Text and Exposition

I. THE OFFERINGS (1:1–7:38)

OVERVIEW

The text moves through a description of each of the offerings: the burnt offering, the grain offering, the fellowship offering, the purification offering, and the reparation offering (1:3–6:7 [1:3–5:26]). Then follows what seems to be a repetition of each of these offerings (6:8–7:38 [6:1–7:38]). The best way to understand these two sets of descriptions is to see the perspectives from which they were written. The first set describes the offerings in more detail and especially considers the responsibilities of the person making the offering—the offerer. The second set of descriptions presumes and builds on the first set with some additional instructions regarding the tasks of the priests making the offerings.

This conclusion is not only apparent from the contents of the sets of instructions; it is also explicitly stated and repeated in each of the sections. Thus the sections for the people of Israel begin in 1:2 with, “Speak to the Israelites and say to them.” Leviticus 4:2 repeats the divine command to address all Israel. Note also the general instructions that begin the different offerings: 1:2, “When any of you”; 2:1, “When someone”; 3:1, “If someone’s”; 4:1, “When anyone”; 5:1–4, 17, “If a person”; 5:14, “When a person”; 6:1 [5:21] “If anyone.” In the second set of offering instructions, most of the offerings, and sometimes subsections of each description, are introduced by, “Give Aaron and his sons this command,” or a variation of the same (6:9, 14, 20, 25 [6:2, 7, 13, 18]).

The reparation offering is not introduced in this manner in the second set (7:1–2); but neither is it introduced like those in the first set. Only the fellowship offering is described in the second set of instructions in a similar manner as the first set (7:11b): “a person may present to the LORD.” However, the fellowship offering is distinctive, as most of the activity involves the offerer and the Lord, without much intervention by or special provision for the priest. Further, the prohibitions of 7:22–27 are universal and apply to both priests and Israelites. Also, the discussion of the priests’ share in 7:28–38 concerns the priests, but the regulations must be addressed to all Israel so that they know what to give to the priests from their offerings.

A. The Offerings from the People’s Perspective (1:1–6:7 [1:1–5:26])

OVERVIEW

The style of this text and the sequence of the offerings have been compared to descriptive offering texts found in other contemporary cultures of the ancient Near East, especially Ugarit, Mesopotamia, and Anatolia. For the order of these sacrifices, see the Introduction on “Scholarship and Interpretation.”

1. Introduction and the Burnt Offering (1:1–17)

a. Introduction (1:1–2)

1The LORD called to Moses and spoke to him from the Tent of Meeting. He said, 2“Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘When any of you brings an offering to the LORD, bring as your offering an animal from either the herd or the flock.

COMMENTARY

1 The book begins with a standard narrative verbal form (waw consecutive plus imperfect). This suggests that the laws and regulations that follow are understood as part of the story of divine revelation of God’s will to Moses on Mount Sinai. They form part of the historic context of the founding of God’s people. They also give this revelation an authority that cannot be questioned by anyone in Israel.

The first three words in the Hebrew text, “called to Moses,” are found in this sequence only at one other point in the OT—Exodus 24:16. There as well it is God who calls to Moses and introduces him to a series of cultic regulations for the construction of the tabernacle (Ex 25–30). This form is repeated at the beginning of Leviticus to introduce a second series of cultic laws. Now that the tabernacle has been built and all is in order, it is time to define the ceremonies that are to take place in the holy tent. This tent (lit., the “tent for meeting”) is named 146 times in the OT. Most occurrences are in the Pentateuch and Chronicles. It first appears in Exodus 27, where its construction is described in detail. Once built, it becomes the regular place at which God speaks with Moses.

2 The revelation of God is to be presented to Israel in oral form rather than as something that is written. The expression, “Speak to the Israelites,” occurs thirty-one times in Exodus through Numbers and only once elsewhere (Jos 20:2). Previously in Exodus, it was used of instructions that were to be carried out immediately rather than permanent legal injunctions. For example, Exodus 14:2, 15 uses the phrase in reference to Israel’s positioning of itself at the crossing of the Reed Sea. Its use here in Leviticus is surprising, as the regulations that follow are normally understood as permanent. But the expression recurs another thirteen times in Leviticus, often to introduce legislation. Perhaps it reflects the urgency of these laws. They are intended to provide immediate relief from sin and to restore fellowship with God.

The phrase “any of you” translates ʾādām (GK 132), the word for “people,” as in Genesis 1:26–28. The implication is that any Israelite who can understand the instructions, whether man or woman, is welcome to bring the offerings described in these chapters. See Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 145; Knierim, 14–16, who allow for a gender neutral ʾādām but err with the argument that only men would slaughter cattle.

The term for “offering” (qorbān, GK 7933) is the most general term and describes what is brought near (to God). It appears twice, at the beginning and end of this verse. Both times it occurs as the object of its cognate verb qrb, meaning, “to bring near.” This forms an envelope around the heart of the message that describes the dedication and composition of the offering.

The dedication is to the Lord. Behind this lies the understanding that all the offerings in Leviticus are to be dedicated to Yahweh, the covenantal name of the God of Israel. The composition of the offering is from the livestock of Israel. This includes domesticated beasts that were used for their milk and wool and were occasionally eaten. The specification of “herd” (bāqār, GK 1330) and “flock” (ṣō ʾn, GK 7366) refers to larger and smaller livestock and is thereby inclusive of all the animals the Israelites herded.

Here then are the principal elements of that which is to be given to the Lord, whether in gratitude or as a means to restore fellowship. It is dedicated solely to the Lord and for no other purpose. It is brought by the one for whose benefit the sacrifice is made. It is taken from the property of the offerer. For the Christian, this anticipates the offering of Christ and the subsequent call to believers to offer themselves to God (Ro 12:1–2; cf. Rainey, 210; Hartley, 25; Rooker, 93, for association with the burnt offering). Thus Keil, 291, expresses it elegantly:

If the burning and sending up in the altar-fire shadowed forth the self-surrender of the offerer to the purifying fire of the Holy Ghost . . . the burnt-offering was an embodiment of the idea of the consecration and self-surrender of the whole man to the Lord, to be pervaded by the refining and sanctifying power of divine grace.

NOTES

1 C. R. Smith (“The Literary Structure of Leviticus,” JSOT 70 [1996]: 17–32) observes that only in Leviticus 1:1 and Numbers 1:1 does the Bible relate that God spoke to Moses at the Tent of Meeting. This expression “bookends” Leviticus, separating it from what precedes (Exodus) and from what follows (Numbers).

Tents for religious purposes are attested in Hittite texts from 1400–1200 BC, in seventeenth-century BC texts from Mari, and in Ugarit as the home of the Ugaritic chief deity, El, who meets there with the assembly of the gods (puḥru mô ʿidi, “assembly of meeting”; note the resemblance to mô ʿēd, “meeting” [GK 4595], in “Tent of Meeting”). See Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 139–42.

Rolf Rendtorff (“Is It Possible to Read Leviticus as a Separate Book?” in Reading Leviticus: A Conversation with Mary Douglas, ed. J. F. A. Sawyer [JSOTSup 227; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996]: 26–27) and Rolf Knierim (“The Composition of the Pentateuch,” in Society of Biblical Literature 1985 Seminar Papers [Atlanta: Scholars, 1985], 405) have adduced this verse as at the center of the structure of the Sinai revelation, between the revelation from Mount Sinai itself (Ex 19–40) and the revelation from the Tent of Meeting (Lev 1:1–Nu 10:10). This text lies at the heart of the Pentateuch. See also Warning, 37.

2 Milgrom (Leviticus 1–16, 143–44) notes how different this is from the rituals of Mesopotamia and Egypt, where the knowledge of the form of the ceremonies was kept secret from the commoners and known only to the priests. This contrasts with the Israelite sacrifices, the details of which were to be made known to all believers.

b. The burnt offering (1:3–17)

OVERVIEW

The presentation of the burnt offering naturally divides into three parts: the offering of the cattle in vv.3–9, the offering of the sheep and goats in vv.10–13, and the offering of birds in vv.14–17. The first two parts share nine distinct elements, while the third part includes six or seven of these.

There is no direct correspondence to the washing (number 8) for the birds. But the ritual is one of cleansing and that corresponds to the cropping of the bird. This occurs in v.16, before number 6, the tearing of the wings, which appears in v.17.

Burnt Offering

Elements	Cattle	Sheep/Goats	Birds
1a Condition of offerer making offering	3 If the offering is a burnt offering from the herd,	10 If the offering is a burnt offering from the flock,	14 If the offering to the LORD is a burnt offering of birds,
1b Specification		from either the sheep or the goats,	he is to offer a dove or a young pigeon.
2 Quality	he is to offer a male without defect.	he is to offer a male without defect.
3 Presentation	He must present it at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting so that it will be acceptable to the LORD.
4 Slaughtering	4 He is to lay his hand on the head of the burnt offering, and it will be accepted on his behalf to make atonement for him. 5 He is to slaughter the young bull before the LORD,	11 He is to slaughter it at the north side of the altar before the LORD,	15 The priest shall bring it to the altar, wring off the head and burn it on the altar;
5 Manipulation of blood	and then Aaron’s sons the priests shall bring the blood and sprinkle it against the altar on all sides at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting.	and Aaron’s sons the priests shall sprinkle its blood against the altar on all sides.	its blood shall be drained out on the side of the altar.
6 Cutting in pieces	6 He is to skin the burnt offering and cut it into pieces.	12 He is to cut it into pieces,	17 He shall tear it open by the wings, not severing it completely,
7 Arrangement	7 The sons of Aaron the priest are to put fire on the altar and arrange wood on the fire. 8 Then Aaron’s sons, the priests, shall arrange the pieces, including the head and the fat, on the burning wood that is on the altar	and the priest shall arrange them, including the head and the fat, on the burning wood that is on the altar.
8 Washing	9 He is to wash the inner parts and the legs with water,	13 He is to wash the inner parts and the legs with water,	[16a He is to remove the crop with its contents and throw it to the east side of the altar, where the ashes are.]
9 Burning	and the priest is to burn all of it on the altar.	and the priest is to bring all of it and burn it on the altar.	16b and then the priest shall burn it on the wood that is on the fire on the altar.
10 Pleasing aroma	It is a burnt offering, an offering made by fire, an aroma pleasing to the LORD.	It is a burnt offering, an offering made by fire, an aroma pleasing to the LORD.	It is a burnt offering, an offering made by fire, an aroma pleasing to the LORD.

i. The offering of cattle (1:3–9)

3“‘If the offering is a burnt offering from the herd, he is to offer a male without defect. He must present it at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting so that it will be acceptable to the LORD. 4He is to lay his hand on the head of the burnt offering, and it will be accepted on his behalf to make atonement for him. 5He is to slaughter the young bull before the LORD, and then Aaron’s sons the priests shall bring the blood and sprinkle it against the altar on all sides at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting. 6He is to skin the burnt offering and cut it into pieces. 7The sons of Aaron the priest are to put fire on the altar and arrange wood on the fire. 8Then Aaron’s sons the priests shall arrange the pieces, including the head and the fat, on the burning wood that is on the altar. 9He is to wash the inner parts and the legs with water, and the priest is to burn all of it on the altar. It is a burnt offering, an offering made by fire, an aroma pleasing to the LORD.

3 The burnt offering is a term whose root ʿlh (GK 6590) means “to ascend.” The high frequency of the offering, performed at least twice daily (Nu 28) and at important occasions (Rooker, 85), as well as the great antiquity of the offering (see below), gives it first place in the list of sacrifices. Thus a primary element of this offering is related to the rising of the offering from the person offering it to the presence of God.

But the description of the offering and its function must determine the true meaning of the offering, as etymological discussions may have no necessary relevance to the meaning of the ceremony in Israel’s day. Nevertheless, the root behind the term for the offering (“to ascend”) provides a clue to the purpose and direction of the sacrificial ceremony. The offerer ascends to Jerusalem, ascends to the temple, causes the animal to be brought up, places his hand on (using the similar sounding preposition ʿal) the animal, and places the pieces of the carcass on the altar (same preposition). The priest causes the animal to ascend in the fire as the latter transforms the sacrifice to smoke that ascends to God (Knierim, 83–85).

This verse is structured according to case law as found previously in the Book of the Covenant (Ex 20:22–23:33). That is, it begins with a condition, introduced by “if . . .” (called the protasis), and is followed by a consequence, often (though not here) introduced in English by “then . . .” (called the apodosis). Here there is a single protasis that designates the bringing of a burnt offering.

The apodosis, however, is made up of several parts. The first indicates that it is to be a steer taken “from the herd” and “without defect.” This expression occurs only here, though “without defect” is used to describe male sheep and goats in v.10. Prior to Leviticus this term (tāmîm, GK 9447) occurs only four times to describe (1) the righteousness of Noah (Ge 6:9), (2) how God wished Abram to act in his presence (Ge 17:1), (3) the quality of the sheep chosen for the first Passover (Ex 12:5), and (4) the animals used for the consecration of the priests (Ex 29:1). Thus it describes moral virtue and obedience in people and a corresponding physical appearance of wholeness in animals chosen for sacrifice.

The note that the animal is to be a male is significant because some other offerings, such as the fellowship offering, allow either a male or a female (3:1). Though this may reflect the patriarchal nature of the society, such is not proven in this instance. In fact, no explicit reason is given (but note Wenham, 55, who argues that male animals were more valued than female ones). From a practical standpoint, the sacrifice of males from the flock in fact reduces the least important members of the herd, for the females were necessary for breeding. Most of the males were unnecessary and took up valuable grazing land. (In modern sheep and cattle farming the minimum number of males to females is one to sixty.) This encouraged the sacrifice of males.

For all Israel, this fact bears testimony to God’s gracious provision that the sacrifice, while a significant and costly gift, remains accessible to a maximum number of Israelites, who could use animals that would be otherwise expendable. (See Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22, 1508, who cites a personal communication with Mary Douglas.)

The second part of the apodosis specifies the place chosen for the sacrifice as the entrance to the Tent of Meeting. This is as close as anyone could come to God’s presence without receiving the special permission necessary to enter the Tent of Meeting.

The final phrase registers the result of the burnt offering: reconciliation with the Lord. The single earlier use of this expression in the Pentateuch was in describing the seal on the priest’s forehead that was to bear the guilt of the people’s offerings so that they would be “acceptable to the LORD” (Ex 28:38). Thus the reader learns that reconciliation with God involves the offering of a whole, living creature without defect.

4 The act of placing one’s hand on the victim symbolizes the significance of the substitutionary capacity of the animal, which is killed in place of the offerer. That the head is chosen for the positioning of the hand suggests that area most important and necessary for life. For people, the head and especially the face is the place of identification. Perhaps this further recognizes the identification made between the person sacrificing and the animal to be killed.

The second half of this verse is key for understanding this and other sacrifices. Here a purpose of the burnt offering is outlined: to make atonement for the offerer. The term “to make atonement” (l^ekappēr, GK 4105) becomes rich with theological significance and debate (see Notes). But its occurrences in Genesis and Exodus are relatively few and provide a larger background to the usage here.

The Qal stem of kpr occurs in Genesis 32:20, where Jacob hopes to buy off his brother’s anger with presents. A nominal form appears in Exodus 21:30, where it describes a ransom that must be paid by the guilty person to receive his life back. The verbal and nominal forms appear seven times in Exodus 29 and 30, where they refer to atonement made for the altar and for each of the Israelites numbered in a census. Finally, in Exodus 32:30 Moses informs the people that he will try to make atonement for them before God after the golden calf incident. Thus the sense of atonement before God involves appeasing divine anger for disobedience of some sort. In this case it is done not with money but with the life of a sacrificial victim.

