Leviticus 3

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.’”

Original Meaning

LEVITICUS 3 OUTLINES the procedure for the šhelamim sacrifice, which can be translated “wellbeing offering” (so-called “peace” or “fellowship” offering). The Hebrew term is a plural noun, found also in Ugaritic texts without vowels as šlmm.1 The root of the word is šlm, from which are also derived šalom (“peace”), šalem (“whole/sound”), and šillem (“repay”). On the basis of these and other etymological connections, including related Akkadian words that mean “covenant” and “gift,” interpreters have proposed various explanations of šelamim, none of which are conclusive.

The translation “well-being” (NJPS; NRSV) comes from the idea of šalem (“whole/sound”), reflecting the fact that this sacrifice is offered for happy circumstances (see below).2 At the same time, “well-being” is not far removed from šalom (“peace”), which is more than absence of conflict. For example, Jacob told Joseph: “Go and see if all is well with [lit., ‘see the šalom of’] your brothers and with [lit., ‘the šalom of’] the flocks, and bring word back to me” (Gen. 37:14).

The well-being offering is called zebaḥ šelamim (Lev. 3:1) because it belongs to the zebaḥ category of sacrifices. This category differs from burnt and purification offerings in that those who offer zebaḥ sacrifices eat the meat, thereby materially benefiting from their own sacrifices. In English Bibles zebaḥ is usually translated simply “sacrifice” because it is a slaughtered (verb zbḥ) offering, but it does not cover all kinds of sacrifices (unlike qorban).

At first glance it is surprising that 3:1 does not begin as an overall case introduced by ki (“when),” but rather as a subcase introduced by ʾim (“if”). The reason is that 1:2 has already provided the overall case of voluntary animal sacrifices in general: “When [ki] any of you brings an offering [qorban] to the LORD, bring as your offering an animal from either the herd or the flock.” Just as burnt offerings from the herd, from the flock, and from birds are subcases of this overall case, each introduced by ʾim (1:3, 10, 14), so two kinds of well-being offerings constitute subcases under the same overall case: from the herd (3:1–5) and from the flock (3:6–16), the latter including sheep (vv. 7–11) and goats (vv. 12–16).3

While well-being offering animals, like burnt offerings, must be without physical defect, there are two differences. (1) While a bird can be a burnt offering (1:14–17), birds are not used for well-being offerings. (2) Whereas burnt offerings from the herd or flock must be male (1:3, 10), a well-being offering can be either male or female (3:1, 6). In Leviticus 3 a physiological difference between sheep and goats requires that these flock animals be treated separately: The suet/fat of the sheep that is turned into smoke on the altar includes its fat tail (3:9), which a goat does not have (cf. 3:14).

Application of blood to the sides of the outer altar is the same as in the burnt offering. However, the suet (hard fat) portions are removed and only those parts are turned into smoke.4 Leviticus 7 provides additional information: While the offering as a whole is brought to the Lord (3:1, 6, 12) and the fat is burned for him (3:16), the breast and thigh are allotted by God to the priests as their commission (7:31–36) and the offerer eats the rest (7:15–21). So there is a three-way distribution of the body of the animal among the Lord, the priests, and the offerer.5

Since other sacrifices of which edible portions may be eaten—grain, purification, and reparation offerings—are “most holy” (2:3, 10; 6:17, 25, 29; 7:1, 6; Num. 18:9), they can only be eaten by consecrated priests (2:3, 10, etc.). The lesser sanctity of “holy” well-being offerings makes their meat accessible to laity.

The offerer’s portion is sacrificial meat from an animal that has been dedicated to God. It is a sacred meal that continues a ritual, unlike eating a steak purchased at Safeway or a hamburger from McDonald’s. So the Lord’s ritual rules follow the food out of the sacred precincts to govern some aspects of its consumption. (1) It must be eaten by the second day (7:16) or on the first day if it is a thanksgiving offering (7:15). (2) Because the meat is holy and therefore must not be brought into contact with ritual impurity, the offerer must be ritually pure in order to eat it (7:19–21).

At the end of Leviticus 3, verses 16b–17 state general sacrificial rules regarding suet/fat and blood that are especially relevant to the well-being offering because its fat is removed for the Lord and the flesh is consumed by the offerer: “All the fat is the LORD’s. . . . You must not eat any fat or any blood.”

Bridging Contexts

MOTIVATIONS FOR SACRIFICING a well-being offering. The basic purpose of burning the fat of a well-being offering on the altar is similar to that of turning the burnt offering and the token portion of the grain offering into smoke: to offer a food gift of pleasing aroma to the Lord (Lev. 3:5, 11, 16; cf. 1:9, 13, 17; 2:2, 9, 16). That this is a food gift is emphasized in 3:11, 16 by addition of the word leḥem (“food/bread”).6

Leviticus 3 does not mention expiation (kipper)7 or any other motivation for the sacrifice. However, chapter 7 outlines three subcategories of wellbeing offerings, each of which has a different motivation: thanksgiving (todah, 7:12–15), vow (neder, 7:16), and freewill/voluntary (nedabah, 7:16).

