partnership. For with thy estimation (6), cf. comment on 5:15.

In cases of property damage, restitution was not enough. As a trespass demanded a guilt offering, a fifth part (5) of the value of the property involved must be added to the capital and restored to the owner. Then and then only was a guilt offering effective to atone for the trespass.

B. INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE PRIESTS, 6: 8—7:38

1. The Law of the Burnt Offering (6: 8-13)

The opening section of Leviticus (1:1—6:7) is addressed to the people of Israel (1:2) and is God's word to them about the sacrifices that He demanded. Now God addresses himself to the priests, Aaron and his sons (9), who are to perform these rituals. These instructions are helpful in understanding more about the Levitical sacrificial system and its significance.

First, we are informed that the fire was to be kept burning continually upon the altar (9-13). Exod. 29:38-39 informs us that a burnt offering was offered both morning and evening. It was the fat of the evening sacrifice that was used to keep the altar fire burning through the night. A perpetual flame burning before the deity is not unique to biblical religion. It is an expression of the human intuition that perpetual praise and worship should ascend from man to God. If this is felt by those who know little of divine grace, how much more appropriate that the heart of the Christian believer should be filled with unceasing prayer and perpetual praise! Micklem says concerning the fire:

It points Christians to the eternal priesthood of the Lord Jesus Christ, the great High Priest, “who ever liveth to make intercession” for us (Heb. 7:25), who is “a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek” (Heb. 5:6). He offers his eternal obedience to the Father, an acceptable sacrifice, on behalf of all; he is the priest, and his obedience is the lamb, his obedience and his perfect love to God: these he offers on behalf of all men, for “he is not ashamed to call them brethren” (Heb. 2:11).23

The priest is given instructions concerning his dress for removal of the ashes every morning (11). The regular priestly garments were not to be worn for that task. It is surprising to many to see how much space is devoted in the Bible to clothing. This is especially true concerning dress for the priests. The idea is conveyed that it does matter how one appears before God. This is developed extensively in the NT and in Christian hymnody. Jesus spoke of the necessity of “the wedding garment” (Matt. 22: 11-14). In the Revelation we are counseled to buy “white raiment” (3:18) and to keep “garments” (16:15). We are also told of the bride of the Lamb, who is “arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints” (19: 8). The concern in Leviticus, however, is the clothing of the mediator who stands between God in His holiness and worshiping man.

2. The Law of the Meal Offering (6:14-23)

The priest was to take a handful (15) of the meal offering with its oil and frankincense and offer this as a memorial. The remainder (16) of the meal offering was to be eaten without leaven (17) in the court of the tent by the chief priest and his sons. The expression, It is most holy (17), is used of the three offerings which were for the use of Aaron and his sons: the meal offering, the sin offering, and the trespass offering. It is also used of anything “devoted,” that which could not “be sold or redeemed” (27:28).

This is further explained with the conclusion: Every one that toucheth them shall be holy (18). The exact meaning of this statement is not clear. Some feel that this is simply saying that everyone who touches holy things should be holy himself (Isa. 52:11). Others believe that it must mean also that those who touch the altar become holy and can never be returned to secular life. Jesus' reference to the power of the altar to sanctify a gift (Matt. 23:19) would indicate that both of these points of view are ultimately true. Num. 16:38 says concerning the censers of Dathan and Abiram: “For they offered them before the Lord, therefore they are hallowed.” It is no light thing for men to present themselves to God. He takes a man seriously and subsequently claims for His own that which has been given to Him. Such consecration is amply illustrated in the OT.

The special meal offering of Aaron and his sons (20; i.e., the high priest) is described in 19-23. It is appropriate in that this entire section consists of instructions for the priests. This offering was to be made by the high priest in the day when he is anointed as high priest. The term perpetual indicates that subsequently the offering was to be made every morning and evening throughout his high priesthood. This offering was presented by the high priest for himself and for all priests. Thus it was to be wholly burnt (22). The priests shared in the most holy things offered by others. They could not partake of those offered by and for themselves (23).

3. The Law of the Sin Offering (6:24-30)

The sin offering also was most holy (25) and was to be eaten by the priests in the court of the tabernacle of the congregation (26). No unholy person was to touch it. All that it touched became holy and was to be devoted to God. Any garment sprinkled with the blood of the sin offering was to be washed in the holy place (27). The vessel (28) in which the meat was prepared for the priests was to be broken if pottery, or scoured, and rinsed if brass. Whatever touched it must be clean and removed from common use. Verse 30 is clarified thus, “However, no sin offering of which the blood is taken into the meeting tent for atonement in the sanctuary, shall be eaten; it shall be burned with fire.” A footnote explains: “Its blood will be sprinkled on the mercy seat within the Holy of Holies; therefore the flesh, also, is too sacred for human food” (Berk.).