Thus, while kpr may describe a transfer of property from one individual to another in order to compensate for an offense (see Brichto), such a meaning does not exhaust the verb’s use. For the Christian, the reality of Christ’s death on the cross becomes the means by which the wrath of God is overcome (Ro 5:9). As with the daily sacrifices of the burnt offering, so the Christian believer should regularly reflect and confess sins before God (1Jn 1:9; Rooker, 93).

As already noted, the instructions contained in the second half of v.3 and all of v.4 are not repeated in the directions for the sheep and goats nor for the birds. Yet these statements form the key to understanding the burnt offering. Surely the element of substitutionary atonement is available for the burnt offerings performed with the other animals. The absence of these instructions with the other animals may be a stylistic variation. Their place at the head of the first group of animals suggests a special significance; their absence from the later animals does not deny their essential requirement for the ritual but rather looks back to and assumes it. (See also the discussion at v.7.)

Though atonement is more directly related to the purification offerings of Leviticus 4–5, it is introduced here at the head of all the sacrifices to stress the important role of atonement in the performance of the whole collection. The full sense of the redemption achieved through the atonement for all Israel is not realized in the burnt offering or any other single offering. Instead, as will be seen, it requires the removal of impurities effected by the purification offering, as well as the dedication of the burnt offering and the full restoration to fellowship and joy as realized in the fellowship and grain offerings.

5 The instructions continue as the offerer slaughters the calf (the term identifies a young animal, perhaps a year old; cf. 9:6; Budd, 48) before the Lord, i.e., at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting. Thus the sacrifice is made by the offerer and not initially by the priests. This explains the slaughtering of the animal and its symbolic significance as a substitution for the offerer. The animal’s death takes the place of the death of the offerer, and the animal’s unblemished state allows it to die in place of the blemished nature of the sinful offerer. As Wenham, 55, notes, the sacrifice required the full participation of the offerer. This is no spectator worship, and the concern of biblical worship is to draw the worshiper into full participation in the cult. For the Christian the details of worship may have changed, but this concern has not.

At this point the instructions change their verbal forms from singular to plural. This change is introduced by the presence of the subject, “the sons of Aaron.” This term describes the generation after Aaron, but it also anticipates all priests in Israel who could be so designated. The first action of the priests parallels that of the offerer in v.3. In both instances they bring something. The offerer brings the animal for sacrifice at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting. The priests bring the blood of the animal and sprinkle it against the altar at the same place—the entrance to the Tent of Meeting. This act of sprinkling the blood prepares the altar for the offering itself and recognizes that the blood belongs to God (Ge 9:4–5) by placing it at the altar, the place where God is present (Noth, 23). In this sense it is distinct from the main part of the offering, and yet it forms the necessary prelude to the burnt offering by rendering the altar fit for the act of offering up the sacrifice.

6 The skinning of the sacrifice removes what cannot be eaten from the more valuable part of the animal that is fit for consumption. The cutting of the offering into pieces further prepares it as a meal. Of course no one will eat this animal, but it will be offered as a sacrifice, and the sacrificial nature of the slaughter symbolizes giving the life and the best part of the animal to God. It is therefore prepared in the same way as though it were being offered to a king or someone else who would be served a meal of meat. The cutting into pieces was done whenever such a meal was prepared (Eze 24:1–6).

7 The lighting of the altar and the placement of kindling on it are part of the process for preparing the altar for its role in the burnt offering. The altar is mentioned four times in Leviticus, always as part of the burnt offering (also 1:8; 1:12; 6:12; cf. 1Ki 18:33; Isa 30:33). Further, this word occurs previously only with the sacrifice of Isaac in Genesis 22:9. Not only does this identify that sacrifice as a burnt offering, but it also illustrates the extraordinary importance of the burnt offering. When Isaac, Abraham’s “only son” (Ge 22; 1), was placed on that ancient altar, it was all Israel that was ready to be sacrificed in obedience to God. God’s gracious provision of a ram provided a substitute so that Abraham could still enjoy fellowship with God and yet not lose the heir through whom the promised people would come.

Like vv.3b–4, v.7 does not appear in the descriptions of the other animals that may be sacrificed in the burnt offering. Again, the need to light the fire and arrange the kindling is essential for all the sacrifices. As with vv.3b–4 this may be presumed, and so repetition was deemed unnecessary.

8 The grouping of these parts of the animal—the head, pieces (of meat), and fat—is found only in sacrificial texts and only in descriptions of the burnt offering (1:12; 8:20). These are the best parts of the animal and the most desired for food. They become a description of the whole animal when it is prepared for the burnt offering. Here the principle of biblical sacrifice is implied. It is that God has given his people all good gifts and blessings of creation but asks that they return to him a token of his gifts in acknowledgment that he is the source of everything (Ps 24; Ro 12:1–2).

Verses 7–9 each describe the altar as the place of sacrifice. Verse 8 provides the most detailed description of all: “on the burning wood that is on the altar.” The threefold description emphasizes the importance of the altar, chosen and prepared exactly according to divine wish (cf. ch. 10). In a simple chiastic structure they focus on v.8, where the most complete picture of the burnt offering is given: all the pieces of the properly chosen and prepared animal resting on top of the burning wood of the altar.

9 The remaining parts of the animal—the organs and interior parts and the legs—are described at this point. Even the organs that eliminate waste and the hooves that walk in the dirt are included because the burnt offering requires that the whole of the animal be given up to God and nothing be held back. Therefore, they are washed clean of their impurities and placed on the altar so that they may be consumed.

The “pleasing aroma” that the sacrifice gives to the Lord is the common response for divine acceptance of the offering. It occurs forty-three times but mainly in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Ezekiel (and once in Ge 8:21). It is found only in sacrificial contexts or imagery. It is not limited to the Lord, as other gods can also receive a pleasing aroma (Eze 6:13; 16:19; 20:28). It will also describe Israel’s return after their deportation to other nations (Eze 20:41).

The aroma is not to be understood as some sort of bribe toward God, as it sometimes came to be understood in neighboring cultures. It is not that the God of Israel depends on mortals for food or that God is enticed by such sacrifices to do the bidding of the offerers. In fact, as Leviticus 26:31 will demonstrate, no amount of “pleasing aroma” can substitute for faithfulness, nor can it prevent God’s judgment for disobedience to the covenant. Instead, the term is best understood as a means of signifying the offerer’s desire for God’s gracious acceptance of the sacrifice and its fulfillment of the purpose for which it was given.

That purpose is summarized by Knierim, 67–82, as pleasing and appeasing God. In fact, the wide-ranging collection of possible purposes for the burnt offering demonstrate that it serves not only as atonement for sin but also addresses other concerns of restoring, maintaining, and enhancing Israel’s relationship with God.

NOTES

3 Warning, 161–62, notes that the term l^erāṣôn, “so that (it) will be acceptable” (GK 8356), occurs seven times in Leviticus. For the first time (here) and the last time (23:11), it appears with the phrase lip^enê yhwh (“before the LORD”) alongside it. This stresses the value of both the burnt offering and the elevation offering (23:11) in the presence of God.

4 Knierim (Text and Concept, 39) understands the placement of the hand on the animal as an act of surrendering it to death. Milgrom (Leviticus 1–16, 151–53) compares Hittite and Akkadian expressions and actions of placing the hand on the sacrifice to argue that the fundamental idea is one of ownership. While this is true, it does not exclude the sense of substitution. Because the sacrificial victim cannot speak for itself, ownership must be established for substitution to take place. The owner can choose the purpose of the sacrifice.

Wenham, 62, includes as the purpose of laying on the hands both substitution and the transferral of sins. The latter is explicit in 16:21. Having noted this, it is also true that the offerer lays a hand on the fellowship offering. This can hardly be considered an act of substitution or transferral (Hartley, 20–21). So while ownership as the purpose of the laying on of hands is the only element shared by all of these sacrifices, it remains possible that specific sacrifices made different uses of this procedure (cf. Budd, 48).

This verse continues the instructions of the ceremony that were begun in the preceding verse. In effect, this and the following verses define the apodosis of the legal form. But this form is now modified in order to describe the ritual. It continues the volitional jussives of v.3 with perfect verbs with a waw consecutive in front of them. This furthers the jussive force of the clauses and renders the whole description as a set of instructions for the performance of the ceremony of the burnt offering.

The mention of atonement provides a summary of an important purpose of all the sacrifices taken together. But the association of atonement with the burnt offering also demonstrates the great antiquity of this sacrifice and its precedence before other animal sacrifices that are introduced in Leviticus for specific purposes of atonement. The purification offering and the reparation offering are illustrations of later offerings because of the specifics regarding cases and purposes for bringing these offerings.

Cognates to the burnt offering are found among the Hittites and Ugaritians of the second millennium BC and occur in early texts (Ge 8:20; 22:2, 7–8, 13; Ex 10:25; 18:12; Nu 23:15; Jdg 6:26; 13:16; 20:26; see Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 172–77; Budd, 44). For the Hebrew term, some point to an Arabic cognate with the meaning of “covering over,” whereas others see a similar word in Akkadian with the meaning “wipe off” or “render pure” (Budd, 88; Baruch Levine, In the Presence of the Lord: A Study of Cult and Some Cultic Terms in Israel [Leiden: Brill, 1974]); others reject all cognates and focus on the other biblical occurrences with the sense of a payment for what is due (see Brichto, “On Slaughter”).

The purification offering focuses on the removal of impurity from the sanctuary but also the bearing of guilt (Kiuchi, 100–101). The burnt offering has no such restriction. It removes sin from the offerer (Wenham, 58–59). Thus it serves a purpose that cannot be compared to a deity’s arbitrary demand for tribute (Gerstenberger, 35). The burnt offering serves the needs of the offerer, not those of God.

7 This verse mentions Aaron for the first time in the book. The name of Aaron is disputed as to its origin and meaning. Some have attempted to analyze it as West Semitic, deriving from a root meaning “to give light” (ʾwr, GK 239) and including a suffix, though this has recognized difficulties. See R. Zadok, The Pre-Hellenistic Israelite Anthroponymy and Prosopography (OLA 28; Leuven: Peeters, 1988), 102, where he also recognizes the problem with the -h- in the middle of the root. Zadok compares “Abram” and “Abraham,” but this is unsatisfactory until more parallels appear and a better understanding of the name “Abraham” becomes available.

In the context of Aaron’s background in Egypt and the presence of other Egyptian names in the wilderness generation of Israel, an Egyptian etymology such as ʿʾrn, “the name (of God) is great,” is preferred if not certain (KB 1:19). See Frank Yurco, “Merneptah’s Canaanite Campaign and Israel’s Origins,” 27–55, in Exodus: The Egyptian Evidence, ed. E. S. Frerichs and L. H. Lesko (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1997), 46–47. He cites “Moses,” “Phineas,” “Hophni,” “Shiprah,” and “Puah” as examples of Egyptian names that are characteristic of the Ramesside era of the thirteenth and twelfth centuries BC. They are found less frequently in the earlier eighteenth dynasty and rarely in the later twenty-sixth dynasty.

8 The term “fat” occurs only here and in 1:12 and 8:20. It is often understood as the suet or hard fat associated with the kidney.

9 The act of washing the entrails and the legs relates to the cleansing of the animal from its own excrement; in addition, washing the legs (which are not skinned) cleanses them from impurities contracted from contact with the ground. The main trunk of the animal’s body was skinned and perhaps placed on the skin itself so that it did not come in contact with any dirt (Knierim, 55, n. 57).

The term “bring” translates the Hebrew hiqṭîr (GK 7787). This term is used for sacrificial burning and occurs some eleven times in Leviticus (1:9, 13, 17; 2:16; 3:5, 11, 16; 4:10, 26, 31, 35). According to Douglas, 68–69, it describes the transformation of the offering from one substance (food) to another (smoke). Rather than being destroyed, the offering is made ready for divine reception.

The “offering made by fire” translates the Hebrew ʾiššēh (GK 852)—a term thought by some to relate to the Hebrew ʾēš (“fire,” GK 836). However, as Milgrom (Leviticus 1–16, 161–62) observes, the wine libation of Numbers 15:10 is not burnt but is called an ʾiššēh. This is also true of the bread of display (Lev 24:7, 9). Therefore, it is better to derive this term from the Ugaritic ʾitt, “food gift” (and possibly Akkadian eššešu) and to understand its use here and throughout Leviticus as unrelated to fire. Other appearances of ʾiššēh occur in apposition to the Hebrew leḥem, “food, bread” (GK 4312; see 3:11, 16; 21:6; Nu 28:2, Nu 28:24; see Hartley, 14).

For the use of “pleasing aroma,” compare especially God’s reaction to Noah’s sacrifice after the flood, when God smells the odor and promises never again to curse the ground in such a manner (Ge 8:21), and the reaction of the gods to Utnapishtim’s sacrifice after the flood as described in the Gilgamesh Epic. While the similarities of these accounts have been noted, it is important to understand the Hebrew expression in the light of its full use in sacrificial contexts throughout the biblical texts (and especially the Pentateuch).

REFLECTION

The sacrifice of an offering to God with the expectation of divine fellowship occurs in the NT for the Christian. Christ provided the substitutionary atonement in the place of all Christians. He died in our place, and yet his resurrected life continues not only in the form of his resurrected body in heaven but also through the continuation of the Spirit-enlivened body of Christ, which is the church on earth (Jn 16:7; Eph 2:16; Php 2:5–11). In the OT the means of this sacrifice was the altar. In the NT this becomes the cross on which Christ died (cf. Heb 13:10–12).

ii. The offering of sheep and goats (1:10–13)

10“‘If the offering is a burnt offering from the flock, from either the sheep or the goats, he is to offer a male without defect. 11He is to slaughter it at the north side of the altar before the LORD, and Aaron’s sons the priests shall sprinkle its blood against the altar on all sides. 12He is to cut it into pieces, and the priest shall arrange them, including the head and the fat, on the burning wood that is on the altar. 13He is to wash the inner parts and the legs with water, and the priest is to bring all of it and burn it on the altar. It is a burnt offering, an offering made by fire, an aroma pleasing to the LORD.

COMMENTARY

10–13 These verses repeat in almost all of their phrases material already found in the offering of the cattle in vv.3–9. There are two significant differences: sheep and goats are used in place of cattle, and they are slaughtered at the north side of the altar.

The use of sheep and goats is typical of sacrifices in Israel that are of lesser value than the larger cattle. All of these animals formed an essential part of the pastoral lifestyle characteristic of early Israel; therefore, the animals reflect the culture of Israel. This is one example of God’s creation of a sacrificial system for Israel that was both accessible to the average citizen and understandable in the light of sacrifice in the ancient world. Thus the sacrifices of ancient Israel are part of Paul’s goal of becoming all things to reach everyone (1Co 9:22). But they are also a transformed “medium” in which the distinctives of faith in Israel’s God remain uncompromised (Gal 1:9; 1Co 10:23).

The significance of the north side of the altar is difficult to determine. The only other reference to the north side of the altar occurs in the account of King Ahaz’s syncretism with the Assyrian religion; he removed the bronze altar and placed it on the north side of his own improvised altar (2Ki 6:14). This may suggest a place of disgrace. Alternatively, it may suggest a place of honor next only to Ahaz’s own altar.

Elsewhere the north side of the tabernacle is the location for the table of bread before God’s presence (Ex 40:22). Numbers 3:35 locates some families (those responsible for the care of various implements in the tabernacle) to the north of the tabernacle. Hartley, 23, notes, “The Tent opened to the east, the wash basin was on the west, and the ascent to the altar was to the south. Thus the north was the logical place.” Perhaps the sacrificed animals’ smaller stature (as compared to cattle) required that the sacrifice be made on one part of the larger altar. Facing the ark of the covenant, the offerer and the priests would recognize the north side of the altar to be to the right of the symbolic presence of God. Traditionally, the right side is the place of honor—a view that continued into NT times (e.g., Mt 25:34; 26:64).

iii. The offering of the birds (1:14–17)

14“‘If the offering to the LORD is a burnt offering of birds, he is to offer a dove or a young pigeon. 15The priest shall bring it to the altar, wring off the head and burn it on the altar; its blood shall be drained out on the side of the altar. 16He is to remove the crop with its contents and throw it to the east side of the altar, where the ashes are. 17He shall tear it open by the wings, not severing it completely, and then the priest shall burn it on the wood that is on the fire on the altar. It is a burnt offering, an offering made by fire, an aroma pleasing to the LORD.

COMMENTARY

14, 17 The choice of pigeons and doves occurs frequently in Leviticus for minor sacrifices or ones where the offerer cannot afford a more costly animal (5:7, 11; 12:6, 8; 14:22, 30; 15:14, 29). Earlier in the Pentateuch these two animals are grouped together only once—in Genesis 15:9, where God establishes his covenant with Abram and promises him land. The practice of slaying an animal as part of an oath was widely established in land grants (see R. S. Hess, “The Slaughter of the Animals in Genesis 15:18–21 and Its Ancient Near Eastern Context,” in He Swore an Oath: Biblical Themes from Genesis 12–50, 2nd ed., ed. R. S. Hess et al. [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994], 55–65). In Leviticus it is part of the burnt offering. But these two birds form a sacrifice offered to God in both texts.

The connection does not stop there. In Genesis 15:10 the other animals are cut into pieces, but not the birds. They are killed but offered without being divided. The same is true of the burnt offering as described in Leviticus 1:17. The indivisibility of the birds no doubt reflects their small size in comparison with the other animals. The tearing of the wings may symbolize the inability of the bird to fly. Just as the legs are mentioned for the previous animals, the mention of the wings suggests the primary means of locomotion for the birds. By cleaving the wings, the birds lose this aspect of their life. For the Christian, this is a further illustration as to how the surrender of all that one has and prizes in life is part of the sacrifice to God by which the disciple truly walks in the footsteps of his master, Jesus Christ, who also gave up his life (Lk 14:26–27; Ro 5:6–8).

15 The small nature of the animal explains the distinctive way in which it is to die, viz., by the wringing of its neck. It also explains why there is no text on the arrangement of the pieces of the animal on the altar, and it may suggest why there is no explicit demand for an animal without blemish. Both items appear with respect to the burnt offerings of cattle and sheep. Further, the flow of the blood on the side of the altar replaces the sprinkling of blood on the altar. Again, perhaps the small size of the birds would not allow for sufficient blood to sprinkle over the whole altar. The drainage of the blood on the side of the altar would symbolize the covering of the whole altar.

The Israelite sanctuary discovered at Arad incorporated an altar (of burnt offering?) with a drainage channel on top (Wright, 158). Nearby cultures have also revealed drainage ditches for the removal of blood and other fluids. A good example is the thirteenth-century BC sanctuary in the Timnah Valley in the Negev. A drainage ditch is clearly evident there beside the place where blood sacrifices were offered.

16 This is a most unusual verse, given the structure noted in the previous two types of animal sacrifices. If it is an alternative to the washing or purification of the animal, it belongs after the first part of v.17, where the tearing of the animal is described. The crop is related to the contents. The latter may be “feathers” but is uncertain, as it only occurs here. If it is, then this is related to the skinning of the cattle that are offered in v.6. There the act of flaying precedes the arrangement of the pieces on the altar, just as here it comes before the wings are torn. In this understanding the sequence is consistent and preserved through all three types of animals.

The area east of the altar would be the most fitting place for the ashes, where they were to be stored in pots (Ex 27:3), presumably until they could be taken outside the camp to a clean place (Lev 4:12). East of the altar would be the side farthest away from the Most Holy Place and therefore the location where the ashes could be immediately placed—the location least likely to defile the holy presence of God. This review of the details surrounding the proper worship of God recalls the admonition of Paul that Christian worship should be performed with propriety (1Co 14:40).

Though the burnt offering is used for a variety of purposes, its goal to provide reconciliation between the sinner and God is the key. There are three points of special note. First, the animal substitutes for the sinner as the latter transfers to the sacrificial animal the guilt of the sin that demands a life in payment. Second, the animal’s own innocent blood provides the purification necessary for God’s holiness to approach and accept the life of this victim for the sin. Third, the burning of the animal provides an offering that is pleasing to God. The death of the animal ends the judgment against the sinner. The sweet aroma of the tastiest parts of the animal symbolizes the desire for God’s pleasure with the sacrifice and the restoration of fellowship between the offerer and the Lord.

REFLECTION

The burnt offering appears in the NT in two quotations of the OT (see Mk 12:33; Heb 10:6–8). Nowhere in the NT is the sacrifice of Jesus Christ more closely related to the OT burnt offering than in the letter to the Hebrews. The death of Jesus Christ provided the perfect sacrifice that brought about the complete eradication of sin and the fullness of life with God for the believer (Heb 9:11–22). Christ’s single offering of his body on the cross provided a burnt offering that has permanently taken away sin so that the offering need not be repeated (Heb 9:23–10:18).

2. The Grain Offering (2:1–16)

OVERVIEW

Leviticus 2 provides a detailed analysis of the various types of non-meat offerings, called by the general name of minḥâ, or “grain offering” (GK 4966). Here also is included the offering of firstfruits (vv.12–14). While most of the text deals with the possible methods of preparing the grain offering, its history and significance begin with the offerings of Cain and Abel, both of which are designated as minḥâ. Thus it appears that this offering could be of either meat or grain. Indeed, the term appears originally to have had the broadest connotation of any gift that one person gives to another. For example, this word describes the gift that Jacob prepared for Esau in order to assuage his anger (Ge 32:13–33:10).

Like the burnt offering, little is said regarding the purpose of the grain offering. Nevertheless, both are assumed and their importance is highlighted by the fact that they head the list of offerings. Both of these offerings appear to be the most general of sacrifices to God, covering both animal and vegetable kingdoms. Both are part of the regular sacrificial cult.

Burnt offerings and grain offerings were made at the consecration of Aaron and his family to the priesthood (Ex 29:1–46), and both are to be offered to the Lord daily, morning and evening (Nu 28). But both also assume that the offerers are not just priests but any and every citizen of Israel. If the burnt offering describes a total dedication to God with a desire to make atonement (1:4) and so to restore fellowship, the grain offering is a gift of gratitude to God for his physical blessings in providing the staples of the Israelite diet—barley and wheat (as well as fruit). It is an invocation of God in order to call to his mind the blessings he has given to Israel and to express appreciation for them (2:2, 9, 16).

In this sense, Wenham, 69, and Levine, 9, may be correct to understand the grain offering as a kind of tribute to God. Thus the grain offering involves giving back to God a portion of what God has given to Israel, and it represents a dedication to God of their labor to obtain food (Kellogg, 68–70). The burnt and grain offerings together represent two basic elements of the offerer’s concerns before God: to restore and maintain one’s relationship with God and to express thanks and praise for God-given blessings (cf. Hartley, 29–30).

a. The offering of uncooked grain (2:1–3)

1“‘When someone brings a grain offering to the LORD, his offering is to be of fine flour. He is to pour oil on it, put incense on it 2and take it to Aaron’s sons the priests. The priest shall take a handful of the fine flour and oil, together with all the incense, and burn this as a memorial portion on the altar, an offering made by fire, an aroma pleasing to the LORD. 3The rest of the grain offering belongs to Aaron and his sons; it is a most holy part of the offerings made to the LORD by fire.

COMMENTARY

1 Chapter 2 begins with a familiar conditional clause in which the protasis names the offering and the subsequent clauses (apodosis) detail how it is to be offered (see comment on 1:4–5). Unlike ch. 1, however, this clause does not begin with “if” but with a word that can be translated “spirit” (nepeš, GK 5883). Though this word can refer to the basic vitality of a person and the desire for life, it can also simply refer to a person and substitute for a pronoun. That is most likely the case here, where it should be translated as “anyone.”

The grain offering is composed of three elements: “fine flour,” “oil,” and “incense.” The “fine flour” is the best of flour, whether wheat or barley. It is the flour that Sarah used to make cakes for the special visitors in Genesis 18:6. It is the essence of the grain offering.

The “oil” (i.e., olive oil) is poured rather than mixed. Similar pouring of oil occurs in the anointing of priests (Ex 29:7; Lev 8:12; 21:10) and kings (1Sa 10:1; 2Ki 9:3, 6). In every case it is associated with the verb “to anoint” (mšḥ, GK 5417). This is the root of the word “Messiah” (lit., “anointed one”). Thus the pouring of the oil on the bread has the significance of setting it aside to the Lord for a special purpose.

Finally, “incense” is placed on it. Literally, this is the frankincense spice (l^ebônâ, GK 4247). The term occurred once earlier in the Pentateuch. In Exodus 30:34 it describes the making of a special incense only used in and around the tabernacle. Frankincense is one of the four spices used.

“Fine flour” describes the best of ingredients for the choicest of baked goods. The “oil” that is poured suggests a special consecration of the cakes to God. The addition of incense describes its great value and fragrance. Thus the grain offering expresses gratitude, praise, or special offering to God. Its dedication and fragrance symbolize the customary joy, gratitude, and worship contexts in which the offering is made.

This truth is suggested by the command to omit the oil and frankincense from the grain offering for jealousy brought by a man who suspects his wife of adultery (Nu 5:15). There the grain offering is part of a special request to reveal the truth of a matter; there, however, no gratitude or praise occurs, as the concern is a serious and ultimately sad one. The same is true of the reparation offering in Leviticus 5, where in vv.11–13 the poor may offer a grain offering.

2 The priests are to take part of the offering—a handful—and burn it on the altar. The final description of the form and result of the offering—“an offering made by fire, an aroma pleasing to the LORD”—is identical to the descriptions of the burnt offering in 1:9, 13, 17. As there, it suggests the surrender of the sacrifice from human use (“by fire”) and its ultimate goal of gracious acceptance by God (“aroma pleasing to the LORD”).

Of special interest is that which is distinctive to the grain offering. While the burnt offering has atonement as a purpose (Lev 1:4), the only note about the grain offering is that it is a “memorial portion on the altar.” The expression “memorial portion” is found only six other times in the Bible, always referring the grain offering (Lev 2:9, 16; 5:12; 6:15; 24:7; Nu 5:26). The root of this term is zkr (GK 2349), customarily translated “to remember.” However, its use in other, contemporary Semitic languages (e.g., Canaanite and Akkadian) suggests a meaning of “to mention, name, invoke, call to mind.” Here the term suggests that the purpose of the grain offering is to draw God’s attention to those making the offering and to their appreciation for providing food and life for them. Thus the offering is a form of returning to God a part of what he has graciously given. It provides the means by which Israel expresses gratitude and appeals to God for his continued acts that bring physical life and health.

3 The handful of grain offering placed on the altar is only part of the prepared grain. The remainder is reserved for the priests; they and their families are to enjoy this grain. The priests would not be given an allotment of land in Canaan (Jos 13–21). They would depend on the offerings of the rest of Israel. However much these offerings came to be understood as taxes in later Israel, there is no doubt that they provided an important source of food and livelihood for the priestly families. For the Christian, Paul’s justification of care for the full-time Christian worker is based on OT texts (1Co 9:9; 1Ti 5:18). But this does not assume that those who labor at the service of God should not be judged by a high standard (1Sa 2:12–36).

The term for “grain offering” occurs six times in Leviticus 2, each time introducing a variation in the offering in vv.1, 4–5, 7, 10, and 14. As in ch. 1, there are several types of grain offerings. There is a similarity of form that can be observed in the repetition of elements throughout each of these six sections.

Grain Offering

• Intent (Protasis)
  • v.1 When someone brings a grain offering to the LORD
  • v.4 If you bring a grain offering baked in an oven,
  • v.5 If your grain offering is prepared on a griddle,
  • v.7 If your grain offering is cooked in a pan,
  • v.11 Every grain offering you bring to the LORD
  • v.14 If you bring a grain offering of firstfruits to the LORD,
  
  
  
• Composition
  • v.1 his offering is to be of fine flour. He is to pour oil on it, put incense on it
  • v.4 it is to consist of fine flour: cakes made without yeast and mixed with oil, or wafers made without yeast and spread with oil.
  • v.5 it is to be made of fine flour mixed with oil, and without yeast. v.6 Crumble it and pour oil on it; it is a grain offering.
  • v.7 it is to be made of fine flour and oil.
  • v.11 must be made without yeast, for you are not to burn any yeast or honey in an offering made to the LORD by fire.
  • v.14 offer crushed heads of new grain roasted in the fire. Put oil and incense on it; it is a grain offering.
  
  
  
• Delivery
  • v.2 take it to Aaron’s sons the priests.
  • v.7 Bring the grain offering made of these things to the LORD; present it to the priest, who shall take it to the altar.
  • v.12 You may bring them to the LORD as an offering of the firstfruits,
  
  
  
• Dedication to God: The Handful
  • v.2 The priest shall take a handful of fine flour and oil, together with all the incense
  • v.9 He shall take out the memorial portion from the grain offering and
  
  
  
• Dedication to God: The Burning
  • v.2 burn this as a memorial portion on the altar, an offering made by fire, an aroma pleasing to the LORD.
  • v.9 burn it on the altar as an offering made by fire, an aroma pleasing to the LORD.
  • v.12 but they are not to be offered on the altar as a pleasing aroma.
  • v.16 The priest shall burn the memorial portion of the crushed grain and the oil, together with all the incense, as an offering made to the LORD by fire.
  
  
  
• Priestly Reserve: The Portion
  • v.3 The rest of the grain offering belongs to Aaron and his sons
  • v.10 The rest of the grain offering belongs to Aaron and his sons;
  
  
  
• Priestly Reserve: Holiness
  • v.3 it is a most holy part of the offerings made to the LORD by fire.
  • v.10 it is a most holy part of the offerings made to the LORD by fire.

NOTES

1 Milgrom (Leviticus 1–16, 179; cf. Levine, 9) notes that the term for “grain” (sôlet, GK 6159) refers to wheat, not barley (Ex 29:2; 2Ki 7:16), and to “grits,” “semolina” (Akkad. siltu; Arab. sult). The amount of the offering is not specified, but Harris, 541, interprets Numbers 28:11–14 as requiring about two quarts of grain and a pint and a half of oil. This is the smallest amount for a grain offering found in the Bible. He notes that the frankincense is a bitter-tasting incense not fit for consumption. Gerstenberger, 39, observes that the semolina was the finest product of wheat, created as a result of careful sifting, and that the oil was pressed from olives.

2 Milgrom (Leviticus 1–16, 180) observes that the combustible quality of oil made it an essential ingredient of the grain offering. Frankincense was a costly gum resin available only from three species of trees found in south Arabia and Somalia (Jer 6:20).

For the Akkadian behind the term zkr (GK 2349), see the standard dictionaries (e.g., I. J. Gelb et al., eds., The Assyrian Dictionary: Volume 21: Z [Chicago: Oriental Institute, 1961], 16–22). For Canaanite, compare the West Semitic form in the Amarna letter from Hazor (EA 228 line 19); see A. F. Rainey, Canaanite in the Amarna Tablets: A Linguistic Analysis of the Mixed Dialect Used by Scribes from Canaan: Volume II: Morphosyntactic Analysis of the Verbal System (vol. 25 of Handbook of Oriental Studies; Leiden: Brill, 1996), 222, 245, 335. Rainey translates the West Semitic verbal form ia-az-ku-ur-mi as a jussive: “may [he] take thought” (245). Relating it to zkr, Milgrom (Leviticus 1–16, 182) translates “the memorial portion” as a “token portion,” so that the portion of the offering that does go up in smoke stands for the whole offering. Noth’s view (27) that the meaning cannot be determined is no longer accepted.