Moses indicates the sanctity of the sin offering in 10:17 by saying that it was given to the priests to eat to bear the iniquity of the congregation, to make atonement for them before the Lord. All of this ritual is presented to help emphasize the importance of distinguishing between the holy and the unholy. Inability or refusal to thus differentiate is always disastrous (see c. 10).

Many writers are quick to relate the concept of the “holy” found here to that present in pagan religious circles. Micklem's comparison is helpful.

Commentators are apt to speak of this “holiness” as a mere taboo, but the term is misleading. A taboo object (the term is taken from the primitive religions of Polynesia) is dangerous in its own right as the mysterious dwelling place of mana or supernatural power. That is not identical with the idea that an object is sacrosanct because it has been brought into relation with the living God. We can well believe that there was much superstition in Israel; but this conception of holiness is not superstition. To take a relatively inadequate instance from the contemporary situation, a modern man does not regard the gravestones “sacred to the memory” of his ancestors as containing any supernatural powers; but he treats them with reverence, and not as common stones, because of the use to which they have been dedicated. Such, but more vivid as we may suppose, was the sense of the holiness of things connected with the sacrifice in Israel.24

4. The Law of the Guilt Offering (7:1-10)

This section should be compared with the longer account in 5:1—6: 7. The similarity of the sin offering and the trespass (guilt) offering is here emphasized (7). The priestly role in the trespass offering is made clearer, and the priestly shares of the burnt offering and meat (meal) offering are announced (8-10).

5. The Law of the Peace Offering (7:11-38)

Peace offerings were of three varieties: thank offerings (12), votive offerings (16), and freewill offerings (29). The first seems to have been offered for benefits received from God. Ps. 107:22 speaks of such a sacrifice after deliverance from peril. The peace offering is the only offering of which the worshiper is permitted to partake. The thanksgiving offering is to be eaten the same day that it is offered (15). Allis suggests that this was to encourage a spirit of sharing, “the inviting of friends or neighbors, especially the poor and needy, to share in this joyful occasion (Deut. 12:12).”25 The perpetual goodness of God to His children should be a continual incentive to joyous sharing. Is there something to be learned from the fact that it is called a sacrifice of thanksgiving (12) ? Is there, or should there ever be, any true thanksgiving that costs the thankful one nothing? One out of the whole oblation (14) means “one cake from each offering” (RSV).

The sacrifice of his … vow (16, votive offering) is promised to God in hopes for His help (Ps. 66:13-14; 116:1-19). The voluntary or freewill offering seems to have been offered out of the consciousness of God's tender mercies and covenant faithfulness, with a resultant sense of obligation. It was with freewill offerings that the Tabernacle was originally built (Exod. 35:5, 21). The Berkeley Version suggests more clearly the voluntary character of this offering: “Whoever wants to present his peace offering … must bring a portion … as a donation” (29).

The character of the peace offering as an act of communion was not obvious in 3:1-17. Here it is made clear. The offering, whether from the herd, a lamb, or a goat, if it was for thanksgiving, was to be accompanied by various unleavened cakes and leavened bread. These were not meal offerings in that no incense was placed on them, and no portion was burned upon the altar. They accompanied the offering and contributed to showing the character of this offering as an occasion for communion between God, priest, and people. The use of the leavened bread (13) reveals the essential difference between this offering and the burnt offering, which was consumed entirely upon the altar, and the other offerings which were identified as most holy.

There are careful instructions about when the offerings could be eaten (15-17), who could eat them (20-21), what could be eaten (24-26), and which portions belonged to whom (31-35). These instructions and the serious penalty for disobedience—bearing one's own iniquity (18) or being cut off from his people (20)—reveal the seriousness of ritual propriety in Israel. This does not mean that the holiness demanded here was simply ceremonial. The differentiation between moral and ceremonial holiness is not a part of the Levitical legislation. The ceremonial performance was looked upon as a reflection of one's attitude toward the Lord, whose holiness was eminently moral.

The manual of instructions for the priests (6:8—7:38) concludes with a summary paragraph (37-38) reminding Israel that this legislation derived its importance and its authority from the Lord, who had redeemed them from Egypt and who had revealed himself to them at mount Sinai (38).