REFLECTION

As noted above, the grain offering is a “memorial portion.” At the Last Supper Jesus gave the bread to his disciples and said, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me” (Lk 22:19). This statement is repeated in 1 Corinthians and also there applied to the cup of wine (11:24–25). This act is a memorial Jesus established for the church to celebrate and so to remember his sacrifice on the cross. But it is also tied to the grain offering as a special act of gratitude Christians make before God. Their prayers draw God’s attention to the salvation that Christ’s sacrifice has purchased once for all on the cross, and they express joy, thanksgiving, and praise for the life they have in Christ.

b. The offering of cooked grain (2:4–10)

4“‘If you bring a grain offering baked in an oven, it is to consist of fine flour: cakes made without yeast and mixed with oil, or wafers made without yeast and spread with oil. 5If your grain offering is prepared on a griddle, it is to be made of fine flour mixed with oil, and without yeast. 6Crumble it and pour oil on it; it is a grain offering. 7If your grain offering is cooked in a pan, it is to be made of fine flour and oil. 8Bring the grain offering made of these things to the LORD; present it to the priest, who shall take it to the altar. 9He shall take out the memorial portion from the grain offering and burn it on the altar as an offering made by fire, an aroma pleasing to the LORD. 10The rest of the grain offering belongs to Aaron and his sons; it is a most holy part of the offerings made to the LORD by fire.

COMMENTARY

4–10 This section provides alternatives and specifics regarding types of grain offerings. The general grain offering elaborated in vv.1–3 is now discussed in terms of various ways to prepare the flour. It can be baked in an oven, roasted on a flat metal plate, or cooked in a pan (cf. Lev 7:9). It can be in the form of cakes or smaller wafers. A (flat?) cake prepared on a flat plate should be crumbled. Practically, this might prepare the cake so that it does not crumble during the offering. The offering is already crumbled and the whole is prepared in the same way. Note that the term for “crumble” and for the small pieces that result (not translated in the NIV) occurs once earlier in the Pentateuch—in Genesis 18:5, where Abraham describes the bread he will bring for his special guests. Otherwise, there is no difference in the types of offerings.

But additional information is provided regarding the composition. The cakes are to be made of fine flour mixed with oil. But a caution is placed on the flour: It must have no yeast. Unleavened bread (maṣṣôt, GK 5174) is mentioned for the first time in Genesis 19:3, where it consists of the bread Lot gave to the divine messengers. It appears again in the description of the first Passover and Feast of Unleavened Bread (Ex 12: 8, 15, 17–18, 20, 39; 13:6). Thus the bread is already associated with what is given to God and used in specially appointed religious festivals in Israel.

Note that vv.1–3, 4, 5–6, and 7–10 describe variations on the forms of preparation of the offering. Those in vv.4 and 5–6 describe only the elements of intent and composition that are changed and omit the remainder of the sacrificial procedure that is the same as in vv.1–3. The variant in vv.7–10 repeats all elements of the offering, despite the fact that it too changes only the first two elements—the intent and the procedure. This provides a literary inclusio that ends these types of grain offerings. Verse 11 repeats the charge to use only unleavened bread, and v.14 introduces an exceptional type of grain offering—the offering of firstfruits. Thus the grain offerings of vv.1–10 form a single unit. They describe the most general type of grain offering.

Of special interest is their repeated connection with the food prepared and given by Abraham and Lot to the divine messengers of God in Genesis 18–19. This is not accidental, for the vocabulary of foods appears only there in Genesis, and in Exodus 12–13. It occurs only as part of the religious festivals and ceremonies of the Passover and Feast of Unleavened Bread. Of course, the meal prepared by Abraham was one received by figures identified with God himself (Ge 18:10–33). The Israelites, who understood the history of their patriarch Abraham, as well as the stories of Sarah and Lot, would see in each grain offering the continued “entertaining and fellowship” between themselves and the God of Abraham.

NOTES

4–10 Milgrom (Leviticus 1–16, 183) suggests that the omission of the frankincense in the remaining types of preparation of the grain offering is a concession to the poor.

4 P. J. King and L. E. Stager (Life in Biblical Israel [Library of Ancient Israel; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001], 17, 33, 67) note that the baking oven (tannûr, GK 9486) was most often located in the outdoor courtyard of Israelite houses. It was beehive-shaped, made of clay, and insulated with potsherds. The fuel was wood and straw heated into hot coals before the bread was prepared. Loaves were baked against the hot, interior walls. Milgrom (Leviticus 1–16, 184) also observes a rabbinic tradition in which the oil was smeared on the cakes in the form of a cross.

5, 7 The words for “griddle” (maḥ^abat, GK 4679) and “pan” (marḥešet, GK 5306) occur only in Leviticus (“griddle” in 2:5; 6:14; 7:9; “pan” in 2:7; 7:9). William G. Dever (What Did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know It? What Archaeology Can Tell Us about the Reality of Ancient Israel [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001], 234) argues that these terms are late in Hebrew and Aramaic and that the repertoire of cooking vessels in Israel before the exile does not include them; therefore, he finds confirmation here for a late editing of the priestly source. See, however, Harrison, 52, who finds examples of the griddle more than a thousand years earlier. The griddle would be used for pancakes; the pan may have been used for deep frying.

REFLECTION

As the anthropomorphic appearance of the divine in human form in Genesis provided a means of special blessing (a son for Sarah and Abraham) and salvation (the rescue of Lot and his family from the destruction of Sodom), so that the descendants of Abraham and Sarah, the heirs to the promise, will continue to experience blessing and salvation as they continually offer up the grain offering. Perhaps this is the reason for the anthropomorphic designation of “an aroma pleasing to the LORD.”

For the Christian, there is a natural connection of language and food with the Last Supper and the words of Christ, as noted above. This too calls to mind the salvation provided by Christ on the cross and the blessing of that salvation in the covenantal community and in the promise of eternal life beyond this world (Jn 3:15–16).

c. The offering must be without yeast (2:11–13)

11“‘Every grain offering you bring to the LORD must be made without yeast, for you are not to burn any yeast or honey in an offering made to the LORD by fire. 12You may bring them to the LORD as an offering of the firstfruits, but they are not to be offered on the altar as a pleasing aroma. 13Season all your grain offerings with salt. Do not leave the salt of the covenant of your God out of your grain offerings; add salt to all your offerings.

COMMENTARY

11–13 This text further emphasizes the importance of keeping leaven out of the offerings given to God. Rather than the customary word for “unleavened” (maṣṣôt, GK 5174), the word used here is the more unusual word: s´^e ʾōr (GK 8419). This term occurs only here and in Exodus 12:15, 19; 13:7; Deuteronomy 16:4. These other occurrences have to do with the Feast of Unleavened Bread connected with the Passover. Thus this offering is further defined in terms of God’s great act of deliverance for Israel.

The use of “honey” is also forbidden. While this was a common additive to non-Israelite sacrifices given to other deities and was customarily combined with gifts of fruits and spices (Ge 43:11; cf. Budd, 56; Levine, 12), it is excluded from that which is to be offered in the grain offering. Honey is most commonly found in the OT in connection with the description of the Promised Land as a land flowing with “milk and honey” (e.g., Ex 3:8, 17; 13:5; 16:31; 33:3; Lev 20:24). The honey described in these contexts is most likely the sweet syrup of dates (though honey produced by bees was certainly known as well; cf. Jdg 14:8–9).

It is not clear why honey is isolated here as a forbidden product for offerings. Perhaps it symbolizes all other additives as the one most likely to be used by Israelites to supplement the offerings (cf. Hartley, 33). This is true of the leaven, for Harrison, 55, observes the symbol of its pervasive influence, whether for good or evil (Mt 16:6; Luke 12:1; 1Co 5:6; Gal 5:9). Douglas, 265, suggests that both honey and yeast represent the natural generation of life, as in the production of bread. On the altar, only divine life is present.

Thus the offerings are to be kept simple and free of additional materials. Here is an attempt to focus the purpose of the offering away from contents and details to preparation. Though these are important as examples of obedience, the point of the offering is not to prepare a sumptuous meal for God, but rather to symbolize the faithful service of Israel toward God and God’s remembrance of the covenant that provided Israel with life and blessings.

The use of “salt” has appeared once before in a cultic context. In Exodus 30:35 the special, holy incense is to include salt, along with frankincense and other precious spices. The salt may have been used as a preservative to keep the oil and flour fresh, or it may have been perceived as an alternative to honey and other sweet additives. Salt also occurs in contexts of judgment: the transformation of Lot’s wife into a pillar of salt for disobeying the divine messengers (Ge 19:26), the desolation that came as a result of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (Dt 29:23; Zep 2:9), and the way a military general utterly destroys an enemy city (Jdg 9:45). But it is also a means of purifying and giving new life (2Ki 2:20–21; Eze 16:4; 43:24).

The term “covenant of salt” occurs in 2 Chronicles 13:5, where it describes the permanence of the Davidic covenant. The kingship there forever belongs to the heirs of David. In Leviticus 2:13 the words are reversed: “salt of the covenant.” The reference to the covenant here suggests the Mosaic covenant. But the permanence of the offering and its symbolism of God’s covenant form an important theme implied by this phrase. Perhaps it is this permanence that the salt symbolizes (Wenham, 71).

NOTE

12 Milgrom (Leviticus 1–16, 191) observes that salt was the major preservative in antiquity. He also suggests that all offerings burned on the altar required salt.

d. The offering of firstfruits (2:14–16)

14“‘If you bring a grain offering of firstfruits to the LORD, offer crushed heads of new grain roasted in the fire. 15Put oil and incense on it; it is a grain offering. 16The priest shall burn the memorial portion of the crushed grain and the oil, together with all the incense, as an offering made to the LORD by fire.

COMMENTARY

14–16 These verses describe the special grain offering of firstfruits. In the singular, the term for “firstfruits” normally refers to firstborn. Yet the offering of firstfruits was commanded at the time of the first Passover as one of the first commands given by God to Israel. He demanded the firstfruits of Israel’s children (Ex 13:2, 13, 15; 22:29; 34:20), animals (13:2, 13, 15; 34:20), and harvest (22:29). In the plural, as it is used here, it refers only to the harvest of the field (23:16, 19; 34:22, 26). The firstfruits of each harvest were to be brought by every Israelite family as an offering to the Lord.

In addition, a grain offering of “roasted grain” could be offered. The word for “roasted” (qālûy, GK 7833) is used only here and in Joshua 5:11. As the language of the firstfruits builds on the first Passover in Exodus 12–13, so the description of roasted grain anticipates the Passover celebrated by the new generation as soon as they cross the Jordan River and enter the Promised Land. In Joshua, the roasted grain replaces the manna of the wilderness wanderings that ceased the previous day, describes the use of the firstfruits of the land, and anticipates the full possession of the land with the symbolic harvest of the wild barley that must have grown in the Jordan Valley (R. Hess, Joshua: An Introduction and Commentary [TOTC; Leicester and Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1996], 124–25). This Passover celebrated the entry into the Promised Land and its occupation. So the grain offering of firstfruits would eventually celebrate the gifts of the Promised Land at the beginning of each new harvest.

NOTE

14 Milgrom (Leviticus 1–16, 193–94) and Hartley, 32, note that the “new grain” (ʾābîb, GK 26) is “milky grain” in which the change from soft-seeded ears to fully ripe ones produces in wheat a color of grain that is almost white and from which liquid can be squeezed.

REFLECTION

Just as the grain offering of the firstfruits evoked memories of God’s continued covenantal faithfulness to Israel, the gifts of God’s people in the new covenant provide Christians with a means to celebrate the faithfulness of God in his blessings and provision of salvation (Php 4:18). Just as the grain offering was the major source of income for the priests, so the apostle Paul exhorts the Christian church to pay its workers (1Co 9:4–7, 13–14; cf. Wenham, 73; Rooker, 95–96).

3. The Fellowship Offering (3:1–17)

OVERVIEW

If the first two chapters of Leviticus summarize the major offerings according to the materials used—meat and grain—then the first three offerings provide a complete inclusion of all the recipients of an offering. Whereas the burnt offering is completely given to God and the grain offering is given to both God and the priests, the fellowship offering also is given to God, but not completely. A remainder can be used by the offerer to celebrate communion with God.

As with the other offerings there is a similar structure to this one. The first outline of the ceremony (vv.1–5) describes it generally without specifying the animal. The second and third descriptions are parallel to the first but identify the animal sacrificed as either a lamb (vv.6–11) or a goat (vv.12–16).

This offering most closely resembles the burnt offering of Leviticus 1, since both offerings involve the killing of animals. Of the nine elements identified there, the first three and the act of burning have parallels with the fellowship offering. But the third element (the quality) is stated at different points for the first two categories and not at all for the third category, the goat. Also the final element (the recognition of the offering as a pleasing aroma) is stated only in the first and last sections but is omitted in the section concerning the lamb offering.

Fellowship Offering

Elements	General	Lamb	Goat
1a Condition of offerer making offering	1 If someone’s offering is a fellowship offering,	6 If he offers an animal from the flock as a fellowship offering to the LORD,
1b Specification	and he offers an animal from the herd, whether male or female,	he is to offer a male or female without defect. 7 If he offers a lamb,	12 If his offering is a goat,
2 Presentation	he is to present before the LORD	he is to present it before the LORD.	he is to present it before the LORD.
3 Quality	an animal without defect.
4 Slaughtering	2 He is to lay his hand on the head of his offering and slaughter it at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting.	8 He is to lay his hand on the head of his offering and slaughter it in front of the Tent of Meeting.	13 He is to lay his hand on its head and slaughter it in front of the Tent of Meeting.
5 Manipulation of blood	Then Aaron’s sons the priests shall sprinkle the blood against the altar on all sides.	Then Aaron’s sons shall sprinkle its blood against the altar on all sides.	Then Aaron’s sons shall sprinkle its blood against the altar on all sides.
6a Parts offered: Introduction	3 From the fellowship offering he is to bring a sacrifice made to the LORD by fire:	9 From the fellowship offering he is to bring a sacrifice made to the LORD by fire:	14 From what he offers he is to make this offering to the LORD by fire:
6b Parts offered: List	all the fat that covers the inner parts or is connected to them, 4 both kidneys with the fat around them near the loins, and the covering of the liver, which he will remove with the kidneys	its fat, the entire fat tail cut off close to the backbone, all the fat that covers the inner parts or is connected to them, 10 both kidneys with the fat around them near the loins, and the covering of the liver, which he will remove with the kidneys.	all the fat that covers the inner parts or is connected to them, 15 both kidneys with the fat on them near the loins, and the covering of the liver, which he will remove with the kidneys.
7 Burning	5 Then Aaron’s sons are to burn it on the altar on top of the burnt offering that is on the burning wood, as an offering made by fire,	11 The priest shall burn them on the altar as food, an offering made to the LORD by fire.	16 The priest shall burn them on the altar as food, an offering made by fire,
8 Pleasing aroma	an aroma pleasing to the LORD.		a pleasing aroma. All the fat is the LORD’s.

1“‘If someone’s offering is a fellowship offering, and he offers an animal from the herd, whether male or female, he is to present before the LORD an animal without defect. 2He is to lay his hand on the head of his offering and slaughter it at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting. Then Aaron’s sons the priests shall sprinkle the blood against the altar on all sides. 3From the fellowship offering he is to bring a sacrifice made to the LORD by fire: all the fat that covers the inner parts or is connected to them, 4both kidneys with the fat on them near the loins, and the covering of the liver, which he will remove with the kidneys. 5Then Aaron’s sons are to burn it on the altar on top of the burnt offering that is on the burning wood, as an offering made by fire, an aroma pleasing to the LORD.

6“‘If he offers an animal from the flock as a fellowship offering to the LORD, he is to offer a male or female without defect. 7If he offers a lamb, he is to present it before the LORD. 8He is to lay his hand on the head of his offering and slaughter it in front of the Tent of Meeting. Then Aaron’s sons shall sprinkle its blood against the altar on all sides. 9From the fellowship offering he is to bring a sacrifice made to the LORD by fire: its fat, the entire fat tail cut off close to the backbone, all the fat that covers the inner parts or is connected to them, 10both kidneys with the fat on them near the loins, and the covering of the liver, which he will remove with the kidneys. 11The priest shall burn them on the altar as food, an offering made to the LORD by fire.

12“‘If his offering is a goat, he is to present it before the LORD. 13He is to lay his hand on its head and slaughter it in front of the Tent of Meeting. Then Aaron’s sons shall sprinkle its blood against the altar on all sides. 14From what he offers he is to make this offering to the LORD by fire: all the fat that covers the inner parts or is connected to them, 15both kidneys with the fat on them near the loins, and the covering of the liver, which he will remove with the kidneys. 16The priest shall burn them on the altar as food, an offering made by fire, a pleasing aroma. All the fat is the LORD’s.

17“‘This is a lasting ordinance for the generations to come, wherever you live: You must not eat any fat or any blood.’”

COMMENTARY

1 The fellowship offering was required for the priestly installation (9:18–22), the Feast of Weeks (23:19–20), and the completion of a Nazirite vow (Nu 6:17–20). Thus, in addition to thanksgiving and gratitude as implied in ch. 3, it could be used in response to the fulfillment of a vow (Jnh 2:9; Rooker, 100; Rainey, 207).

The name of this offering is the zebaḥ š^elāmîm (GK 2285, 8968). The first word refers to a sacrifice and signals to the reader that what is to be described is different from the grain offering of ch. 2. The second word has as its root šlm (GK 8966), the same root as the Hebrew word šālôm, “peace” (GK 8934). For this reason many early translations designated this offering as the peace offering, but that is too general a term to describe accurately what is found here. It is not merely an offering that establishes a cessation of war and hatred—an understanding of peace that is frequent in modern use of the term. Instead, it contributes to a harmonious relationship between the offerer and God. A good way to describe this is with the term “fellowship.”

2 Many of the actions, including placing the hands on the offering, slaughtering it, sprinkling the blood on the altar, and offering and burning it on the altar, have been previously mentioned in the burnt offering. The entrance to the Tent of Meeting, the wood on the fire, and the fragrant aroma also have parallels to phrases in the ceremony of Leviticus 1.

3–17 The distinctiveness of this offering is found in the detailed list of the parts of the animal to be offered to the LORD. In every case this includes all the fat from inside the animal, the kidneys with their suet, and the covering over the liver. In the case of the sheep, the fat tail is also offered to God. This was a delicacy and considered the best part of the sheep; it is not found on goats. Harrison, 58, continues the old argument that the prohibition of fat has dietary implications for the prevention of high cholesterol, cancer, and parasites. While this is nowhere explicit in the text, neither is the more frequent application that this involves offering the best part of the animal to God as an example of offering the best part of ourselves to our Lord (Ro 12:1–2). The offering of the kidneys and the inner parts to God may symbolize the emotions and the offering of the deepest and inner feelings of the one doing the sacrifice (Wenham, 80–81, citing Job 19:27; Ps 16:7; Jer 4:14; 12:2; Gerstenberger, 48, citing Ps 7:9[10]; Jer 11:20; 17:10). But the text itself provides no explanation for choosing these parts of the animal.

The list of items burnt on the altar as a sacrifice reveals as much by what it omits as it does by what it includes. What were considered the best parts of the animal went to God, but all the meat remained. Unlike the grain offering, the meat was not given to the priests. Instead, it was returned to the offerer, who could enjoy it in a meal with his or her family. It is possible that various festivals mentioned in early Israel involved the fellowship offering. For example, the sacrifice in 1 Samuel 1, to which Elkanah and Hannah went, might be a fellowship offering.

The burnt offering and the fellowship offering are combined forty-seven times in the Bible. They are also associated in the ritual of Ugarit c. 1300 BC (Wenham, 77). The first occurrence of this combination is in Exodus 20:24, which constitutes the first set of commands in the Book of the Covenant. The laws describe the building of an altar to the Lord and designate the type of offerings to be offered on it as burnt and fellowship offerings. In Exodus 24:5, Moses obediently prepares for the ratification of the covenant by offering both types of sacrifices. Thus these two types of sacrifices apparently went together. The burnt offering symbolized the giving of everything back to God, who had given it in the first place, and the reconciliation between God and the sinner. The fellowship offering symbolized participation with God in the sacrifice as God returned part of the offering to the offerer.

NOTES

1 Milgrom (Leviticus 1–16, 204) translates the fellowship offering as the “sacrifice of well-being.” He observes that this describes the condition of the offerer, who under no constraints provides a voluntary sacrifice (see also Harrison, 56; Hartley, 37–38). Hartley appeals to the plural form of the root šlm (GK 8966) and argues that this indicates an abstract idea. Levine, 15, points to the Akkadian cognate with the sense of a gift of greeting and to the Ugaritic Keret epic, in which the king offers this sacrifice to an enemy general in order to lift his siege. The translation chosen here understands that the root describes peaceful and joyful relations between God and the offerers and among the offerers themselves.

Scholars such as Gerstenberger, 46–47, maintain that the double name, “sacrifice of the fellowship offering” (zebaḥ š^elāmîm), indicates an origin from two separate sources. The “sacrifice” derives from a family meal and the “fellowship offering” from a sacrificial cultic rite; during the exile the two were combined. There is no biblical basis for separating these sacrifices or for their putative combination at some later date. Levine, 14–15, observes the occurrence of an early form of this sacrifice in the Passover of Exodus 12:27, which refers to it as a zebaḥ (“sacrifice”); note also the detailed description in 1 Samuel 9:12–25.

3–4 The “fat that covers the inner parts” and the fat around the internal organs define the suet (ḥēleb, GK 2693). The “covering of the liver” actually uses a Hebrew term for “excess, protuberance,” which describes “a fingerlike projection from the liver, close to the right kidney” (Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 208). This lobe, along with the remainder of the liver, was used among ancient Near Eastern peoples for divination. Deformities or unusual aspects of livers found in sacrificed animals were thought to contain divine portents regarding the future. It may be significant that portions of the liver are to be given back to God in Israel rather than be left for purposes of divination. (Gerstenberger, 48, makes the connection between divination and Leviticus 3 but does not see the distinction.)

Warning, 175, observes that the term for “kidneys” (k^elāyōt, GK 4000) occurs here for the first time and will reappear some fourteen times through 9:19, thus linking this chapter with those that follow regarding sacrifices and their use in the installation of the priests.

5 Noth, 32, observes that the burnt offering is commanded before the fellowship offering may be presented. Most likely this is the obligatory morning burnt offering, which had to be presented before any other offerings could be placed on the altar.

9 The suet also includes the broad tail of the sheep. This tail, or protrusion of fat, was distinctive to sheep of the region, as already noted by Herodotus (1.113; cf. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 211–12).

11 The designation of the offering as “food” (leḥem, GK 4312) may suggest its preparation in the same way that it was offered to humans (Levine, Leviticus, 17). Rooker, 103, compares 1 Corinthians 10:18–22 and its equation of eating food offered to an idol with having fellowship with the deity represented by the idol.

16 The last part of this verse asserts that all suet belongs to the Lord. For Milgrom (Leviticus 1–16, 214) this suggests that every animal needed to be sacrificed at the altar before it could be eaten. Warning, 102–3, observes that the term “food gift” (ʾiššeh, GK 852) occurs three times in ch. 1, six times in ch. 2, and six times in ch. 3. This comprises nearly a quarter of all its appearances in the entire Bible. As such, it suggests a key word for these three chapters and a special significance for the last occurrence in 3:16, where it is described as a “soothing aroma” (cf. 3:5).

17 The change here to the second person plural is unique to this chapter. Gerstenberger, 49, sees the hand of an editor. But such admonitions are customary in biblical directives, and their placement at the end of a section of cultic description may be expected. In chs. 1–7, second person plural suffixes occur only in 1:2; 6:11; 7:26, 32. All of these contain commands to the people, with 7:26 also containing a prohibition on eating blood, but 1:2 is most important. With 3:17 it forms an envelope construction for the first three sacrifices (Rolf Rendtorff, Leviticus [BKAT 3.1; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1985], 134).

Furthermore, ch. 3 has seven occurrences of “all, every” (kôl, GK 3972) and twelve of “fat” (ḥēleb, GK 2693), as Warning, 67–70, observes. The association of these two words and their number of occurrences at the significant frequencies of seven and twelve is hardly accidental and suggests a perfection and completion to this chapter, culminating in v.17, where “fat” occurs once and “all” occurs twice.

The prohibition of fat and blood is described as a “lasting ordinance.” This expression first occurs in Exodus 12:14, where it describes the Passover. A few verses later (v.17) it describes the Feast of Unleavened Bread that follows Passover. Elsewhere it is connected to the priesthood (Ex 27:21; 28:43; 29:9; Lev 7:36; 10:9). Thus it is identified with priestly and cultic matters that are specifically ordained by God as concerns of special importance.

Blood is forbidden in the covenant with Noah (Ge 9:4) because it represents the life of the creature that especially belongs to God. This law is repeated in the NT (Ac 15:29). Fat is forbidden here, presumably because it symbolizes the best part of the animal that alone belongs to God. It may refer specifically to sacrifices. Elsewhere the term for “fat” (ḥēleb) is associated with God (Dt 32:38; Isa 1:11; 43:24; Eze 44:7; see Budd, 72, 75, who connects it with “strength” as in 2Sa 1:22; Dt 32:15; Isa 34:6). But there is no mention in the Bible of the fat part of an animal being eaten by an Israelite except to condemn it (1Sa 2:15–17).

REFLECTION

For the Christian the burnt offering and the fellowship offering are combined at the cross of Christ. He presented his body as a burnt offering totally given to God, and yet his body is given back to Christians who form it as the church, which is the body of Christ (1Co 12:27; Eph 4:12). This latter part of Christ’s service resembles the fellowship offering. Wenham, 82–83 (cf. Rooker, 105), likens the fellowship offering to the Lord’s Supper. Both activities were meals and this is unique for sacrifices. Both demand cleanness before God (Lev 7:20; 1Co 11:27, 30). In both there is a distinctive element of joy and gratitude in the context of encountering the holy God. Kellogg, 97, comments:

And now the Shekinah light of the ancient tent of meeting begins to illumine even the sacramental table, and as we listen to the words of Jesus, “Take, eat! This is My body which was broken for you,” we are reminded of the feast of the peace-offerings. The Israel of God is to be fed with the flesh of the sacrificed Lamb which became their peace.

4. The Purification Offering (4:1–5:13)

OVERVIEW

Warning, 82–84, finds that chs. 4–5 are held together by the word for “person, member” (nepeš, GK 5883), which recurs eight times and introduces new sections: 4:2, 27; 5:1, 2, 4, 15, 17, 21. Further, the passive of the verb “to forgive” (Niphal form w^enislaḥ, GK 6142) occurs nine times in these two chapters (4:20, 26, 31, 35; 5:10, 13, 16, 18, 26). The two terms describe the theme of these texts: the availability of forgiveness to anyone.

a. Introduction (4:1–2)

1The LORD said to Moses, 2“Say to the Israelites: ‘When anyone sins unintentionally and does what is forbidden in any of the LORD’s commands—

COMMENTARY

1 The note about the Lord’s addressing of Moses is repeated here from 1:1. The address was not used to introduce the grain or fellowship offerings. But the remaining offering to be described (5:14) and the review of the offerings (6:8, 19, 24) are all introduced by a note that God spoke to Moses (in the case of 6:19, it occurs a few verses into the discussion of the grain offering). Thus, it appears that the burnt offering, the grain offering, and the fellowship offering are the three basic offerings Israel renders to the Lord, and the purification offering is a variation on the burnt offering. Hence the introduction is repeated here but not in chs. 2 and 3.

In other words, the first three offerings are stylistically associated, and the remaining ones are derivatives of these. They form a new section. In the case of the purification offering, this is further demonstrated by many references to the first three offerings within the description here (4:3, 10, 14, 20–21, 24–26, 29–31, 33–35).

2 The purification offering describes a distinctive type of burnt offering in which an animal sacrifice is burnt on the altar as an offering to the Lord. The key to this offering is that it provides for sins that are “unintentional.” This word, š^egāgâ (GK 8704), occurs nineteen times in the OT, with its first appearance coming here (see also Lev 4:2, 22, 27; 5:15, 18; 22:14; Nu 15:24–29; 35:11, 15; Jos 20:3, 9; Ecc 5:5; 10:5). The uses in Leviticus and Numbers 15 describe various sin and reparation offerings. In Numbers 35 and Joshua 20, it describes the cities of refuge for someone who kills another person without planning to do so. The two occurrences in Ecclesiastes describe mistakes.

Twice the term is glossed with a further definition of its meaning. In Numbers 15:24 this sin is committed “without the community being aware of it” (lit., “apart from the eyes of the congregation”). In Joshua 20:3 the killer commits the deed “accidentally” (lit., “without knowing, planning”). Thus this sin is certainly not deliberate (Harris, 547–48), but there is also no clear example of intentionality in any of its uses. Though it is possible to understand this as a mistake or failing apart from intentionality, some see the sins of 5:1–4 as examples of intentional acts (Harrison, 60–61; C. Van Dam, “The Meaning of ,” in Unity in Diversity: Studies Presented to Dr. Jelle Faber on the Occasion of His Retirement, ed. R. Faber [Hamilton: Senate of the Theological College of the Canadian Reformed Churches, 1989], 13–24). But these may be sins of omission (Levine, Leviticus, 19, 26). The lack of knowledge or intention described in this verse corresponds to the absence of a demand for sorrow or repentance to accompany the sacrifice. The purification offering was required, but unlike ch. 16, where intentional sins are dealt with by the high priest, there is no explicit demand regarding the offerer’s attitude.

Thus, the term describes a sin, whether ritual or ethical (Kiuchi, 38; Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 228–31), that was not intentionally planned but the sinner committed without knowing it. The issue of a sudden, impulsive sin may be envisioned here as well, but it is not clearly stated. Milgrom observes that only inadvertent sin is expiated through these sacrifices. Intentional sins bar the guilty one from the sanctuary (Nu 15:30–31) until the Day of Atonement, when the high priest represents these people (along with all Israel) and achieves reconciliation. This is preferable to the view that the question of intentionality serves to empower priests, who can then decide whose sacrifice will be received and whose will not (Gerstenberger, 63).

The offering’s use for any of the Lord’s commands suggests both ethical and ritual injunctions. Only in Israel is the forgiveness of both tied to a single offering.

The first two verses form an introduction to the purification offering. It is followed by a description of the offering.

b. The general purification offering (4:3–35)

3“‘If the anointed priest sins, bringing guilt on the people, he must bring to the LORD a young bull without defect as a sin offering for the sin he has committed. 4He is to present the bull at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting before the LORD. He is to lay his hand on its head and slaughter it before the LORD. 5Then the anointed priest shall take some of the bull’s blood and carry it into the Tent of Meeting. 6He is to dip his finger into the blood and sprinkle some of it seven times before the LORD, in front of the curtain of the sanctuary. 7The priest shall then put some of the blood on the horns of the altar of fragrant incense that is before the LORD in the Tent of Meeting. The rest of the bull’s blood he shall pour out at the base of the altar of burnt offering at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting. 8He shall remove all the fat from the bull of the sin offering—the fat that covers the inner parts or is connected to them, 9both kidneys with the fat on them near the loins, and the covering of the liver, which he will remove with the kidneys—10just as the fat is removed from the ox sacrificed as a fellowship offering. Then the priest shall burn them on the altar of burnt offering. 11But the hide of the bull and all its flesh, as well as the head and legs, the inner parts and offal—12that is, all the rest of the bull—he must take outside the camp to a place ceremonially clean, where the ashes are thrown, and burn it in a wood fire on the ash heap.

13“‘If the whole Israelite community sins unintentionally and does what is forbidden in any of the LORD’s commands, even though the community is unaware of the matter, they are guilty. 14When they become aware of the sin they committed, the assembly must bring a young bull as a sin offering and present it before the Tent of Meeting. 15The elders of the community are to lay their hands on the bull’s head before the LORD, and the bull shall be slaughtered before the LORD. 16Then the anointed priest is to take some of the bull’s blood into the Tent of Meeting. 17He shall dip his finger into the blood and sprinkle it before the LORD seven times in front of the curtain. 18He is to put some of the blood on the horns of the altar that is before the LORD in the Tent of Meeting. The rest of the blood he shall pour out at the base of the altar of burnt offering at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting. 19He shall remove all the fat from it and burn it on the altar, 20and do with this bull just as he did with the bull for the sin offering. In this way the priest will make atonement for them, and they will be forgiven. 21Then he shall take the bull outside the camp and burn it as he burned the first bull. This is the sin offering for the community.

22“‘When a leader sins unintentionally and does what is forbidden in any of the commands of the LORD his God, he is guilty. 23When he is made aware of the sin he committed, he must bring as his offering a male goat without defect. 24He is to lay his hand on the goat’s head and slaughter it at the place where the burnt offering is slaughtered before the LORD. It is a sin offering. 25Then the priest shall take some of the blood of the sin offering with his finger and put it on the horns of the altar of burnt offering and pour out the rest of the blood at the base of the altar. 26He shall burn all the fat on the altar as he burned the fat of the fellowship offering. In this way the priest will make atonement for the man’s sin, and he will be forgiven.

27“‘If a member of the community sins unintentionally and does what is forbidden in any of the LORD’s commands, he is guilty. 28When he is made aware of the sin he committed, he must bring as his offering for the sin he committed a female goat without defect. 29He is to lay his hand on the head of the sin offering and slaughter it at the place of the burnt offering. 30Then the priest is to take some of the blood with his finger and put it on the horns of the altar of burnt offering and pour out the rest of the blood at the base of the altar. 31He shall remove all the fat, just as the fat is removed from the fellowship offering, and the priest shall burn it on the altar as an aroma pleasing to the LORD. In this way the priest will make atonement for him, and he will be forgiven.

32“‘If he brings a lamb as his sin offering, he is to bring a female without defect. 33He is to lay his hand on its head and slaughter it for a sin offering at the place where the burnt offering is slaughtered. 34Then the priest shall take some of the blood of the sin offering with his finger and put it on the horns of the altar of burnt offering and pour out the rest of the blood at the base of the altar. 35He shall remove all the fat, just as the fat is removed from the lamb of the fellowship offering, and the priest shall burn it on the altar on top of the offerings made to the LORD by fire. In this way the priest will make atonement for him for the sin he has committed, and he will be forgiven.

COMMENTARY

3–35 There is a repeated structure in the description of the purification offering in ch. 4. The difference here is determined by the status of the person or people who commit the sin. It appears to list first those whose sin is most disruptive to God’s continued presence among and blessing of Israel, viz., the priest and the whole community of Israel. It then reviews the purification offering for a civil leader and finally a member of the community. As the status diminishes, so does the value of the animal sacrificed. For the last category—that of a citizen—either a female goat or a female lamb may be offered, and the two are described differently.

Purification Offering

• Elements:
  • v.1a Condition of offerer making offering
• Priest:
  • v.3 If the anointed priest sins, bringing guilt on the people,
• Whole Community:
  • v.13 If the whole Israelite community sins unintentionally and does what is forbidden in any of the LORD’s commands, even though the community is unaware of the matter, they are guilty.
  • v.14 When they become aware of the sin they committed,
• Leader:
  • v.22 When a leader sins unintentionally and does what is forbidden in any of the commands of the LORD his God, he is guilty.
  • v.23 When he is made aware of the sin he committed,
• Citizen (Goat):
  • v.27 If a member of the community sins unintentionally and does what is forbidden in any of the LORD’s commands, he is guilty.
  • v.28 When he is made aware of the sin he committed,
• Citizen (Lamb):
  • v.32 If he brings a lamb as his purification offering,
  
  
  
• Elements:
  • v.1b Specification
• Priest:
  • v.3 he must bring to the LORD a young bull without defect as a purification offering for the sin he has committed.
• Whole Community:
  • v.14 the assembly must bring a young bull as a purification offering
• Leader:
  • v.23 he must bring as his offering a male goat without defect.
• Citizen (Goat):
  • v.28 he must bring as his offering for the sin he committed a female goat without defect.
• Citizen (Lamb):
  • v.32 he is to bring a female without defect.
  
  
  
• Elements:
  • v.2 Presentation
• Priest:
  • v.4 He is to present the bull at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting before the LORD.
• Whole Community:
  • v.14 and present it before the Tent of Meeting.
  
  
  
• Elements:
  • v.3 Slaughtering
• Priest:
  • v.4 He is to lay his hand on its head and slaughter it before the LORD.
• Whole Community:
  • v.15 The elders of the community are to lay their hands on the bull’s head before the LORD, and the bull shall be slaughtered before the LORD.
• Leader:
  • v.24 He is to lay his hand on the goat’s head and slaughter it at the place where the burnt offering is slaughtered before the LORD. It is a purification offering.
• Citizen (Goat):
  • v.29 He is to lay his hand on the head of the purification offering and slaughter it at the place of the burnt offering.
• Citizen (Lamb):
  • v.33 He is to lay his hand on its head and slaughter it for a purification offering at the place where the burnt offering is slaughtered.
  
  
  
• Elements:
  • v.4 Manipulation of blood
• Priest:
  • v.5 Then the anointed priest shall take some of the bull’s blood and carry it into the Tent of Meeting.
  • v.6 He is to dip his finger into the blood and sprinkle some of it seven times before the LORD, in front of the curtain of the sanctuary.
  • v.7 The priest shall then put some of the blood on the horns of the altar of fragrant incense that is before the LORD in the Tent of Meeting. The rest of the bull’s blood he shall pour out at the base of the altar of burnt offering at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting.
• Whole Community:
  • v.16 Then the anointed priest is to take some of the bull’s blood into the Tent of Meeting.
  • v.17 He shall dip his finger into the blood and sprinkle it before the LORD seven times in front of the curtain.
  • v.18 He is to put some of the blood on the horns of the altar that is before the LORD in the Tent of Meeting. The rest of the blood he shall pour out at the base of the altar of burnt offering at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting.
• Leader:
  • v.5 Then the priest shall take some of the blood of the purification offering with his finger and put it on the horns of the altar of burnt offering and pour out the rest of the blood at the base of the altar.
• Citizen (Goat):
  • v.30 Then the priest is to take some of the blood with his finger and put it on the horns of the altar of burnt offering and pour out the rest of the blood at the base of the altar.
• Citizen (Lamb):
  • v.34 Then the priest shall take some of the blood of the purification offering with his finger and put it on the horns of the altar of burnt offering and pour out the rest of the blood at the base of the altar.
  
  
  
• Elements:
  • v.5a Parts offered: Introduction
• Priest:
  • v.8 He shall remove all the fat from the bull of the purification offering—the fat that covers the inner parts or is connected to them,
• Whole Community:
  • v.19 He shall remove all the fat from it and burn it on the altar,
• Leader:
  • v.26 He shall burn all the fat on the altar
• Citizen (Goat):
  • v.31 He shall remove all the fat, just as the fat is removed from the fellowship offering,
• Citizen (Lamb):
  • v.35 He shall remove all the fat, just as the fat is removed from the lamb of the fellowship offering,
  
  
  
• Elements:
  • v.5b Parts offered: List
• Priest:
  • v.9 both kidneys with the fat on them near the loins, and the covering of the liver, which he will remove with the kidneys— v.10 just as the fat is removed from the cow sacrificed as a fellowship offering
• Whole Community:
  • v.20 and do with the bull just as he did with the bull for the purification offering.
• Leader:
  • v.26 as he burned the fat of the fellowship offering.
  
  
  
• Elements:
  • v.8a Burning: At the altar
• Priest:
  • v.10 Then the priest shall burn them on the altar of burnt offering.
• Whole Community:
  • v.20 In this way the priest will make atonement for them, and they will be forgiven.
• Leader:
  • v.26 In this way the priest will make atonement for the man’s sin, and he will be forgiven.
• Citizen (Goat):
  • v.31 and the priest shall burn it on the altar
• Citizen (Lamb):
  • v.35 and the priest shall burn it on the altar on top of the offerings made to the LORD by fire.
  
  
  
• Elements:
  • v.8b Burning: Outside the camp
• Priest:
  • v.11 But the hide of the bull and all its flesh, as well as the head and legs, the inner parts and offal—v.12 that is, all the rest of the bull—he must take outside the camp to a place ceremonially clean, where the ashes are thrown, and burn it in a wood fire on the ash heap.
• Whole Community:
  • v.21 Then he shall take the bull outside the camp and burn it as he burned the first bull.
  
  
  
• Elements:
  • v.9 Pleasing aroma and Conclusion
• Whole Community:
  • v.21 This is the purification offering for the community.
• Leader:
  • v.26 as an aroma pleasing to the LORD. In this way the priest will make atonement for him, and he will be forgiven.
• Citizen (Goat):
  • v.31 In this way the priest will make atonement for the sin he has committed, and he will be forgiven.

There are differences between the types of purification offerings. For example, those for the anointed priest and the community are designated as purification offerings at the beginning of the ceremony that is described. Though none of the others are described in this way, they all have a statement—usually as the last sentence—that atonement has been made and the sins will be forgiven. Even the offering for the sin of the community includes this observation. Nevertheless, already one may anticipate that the offerings for the priest and the whole community rank as especially significant, as do their sins.

Again, the first two types of offerings include the sprinkling of blood at the curtain to the Most Holy Place and the altar of incense. The others do not describe this event in their instructions for the manipulation of the blood but place the blood on the altar of burnt offering outside the Holy Place. It suggests the greater seriousness of the offense if done by the priest or by the congregation. The uncleanness has penetrated farther into the sanctuary because of the gravity of a high priest’s sin or a sin by the whole population of Israel.

There are several additional features to this observation of gradations. First, the priest is often designated as “the anointed priest” (vv.3, 5, 16). The term for “anointed” is māšîaḥ (GK 5431), the Messiah that in Greek is the christos, or Christ. It first appears here in the Bible. It most often refers to kings (especially Saul in 1 Samuel), but in Leviticus it refers to the priests and suggests their method of ordination as one that sets them apart from the people and in some way enables them to symbolize and represent the whole people of Israel (Hess, “Image”). Their offering of sacrifice to God anticipates the offering by Jesus Christ of himself as his own sacrifice to God for all people (Heb 9:26; 10:12–18).

A second point in the gradations has to do with the animals offered. The use of a bull reflects the importance of this animal as the most valuable among Israelite livestock. The civil leader who sins must bring a male goat, while citizens can bring a female goat or a lamb. The cheapest herd for a commoner consists of female animals with at most one male for breeding. Therefore, a female animal is easier for the average Israelite to present. A male animal would not be difficult for a leader with more wealth (Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 252).

Note the pervasive nature of sin throughout all levels of social strata, both among individuals and for the entire community (Ro 3:23). In every case, without exception or favoritism, sin generates uncleanness and requires a proportionate sacrifice to deal with it (Ro 6:23; Rooker, 108). Greater ranks and status require a sacrifice of greater value. Further, as already exemplified by Exodus 32–34, a whole nation could sin and face judgment. This principle remains in force during Israel’s history and, as far as the Bible is concerned, remains true today (Kellogg, 125–29); therefore, the purification offering provides a means of reconciliation between God and the impure nation.

Finally, the emphasis on the placement or manipulation of the blood is central to all the descriptions of the purification offering. It appears that the purification of the altars of incense and of burnt offering by placing blood on the horns and/or the base—a practice described in every form of the offering—symbolizes the completeness of the purification. The altars are thereby made ready to receive the offering and prepared for God to approach and accept the sacrifice.

12, 21 The priest removes the remainder of the bull outside the camp to a place that is clean. God commanded this for the remainder of the bull sacrificed in the priests’ ordination (Ex 29:14), and it will recur in the priests’ instruction for the burnt offering (Lev 6:11) and in the actual ordination of the priests (8:17; 9:11). It envisions the remnants of the animal, whose most valuable parts God has received in a holy offering. The remainder cannot be kept in the camp but must be taken outside the camp and burned in a place that does not defile the parts that remain.

NOTES

3 The “anointed priest” is a preexilic title for the high priest, who alone has the oil poured on his head (8:12, 30; Nu 3:3). This is an early rabbinic understanding (Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 231) that fits well with the extraordinary expense of this particular purification offering.

The “sin offering” (ḥaṭṭā ʾt, GK 2633) derives from the root ḥṭ ʾ, which in the Piel stem and its formations, as here, consistently carries the meaning “to purify.” Thus, “purification offering” seems appropriate. Milgrom (Leviticus 1–16, 253–64) describes the offering as that which purifies the sanctuary. But Kiuchi, 65–66, should be taken into account here, as well as in ch. 9 and especially 10:17. He sees this as an offering that expiates the sinner’s guilt. The two are not mutually exclusive.

As described in this chapter, these purification offerings deal with inadvertent sins or failings and can be handled with the sprinkling of the blood either on the altar of the burnt offering outside the Tent of Meeting or, for more serious uncleanness (by a high priest or by the entire population), within the Holy Place at the altar of incense. All sins dealt with on the Day of Atonement (ch. 16) affect the Most Holy Place and can be resolved only by applying blood to the inner sanctuary. This itself is a powerful lesson about the effects of sins, especially intentional ones. They affect the inner relationship with God and, if not dealt with (1Jn 1:9), can bring about a departure of God from the sanctuary (Eze 11).

The consumption of part of the purification offering by the priests (6:26[19]) demonstrates the absence of any magical power attached to this meat. The blood of the sacrificed animal provides a means of purifying the cult (Jacob Milgrom, “Two Kinds of Ḥaṭṭāt,” VT 26 [1976]: 333–37; Hartley, 58). It should be noted that the purification of the sanctuary does not eliminate the possibility of any positive effect on the offerer (note the repeated mention of forgiveness in vv.20, 26, 31, 35), as the text never suggests otherwise; therefore, purification becomes a means of forgiveness of sin and reconciliation with God. Its reality as a prototype for Christ’s offering of himself in the NT cannot be denied.

6 Sevenfold sprinkling symbolizes its completeness. It is used with the purification offering (4:6, 17; 16:14–15, 19; Nu 19:4), for the purification of scale disease (14:7, 16, 27, 51), and for the anointing oil on the altar (8:11; Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 233).

7 Gorman, 232, suggests that the blood serves two purposes: to purify the altar by placing it on the horns, and to consecrate the altar by placing it at the base. But Milgrom (Leviticus 1–16, 289–92) demonstrates that the purification offering’s position in ch. 8 belies a purpose of consecration. Though elsewhere prayer and incense are connected, there is no reference to them in this chapter (contra Walter C. Kaiser Jr., “The Book of Leviticus,” in The New Interpreter’s Bible [Nashville: Abingdon, 1994], 1:1035; Rooker, 111).

“Horns” of the altar are the projections on each of the four corners of the altar. There are many examples of incense altars and larger altars of this type from ancient Israel. The base of the altar contains a channel for drawing away the blood, as seen in the thirteenth-century BC altar cult center in the Timnah Valley and 1 Kings 18:32 (Eze 43:13, 17). On larger altars, they could have been used as convenient posts for tying the animal before slaughter on the altar (Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 249). For the incense, see Exodus 30:34–36.

10 Kiuchi, 126–28, argues that the high priest could not obtain atonement for his own guilt even for an inadvertent sin. It is, however, unlikely and unmanageable for the high priest to need to wait until the Day of Atonement, even for an accidental sin (Hartley, 46).

12 The burning of the remaining parts of the animal outside the camp describes how the animal’s association with that which is unclean requires its residue to be removed from the presence of the community. A huge ash dump (twelve meters high and the length of a hippodrome) north of Jerusalem at the site of the Mandelbaum gate was attested in early rabbinic literature and up till the end of the nineteenth century, when it was analyzed and found to contain animal remains (see Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 240).

13, 15 The “whole Israelite community” refers to the entire population and not a segment of one sort or another (Ex 12:3, 6; 17:1; see Levine, 22, rather than Wenham, 98, who finds here only a representative part).

13–14 An inadvertent sin committed by the whole congregation yet hidden from them initially may seem difficult to imagine. Milgrom suggests a miscalculation by the priests that results in the celebration of a national festival on the wrong day.

20 Here the atonement (see comment at 1:4) is tied to forgiveness, suggesting that in the context of this purification offering, at least, there is an element of divine forgiveness as well as purification in the sacrifice (Hartley, 63–66).

21 As is clear from the above chart, the “first bull” refers to the one given for the sin of the priest and requiring the fuller procedure for disposal (vv.11–12).

22 The “leader” is the Hebrew nāśî ʾ (GK 5954), a clan leader (Nu 3:24, 30, 35) or head of an ancestral house (Nu 7:2; 36:1; Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 246).

c. Conditions requiring purification (5:1–4)

1“‘If a person sins because he does not speak up when he hears a public charge to testify regarding something he has seen or learned about, he will be held responsible.

2“‘Or if a person touches anything ceremonially unclean—whether the carcasses of unclean wild animals or of unclean livestock or of unclean creatures that move along the ground—even though he is unaware of it, he has become unclean and is guilty.

3“‘Or if he touches human uncleanness—anything that would make him unclean—even though he is unaware of it, when he learns of it he will be guilty.

4“‘Or if a person thoughtlessly takes an oath to do anything, whether good or evil—in any matter one might carelessly swear about—even though he is unaware of it, in any case when he learns of it he will be guilty.

COMMENTARY

1 This verse begins a series of four verses expressing four conditions that render a person guilty and in need of the reconciliation provided by a form of the purification offering detailed in vv.5–13. The four conditions are arranged in A–B–B’–A’ order. The first and the last describe matters of judicial oaths and issues of lying, while the second and third deal with cultic uncleanness related to objects a person might touch. In this first list of prohibitions, both civil (vv.1 and 4) and religious matters (vv.2 and 3) are joined. This will be the case in other legal collections in Leviticus. Here it describes the variety of categories that can render a person guilty. It also compares the guilt of knowing something and remaining silent (v.1) with the guilt of not knowing that one is doing something wrong (vv.2–3).

The law describes someone who witnesses an oath, or (lit.) the curse that is attached to an oath. This oath may be an official request for information that the guilty one knows about, as is suggested by the NIV’s rendering. It is something most likely to be heard, but even if the guilty one does not hear it, that person is liable as long as he or she knows about the matter and does not respond. This corresponds to the judicial perjury forbidden in the Decalogue (Ex 20:16; Dt 5:20). In Leviticus the witness does not actively lie under oath but passively allows important information—perhaps communication that could save an accused citizen’s life—to go unreported. It is a virtue to stand up for the truth even when the result may threaten the witness.

The expression “he will be held responsible” occurs here and twice more in this book (5:17; 17:16). Literally it means, “(and) he will bear his iniquity.” The Hebrew is w^enāśā ʾ ʿ^awônô (GK 5951, 6411). With the suffix “his,” the expression is unique to these three occurrences. Without this suffix (e.g., “he will bear iniquity” or “he will bear their iniquity”), it occurs thirteen times in the Bible. It clearly means to take on oneself the blame and guilt for a misdeed.

In a number of cases this expression refers to God’s forgiving of the sins of others by taking the guilt on himself (Pss 32:5; 85:2[3]; Hos 14:2[3]; Mic 7:18). The intentionality of the sin of v.1 followed by this assignment of guilt has led to the conclusion that no atonement is possible (Budd, 93–94). In that case it is not clear what purpose listing this sin here serves. It is better to see a transgression that, despite its intentionality, may receive forgiveness, whether in the purification of the pollution it causes to the sanctuary (by the reparation offering) or in forgiveness of the offender (by the Day of Atonement rituals). As v.5 indicates (referring to this sin as well as those in vv.2–4), personal confession is also required.

2 The prohibition concerning the touching of any unclean animal is expressed for the first time here—repeated throughout the Levitical laws (7:24; 11:8, 11, 24–25, 27–28, 35–40; 17:15; 22:8; Dt 14:8). The structure of the three phrases describing the carcasses begins with a general clause about anything that was alive. Then it moves on to specify cattle and swarming creatures in the second and third clauses. The “cattle” refers both to larger animals, such as cows and bulls, and to smaller ones, such as sheep and goats. The category of creatures that “move along the ground” is misleading, as it literally means “swarmers.” This can include frogs (Ex 8:3), sea creatures without fins and scales (Lev 11:10), winged insects (11:21), weasels, mice, and lizards (11:29). See further in Leviticus 11.

3 “Human uncleanness” refers not merely to dead people but to any human waste or product that is unclean (see further in chs. 12–15). In both vv.2 and 3 the matter is not known or intended at the time of the encounter. But that does not excuse the uncleanness or negate its need for atonement. In these verses the reality of objective uncleanness is introduced. The intention of the person does not matter. The touching can take place without the knowledge of the person doing it, or it can take place with the person’s being unaware of the uncleanness involved. Nevertheless, it is a sin and puts that person in need of reconciliation with God.

4 The meaning of this action depends on the adverbial phrase modifying the verb, “takes an oath.” The verbal form occurs one other time in the MT (in Ps 106:33), where it describes how Moses spoke “rash words” at the waters of Meribah. This may refer to the arrogant statement in which Moses addresses Israel and refers to the action as coming from both himself and God: “Must we bring you water out of this rock?” (Nu 20:10). For this assertion he was forbidden entrance into the Promised Land (Nu 20:24; 27:14). The same arrogance may be suggested here, where the speaker rashly attaches his or her own words and intentions to those of God. This recalls the concern of James that there should be no boasts about future intentions among God’s people but only a willingness to follow the Lord’s will (Jas 5:13–17). Indeed, the final verse of that section recalls the first prohibition of Leviticus 5: “Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn’t do it, sins.”

The combination of sins related to cultic uncleanness and to personal morality integrates these two areas. It demonstrates that both the cult and morality are related.

NOTES

1 Hartley, 68, suggests other possible interpretations of this verse that involve either the hearing of an unlawful curse pronounced (Noth, 44), or the person pronouncing a curse on the thief or someone who finds what has been lost but fails to report it. Nevertheless, the natural sense of the text is the interpretation favored above. As Milgrom observes, the “oath, curse” (ʾālâ, GK 460) is used for exculpatory statements. The ancient Near Eastern wisdom literature always advised witnesses to avoid the courts and not to testify.

In this verse the point demonstrates that witnesses could not be compelled to testify and, therefore, punishment remains with God (Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 294–96). Gerstenberger, 69, cites Judges 17:2, where Micah’s mother curses the thief not realizing it is her own son. In that case, however, the son is both the guilty party and the one who hears the curse and knows who committed the crime. Douglas, 131, argues that this law raises a civil crime to the level of sacrilege by forcing potentially guilty persons to swear an oath. Levine, 27, concludes that the problem here is negligence involving speech rather than any action.

4 The need for confession occurs where the sin is deliberate (see 5:1–4; 16:21; 26:40; Nu 5:6). This was also true in earlier Hittite religion where confession of deliberate sin was necessary for divine forgiveness, and this is true elsewhere (Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 301–2, 369, 374).

d. The purification offering for sins of 5:5–13

5“‘When anyone is guilty in any of these ways, he must confess in what way he has sinned 6and, as a penalty for the sin he has committed, he must bring to the LORD a female lamb or goat from the flock as a sin offering; and the priest shall make atonement for him for his sin.

7“‘If he cannot afford a lamb, he is to bring two doves or two young pigeons to the LORD as a penalty for his sin—one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering. 8He is to bring them to the priest, who shall first offer the one for the sin offering. He is to wring its head from its neck, not severing it completely, 9and is to sprinkle some of the blood of the sin offering against the side of the altar; the rest of the blood must be drained out at the base of the altar. It is a sin offering. 10The priest shall then offer the other as a burnt offering in the prescribed way and make atonement for him for the sin he has committed, and he will be forgiven.

11“‘If, however, he cannot afford two doves or two young pigeons, he is to bring as an offering for his sin a tenth of an ephah of fine flour for a sin offering. He must not put oil or incense on it, because it is a sin offering. 12He is to bring it to the priest, who shall take a handful of it as a memorial portion and burn it on the altar on top of the offerings made to the LORD by fire. It is a sin offering. 13In this way the priest will make atonement for him for any of these sins he has committed, and he will be forgiven. The rest of the offering will belong to the priest, as in the case of the grain offering.’”

COMMENTARY

5–13 The wrongdoings listed in 5:1–4 provide the background for this additional section on purification offerings. These offerings are designed for all the Israelites, no matter how wealthy or poor. Verse 5 adds the requirement of the need to confess the sin that has been committed. All eleven occurrences of this form of the verb describe the confession of sin (the Hithpael root of ydh, GK 3344; Lev 5:5; 16:21; 26:40; Nu 5:7; Da 9:4, 20; Ezra 10:1; Ne 1:6; 9:2–3; 2Ch 30:22—though the last is ambiguous). Thus it seems as though the entire ceremony presumes the recognition and confession of the sin. Its note here may reflect the need to recognize a sin previously unknown or unrecognized by the people involved. In any case, the principle that confession precedes forgiveness is recognized here as background to its expression for the Day of Atonement (Lev 16) and in the NT (1Jn 1:9).

There are three types of the offering, according to what the person committing the sin can afford. The sequence may be compared to the form of the purification offering already noted.

Purification Offering

Elements	Lamb or Goat	Two Birds	Flour
1a Condition of offerer making offering	6 and, as a penalty for the sin he has committed, he must bring to the LORD	7 If he cannot afford a lamb, he is to bring	11 If, however, he cannot afford two doves or two young pigeons, he is to bring as an offering for his sin
1b Specification	a female lamb or goat from the flock as a purification offering;	two doves or two young pigeons to the LORD as a penalty for his sin—one for a purification offering and the other for a burnt offering.	a tenth of an ephah of fine flour for a purification offering. He must not put oil or incense on it, because it is a purification offering.
2 Presentation		8 He is to bring them to the priest, who shall first offer the one for the purification offering.	12 He is to bring it to the priest,
3 Slaughtering		He is to wring its head from its neck, not severing it completely,	who shall take a handful of it as its memorial portion
4 Manipulation of blood		9 and is to sprinkle some of the blood of the purification offering against the side of the altar; the rest of the blood must be drained out at the base of the altar. It is a purification offering.
5a Parts offered: Introduction
5b Parts offered: List
8a Burning: At the altar		[10 The priest shall then offer the other as a burnt offering in the prescribed way]	and burn it on the altar on top of the offerings made to the LORD by fire.
8b Burning: Outside the camp
9 Pleasing aroma and Result	and the priest shall make atonement for him for his sin.	and make atonement for him for the sin he has committed, and he will be forgiven.	It is a purification offering.

The first type of offering—that of a lamb or goat—was described in detail in the purification offering of ch. 4; therefore, it is not described in any detail again. The second offering combines the purification offering and the burnt offering with two birds. One bird is to be used for a burnt offering, as in 1:14–17; the other bird is offered as a purification offering.

Because no purification offering involving birds has been described, it is necessary to provide more detail than for the previous offering. The description is similar to the burnt offering of a bird with the addition of a note about not severing the head from the body (v.8) and the need to sprinkle some of the blood at the side of the altar as well as pour out the remainder at the altar’s base (v.9). The need to retain the body as a whole piece may explain the former note. The act of sprinkling the blood against the altar occurs elsewhere only with the burnt offering. This is different from the other examples of the purification offering.

The purification offering of grain resembles the grain offering in all the details that are given, with the exception that no oil or incense is added. As noted above (cf. the comment on 2:1), the oil and incense symbolize joy and praise. This is not found in an offering for sin. An ephah is about two quarts of flour.

These offerings continue the themes of the purification offering, in which particular sins of individuals and the whole community of Israel may be dealt with. Again, each of the offerings indicates that it is for sin, and two of the three types specify that atonement is the result. This is the same as the purification offering but different from the first three offerings, where atonement is only mentioned once (1:4). All people, of any economic means, are able to offer sacrifice and find reconciliation with God (Jn 3:16; 4:14; Ac 2:21; Gal 3:28; Col 3:11).

NOTES

7 Wenham, 100–101, notes that if the poor brought a burnt offering as well as a purification offering, then wealthier people must have also done something similar. This suggests that the purification offering cleansed the sanctuary of the effects of the sin, while the burnt offering rendered atonement for the offerer.

11 One tenth of an ephah of semolina, also prescribed for grain offerings (6:13; 14:21), is nearly 2.5 quarts (about 2.3 liters)—the essential nourishment for one person for one day (Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 306). Milgrom (ibid., 307) also claims that pagan rituals place the purifying “detergent” on people as well as the sanctuary, whereas in the Bible only the sanctuary and its contents were sprinkled with blood. People were never so cleansed (though see Ex 24:1–11).

5. The Reparation Offering (5:14–6:7 [5:14–26])

OVERVIEW

In contrast to the purification offering just described, the reparation offering addresses offenses that involve a financial payment on the part of the one who commits the deed. Whereas specific examples of the purification offering include matters related to one’s word and to cultic uncleanness (5:1–4), those of the guilt offering imply the misuse of temple property or a neighbor’s property. Because both cases require the offerer to make restitution in addition to a sacrifice, it seems more accurate to designate the guilt offering as a reparation offering. An early and non-Israelite example may occur in 1 Samuel 6, where the Philistines return Israel’s ark of the covenant but add additional gifts of gold in order to appease God.

Commenting on the three expiatory offerings, Wenham, 111, writes:

The sacrificial system therefore presents different models or analogies to describe the effects of sin and the way of remedying them. The burnt offering uses a personal picture: of man the guilty sinner who deserves to die for his sin and of the animal dying in his place. God accepts the animal as a ransom for man. The sin offering uses a medical model: sin makes the world so dirty that God can no longer dwell there. The blood of the animal disinfects the sanctuary in order that God may continue to be present with his people. The reparation offering presents a commercial picture of sin. Sin is a debt which man incurs against God. The debt is paid through the offered animal.

This order, in which the reparation offering follows the purification offering, is not accidental. In the Decalogue there are prohibitions against misusing the Lord’s name and otherwise profaning what belongs to God, as well as making a verbal commitment in marriage and then abandoning it. All of these precede the command not to steal. Property, whether priestly or profane, takes a secondary position to the commands regarding one’s word and one’s relation with God.

How different this is from other second-millennium BC law collections. For example, the Laws of Hammurabi begin with prohibitions against stealing temple property. The materialistic nature of the cult, as well as the society, made property the first concern in a way that was not the case in ancient Israel. Here the importance of temple and private property is clearly affirmed, but it is not raised to the status of an absolute value as it is elsewhere.

14The LORD said to Moses: 15“When a person commits a violation and sins unintentionally in regard to any of the LORD’s holy things, he is to bring to the LORD as a penalty a ram from the flock, one without defect and of the proper value in silver, according to the sanctuary shekel. It is a guilt offering. 16He must make restitution for what he has failed to do in regard to the holy things, add a fifth of the value to that and give it all to the priest, who will make atonement for him with the ram as a guilt offering, and he will be forgiven.17“If a person sins and does what is forbidden in any of the LORD’s commands, even though he does not know it, he is guilty and will be held responsible. 18He is to bring to the priest as a guilt offering a ram from the flock, one without defect and of the proper value. In this way the priest will make atonement for him for the wrong he has committed unintentionally, and he will be forgiven. 19It is a guilt offering; he has been guilty of wrongdoing against the LORD.”

6:1The LORD said to Moses: 2“If anyone sins and is unfaithful to the LORD by deceiving his neighbor about something entrusted to him or left in his care or stolen, or if he cheats him, 3or if he finds lost property and lies about it, or if he swears falsely, or if he commits any such sin that people may do—4when he thus sins and becomes guilty, he must return what he has stolen or taken by extortion, or what was entrusted to him, or the lost property he found, 5or whatever it was he swore falsely about. He must make restitution in full, add a fifth of the value to it and give it all to the owner on the day he presents his guilt offering. 6And as a penalty he must bring to the priest, that is, to the LORD, his guilt offering, a ram from the flock, one without defect and of the proper value. 7In this way the priest will make atonement for him before the LORD, and he will be forgiven for any of these things he did that made him guilty.”

COMMENTARY

14 Like the introduction of the purification offering in 4:1 (see comments), a note of divine address to Moses sets this offering apart from the first three offerings—the general, all-inclusive ones—and creates a subcategory of purification offering for the purpose of dealing with particular offenses. The description of this offering divides into three offering types according to the nature of the offense: misuse “in regard to any of the LORD’s holy things” (5:15–16), a general summary statement about the sacrifice of the reparation offering (5:17–19), and misuse of a neighbor’s property (6:1–7).

Reparation Offering

Elements	Temple Property	General	Personal Property
1a Condition of offerer making offering	15 When a person commits a violation and sins unintentionally in regard to any of the LORD’s holy things, he is to bring to the LORD as a penalty	17 If a person sins and does what is forbidden in any of the LORD’s commands, even though he does not know it, he is guilty and will be held responsible. 18 He is to bring to the priest as a guilt offering	2 If anyone sins and is unfaithful to the LORD by deceiving his neighbor about something entrusted to him or left in his care or stolen, or if he cheats him, 3 or if he finds lost property and lies about it, or if he swears falsely, or if he commits any such sin that people may do—4a when he thus sins and becomes guilty, 6 And as a penalty he must bring to the priest, that is, to the LORD, his guilt offering,
1b Specification	a ram from the flock, one without defect and of the proper value in silver, according to the sanctuary shekel. It is a guilt offering.	a ram from the flock, one without defect and of the proper value.	a ram from the flock, one without defect and of the proper value.
2 Reparation	16 He must make restitution for what he has failed to do in regard to the holy things, add a fifth of the value to that and give it all to the priest,		[4b he must return what he has stolen or taken by extortion, or what was entrusted to him, or the lost property he found, 5 or whatever it was he swore falsely about. He must make restitution in full, add a fifth of the value to it and give it all to the owner on the day he presents his guilt offering.]
3 Result	who will make atonement for him with the ram as a guilt offering, and he will be forgiven.	In this way the priest will make atonement for him for the wrong he has committed unintentionally, and he will be forgiven.	7 In this way the priest will make atonement for him before the LORD, and he will be forgiven for any of these things he did that made him guilty.

15 The term “commits a violation” derives from an emphatic form of the Hebrew verb mā ʿal (GK 5085). The meaning of this term can suggest any inappropriate activity with regard to something else. Here it specifically concerns the sacrifices and property of the tabernacle and later the temple. An example of this occurs in Joshua 6–7, where Achan steals from the booty of Jericho—booty that belonged exclusively to the Lord. In Joshua 7:1 the verb is used of all Israel, who were held guilty by God until the perpetrator was identified and dealt with and the property returned. Just as the spoils of Jericho belonged to God, so do the sacrifices and all the tabernacle and temple items.

The use of a ram (ʾayil, GK 380) is something new to the sacrifices in Leviticus, and it is the only animal that can be offered for the reparation offering. But it occurs earlier with sacrifices that Abraham makes in his covenant to God (Ge 15:9) and is offered as a substitute for the sacrifice of Isaac (22:13). Rams are sacrificed in the ordination of the priests (Ex 29; Lev 9). While not as valuable as a bull, the ram still represents a major capital investment by its owner.

Here the value of the animal is determined by an absolute standard so that no one should be forced to pay more than anyone else. The “sanctuary shekel,” at 0.4 ounces in weight, determines the value of every animal. To stipulate this animal as the reparation offering for all offenders, regardless of their financial status, reflects the serious nature of the offense and its absolute criterion for what will satisfy the demand for justice. For the Christian, this is an illustration of how the death of Christ on the cross achieves all the demands of sacrifice for sin, whatever the status of the sinner (2Co 5:14–15).

16 The restitution of the violation is set at 20 percent above the cost of the original item. Insofar as the crime is one of theft, it invites comparison with the Book of the Covenant, where all explicit fines are set at double the cost of the original item (Ex 22:4, 7, 9). Is this difference the result of conflicting law collections? More likely it reflects two different attitudes on the part of the thief. In Exodus the thief is caught in the act and found guilty. In Leviticus the person willingly confesses the crime and makes restitution along with an additional expensive offering (Wenham, 109). This smaller payment might provide incentive for the thief to confess. But the cost of the reparation offering itself could easily offset that lure except for thefts of a huge amount.

But why separate these two laws in such different contexts? Perhaps an explanation for the significant reduction in fines lies in the fact, recognized by virtually all, that the laws of Leviticus are later in time than those of the Book of the Covenant. This is true whether that difference in time is one of a few months or years, or one of many centuries. Elements of all of these factors deserve consideration.

Theologically, the difference certainly points to the presence of divine grace in alleviating the harshness of the fines. Despite their justice in the cultural context in which ancient Israel found itself, Israel’s God did not deal only with justice toward Israel but with gracious compassion (cf. Hos 11:8–9). This gracious quality of God establishes his love for humanity so that he could send his only Son to die on the cross and so that believers would receive not what they deserve but what God’s love provides for them (Eph 2:8–9).

17–20 This section is central to the reparation offering. It falls between crimes against the religious order and crimes against other people. It summarizes the key elements of the reparation offering without adding much that is new. In fact, the only new point made here is that the reparation offering can be used for any transgression of a divine command; it is not limited to those described in the text. This joins the reparation offering with the purification offerings. They are all related to achieving forgiveness and establishing a close relationship with God. But these other violations do not all involve reparations such as those detailed for the reparation offering. As a result there is no discussion of reparations—only of the sacrifice that remains effective.

Verses 17 and 18 are included in the chart, as they compare with the order and form of the other offerings. Verse 19 appears to repeat what has been said earlier; however, it also fills out the envelope or chiastic structure of the description of this offering. Both vv.17 and 19 describe the guilt of the sinner and the need for reparation. Verse 18, which forms the center of the construction and of the entire description of the reparation offering, provides the essential elements from the perspective of the offerer. There is the perfect ram of the necessary value brought by the offerer to the priest. The priest makes atonement, and this is clearly described as forgiveness for the sin committed by the offerer. But it is also specified that the sin is one that is unintentional. This is just like the purification offering (see comment at 4:2). For the use of the word “atonement,” compare the burnt offering, which has a similar purpose (1:4). This brings about a new establishment of a full relationship between God and the sinner.

6:1–5 The remaining type of reparation offering considers violations and injustices against one’s neighbor. The verb that describes how the person “is unfaithful” is identical to the one found in 5:15, where it is translated “commits a violation.” Normally this verb is used of wrongs done against God and his sanctuary (see comment on 5:15). But here and in Proverbs 16:10 it describes relations between persons. As is so often the case in legal material, the concern for sins against God is balanced by demands for justice and mercy in the treatment of other people.

These verses describe in much greater detail than for any of the previous sacrifices the possible sins that the reparation offering can address. It is as though the variety of means by which one can cheat another person are detailed so that there will be no excuse or attempt to argue out of the need for the offering and for reparations. Indeed, the text repeats the whole list in 6:4–5 and demands full reparation, including the additional 20 percent, for everything there as well (see comment on 5:16).

6–7 The remainder of the text adds nothing new to the offering as already described in this section. Like the purification offerings before it, and unlike the sacrifices of chs. 1–3, these verses stress atonement as the key purpose of these sacrifices. The reparation offering provides an example of the need to achieve a harmony of relationships with God and with other people. This is the ceremonial means of teaching the summary of the law found in the two greatest commands: love God and love your neighbor as yourself (Mt 22:36–40; Lk 10:25–28).

NOTES

14–19 Milgrom (Leviticus 1–16, 334) distinguishes between inadvertent sins—those committed consciously (vv.14–16) and those without awareness (vv.17–19).

14 The Hebrew root behind the name is ʾšm. It occurs as a verb (GK 870) and as a noun (GK 871). As a verb it can refer to being guilty. But it also can mean to pay or suffer for one’s guilt (Ps 34:21–22 [22–23]; Pr 30:10; Isa 24:6; Zec 11:5). In other stems it can mean “suffer punishment” (Joel 1:18) and “make a person pay” (Ps 5:10 [11]). As a noun it can mean “guilt,” but it can also refer to “a gift of compensation, atonement, or reparation” (1Sa 6:3–4, 8, 17; Isa 53:10).

5:15, 18; 6:6 Though some believe that the ram was a symbol of an amount due the sanctuary (Noth, 47; Gerstenberger, 68), the text suggests that the reparation to the victim was over and above the actual ram. But 5:15 implies that the value of the ram could be converted into money and paid to the sanctuary.

15 The phrase “commits a violation” translates maʿal (GK 5085). Biblical evidence confirms that any object is subject to sacrilege as soon as it becomes dedicated, even before it is brought to the sanctuary. This as well as other matters regarding the eating of the offerings by priests have parallels with the Hittite practice (Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 323–24). The fear of the unwitting desecration of sacred things dominates recorded confessions throughout the ancient Near East (ibid., 361–63).

The Nuzi texts (fifteenth/fourteenth century BC) provide parallels in which fines could be paid in place of the sacrifice of animals, just as (and only as) with the biblical reparation offering. As recorded in the Bible, at Nuzi the animals specified in the fine remain the same in species and number regardless of the offense (Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 328). Therefore, despite the tendency of some to argue that this offering is a late innovation, it preserves unique provisions that have their closest parallels with sacrificial practices of the middle of the second millennium BC—before the advent of the Mosaic law by anyone’s dating. Speiser, 124–28, interprets the Hebrew ʿerk^ekā, as “monetary equivalent” or “valuation,” wherein the second person pronominal suffix has lost any meaning in a fossilized form.

16 A comparison with the Hittite laws of the Late Bronze Age agrees with the principle of double compensation in some cases, but in others it demands many times the original value of the animal stolen. (See Hoffner, Laws; for double repayment, see the law of the stolen ox, §70 [69–70]; for an example of multiple compensation, see twelve sheep for a stolen ewe, §69 [69].) Regarding the distinction between so-called earlier and later biblical laws, the Hittite law collection also provides a helpful comparison.

There the fines demanded by the laws distinguish between what was required “earlier” and what is required by a new edition of laws. The later fines always reduce the amount demanded—a reduction as high as 70 percent, close to the reduction from Exodus to Leviticus, and probably more if one considers the additional cost of the ram for an offering in Leviticus (Hoffner, Laws, 3–5).

17–19 Since one would know that the theft of temple property was wrong, the sense of guilt here is that of “feeling guilty” (Wenham, 107–8). Note also Ezekiel 18:4 and Jeremiah 31:19–22, where the sin and the calamity are not directly connected. Here it involves committing a sin without knowledge.

17 W. Johnstone (“The Use of Leviticus in Chronicles,” in Reading Leviticus: A Conversation with Mary Douglas, ed. J. F. A. Sawyer [JSOTSup 227; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996], 247) notes that in v.17 maʿal (GK 5085) applies to violating any divine command. But Budd (“ in Leviticus 5.14–19 and Other Sources: Response to William Johnstone,” in Reading Leviticus: A Conversation with Mary Douglas, 258) notes that the term “command” (miṣwâ, GK 5184) has a specific usage in 4:2, 13, 22, 27; 27:34. It refers only to offenses that are dealt with by sin offerings.

6:3 The false oath described here covers all the cases in vv.2–3 (Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 365). Three different situations appear under the category of “deceit” (kḥš, GK 3951), each introduced by the preposition “in” (b^e): a deposit entrusted for safekeeping that is not returned, a security or loan that is not returned, and a theft (without knowledge of the thief?) (Hartley, 83).

4 The punishment of 20 percent above the value of the object stolen, along with the required sacrifice of a ram, would be significant in itself. But for property valued greater than a ram, it would not match Exodus 22:1–4, which requires double, threefold, or fourfold restitution. The difference seems related to the confession of the guilt here, whereas in Exodus the thief is caught (Wenham, 109).

Building on a view that the guilt offering (ʾāšām, GK 871) refers to the feeling of guilt, this section refers to a sense of feeling guilty. Thus, the sinner must feel remorse, confess the sin, and make full restitution. See Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 343–45, 373–78 (cf. the debate of A. Schenker, “Once Again the Expiatory Sacrifices,” JBL 116 [1997]: 697–99, and Milgrom, “Further on the Expiatory Sacrifices,” JBL 116 [1996]: 511–14). Thus, the literature of Leviticus, i.e., the priestly literature, developed the concept of less punishment for unintentional sins and added that a deliberate offense can be treated as an unintentional sin if there is repentance. Thus sin can be forgiven and the sinner can find relief for all sins.

REFLECTION

In terms of the reparation offering, this passage provides a practical expression of the command to be reconciled with one another before one may expect reconciliation with God (Mt 5:23–24; 6:12, 14). It is this doctrine that also forms the basis for the NT theology of forgiveness from sin through confession (1Jn 1:9). As with Leviticus, sacrifice was required. The sacrifice of Christ provided the full payment of blood for all believers (Eph 5:2; Heb 9:26; 10:10).

B. The Offerings from the Priests’ Perspective (6:8–7:38 [6:1–7:38])

OVERVIEW

This section reviews the offerings from the priests’ point of view (though 7:11–36 addresses the laity [Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 382]) and repeats certain essential laws about the handling of the sacrifice and the portions reserved for the priests; it concludes the instructions concerning sacrifices. For the order of these sacrifices, see Introduction, “Scholarship and Interpretation.”

Note the repetition of the divine word being spoken to Moses as a marker for major sections (4:1; 5:14; 6:1, 8, 19, 24; 7:22; Budd, 41). Warning, 57–63, 74, observes the structure formed by the twelvefold occurrence of root for “holy” (qdš) in 6:8–7:21. It is bracketed by the burnt offering and fellowship offering, where “holy” does not occur but “pure, clean” (ṭāhôr, GK 3196) does. Between these two, the grain offering, purification offering, and guilt offering use “holy” three, six, and three times, respectively. Further, these three are also designated as “most holy.” Throughout all of 6:8–7:38, the word for “blood” (dām, GK 1947) appears seven times, the first three with reference to placement (6:27, 30; 7:2) and four more times bracketed by references to the fellowship offerings (7:14, 26–27, 33).