Well-being offerings of thanksgiving could express gratitude to the Lord for all kinds of blessings, such as good crops, increase in flocks and herds, protection, or deliverance from trouble (cf. Ps. 107:17–22). A votive offering paid a vow by which an Israelite had promised to offer such a sacrifice to the Lord. Making such a vow could be motivated by desire for a particular blessing (cf. Gen. 28:20–22; 1 Sam. 1:10–11, 24–28). An Israelite could offer a freewill offering anytime, when the other kinds of sacrifices did not apply. Because Leviticus 17:1–9 only allowed Israelites dwelling in the desert camp to eat sacrificeable animals if they sacrificed them at the sanctuary as wellbeing offerings, during that period of journeying a desire for meat would have been a significant motivation for such a sacrifice.8

Christians tend to think of the Israelite sacrifices primarily or even exclusively in terms of atonement for sin, but 7:12–16 teaches us that sacrifices could be performed on an array of joyful occasions.9 Moreover, the harvest Festival of Booths, taking place at a time when thanksgiving to the Lord would be appropriate (like the American Thanksgiving holiday), involved more sacrifices (mainly burnt offerings) than any other festival (Num. 29:12–38). “The sacrificial system was solemn, but it was not morbid. It was dynamic and it could be joyful.”10

Partaking of Christ. Jesus stunned his hearers when he said in John 6:53–56:

I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him.

When he explained this to his disciples, he emphasized the idea of receiving life through his words (John 6:63). So this cannibalistic kind of language, which goes so far as to require violation of the absolute prohibition against consuming blood (Gen. 9:4; Lev. 17:10–12; cf. Acts 15:20, 29), speaks of a metaphorical kind of sacrifice.

When Jesus spoke in a similar vein during the Lord’s Supper/communion service (Matt. 26:26–28), he clearly referred to himself as a sacrificial Victim:

While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.”

Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

Here, in the context of the actual sacrifice of Christ’s body, he spoke of his blood being poured out rather than his followers drinking it. But there is a metaphorical relationship between the sacrifice of his body and the ritual of eating the bread.11 The latter represents metaphorically partaking of his body, just as an Israelite ate his well-being offering.

Why a variety of sacrifices? In the New Testament, the one sacrifice of Christ fulfills all of the Old Testament sacrifices (Heb. 9:25–28), which by themselves could not really save anyone (10:1, 4). So why was it necessary for the Israelites to offer a variety of sacrifices? The answer lies in the fact that no single kind of animal sacrifice could express even the basic aspects of provision for reconciliation with God. For example, how can a victim that is wholly consumed (burnt offering) also allow the offerer to partake of it (well-being offering)? These are mutually exclusive in physical terms, like having your cake and eating it too.

The Israelite sacrifices laid out the dynamics of divine-human reconciliation the way physiology textbooks show organisms dissected into parts so that they can be understood. Such a textbook, with its pictures and diagrams, is seldom beautiful and necessarily involves distortion of perspective. But you hope that a physician who examines your body has studied the book well in medical school. The book is not the ultimate reality, but without it the physician would not know what he or she is looking at. Similarly, without the animal sacrifices, it would be much harder to understand when we ponder Christ’s sacrifice in the New Testament. If we jump to the ultimate reality without studying the Old Testament “textbook,” we miss a lot.

Differences between the various Israelite sacrifices emphasized aspects that were later combined in Christ’s sacrifice. The most important differences among the former had to do with blood and flesh: To what parts of an altar was the blood applied? Who received the flesh? The following table reviews the burnt, grain, and well-being offerings of Leviticus 1–3 and previews the purification and reparation offerings of the following chapters by summarizing these major kinds of sacrifices with regard to the ways in which their blood and flesh were handled. Italics indicate features that are unique to given kinds of sacrifices.

Reference

Offering

Blood on altar

Flesh went to:

Lev. 1

Lev. 2

Lev. 3; 7:11–36

Lev. 4:1–5:13; 6:24–30

Lev. 5:14–19; 7:1–7

burnt

grain

well-being

purification

reparation

sides

(no blood)

sides

horns

sides

the LORD

(no flesh)

*priest + offerer

*priest

*priest

* except when the offerer is a priest (see, e.g., 4:11–12).

Burnt offerings, of which the flesh was wholly consumed on the altar for the Lord, pointed to the need for a total sacrifice. Although grain offerings involved no blood or flesh, they were sacrifices of basic food acknowledging that God meets human needs, including ultimate needs (cf. John 6:35, 48—Christ, the “bread of life”). Well-being offerings expressed the benefit of taking the sacrificial victim into one’s own life. A purification offering, in which blood that represented life was emphasized by application to the horns of the outer altar or altar of incense, highlighted the need for sinners to have their lives ransomed. A reparation offering, which was preceded by literal payment of reparation/restitution, acknowledged that sin creates debt that must be paid by sacrifice even when the sinner puts things right to the extent of his or her ability.

We gain a balanced picture of Christ’s sacrifice only by contemplating all of the ancient Israelite sacrifices, which teach us that reconciliation with God requires both payment of a “legal” debt for sins that have been committed and transformation of life by his power.

By looking at what Christ has done in light of the earlier rituals with animals, we see the multifaceted richness of his sacrifice, which is so radiant in splendor that its full glory must be appreciated from various angles. Compare the Hope diamond in the Museum of Natural History in Washington, D.C., which is in a display case that rotates every few seconds to unleash dazzling, constantly changing rainbow light from various combinations of perfect facets. Unlike the beauty of this gem, the attractiveness of Christ’s sacrifice is not on the surface. As the prophet Isaiah foresaw, the suffering of God’s Servant was hideous and gruesome. He was more likely to repel than to attract (Isa. 52:14–53:3). It is only when we recognize his self-sacrificing love that we see the glory.12

Christ on the cross is the ultimate paradox: horrifying in ugliness, supreme in beauty. We gaze at the grotesque form of the carpenter from Nazareth, lifted up between earth and heaven, cursed by both. There we see a mirror of ourselves, of the fate that we deserve, but for the grace of God. And there we see the heart of God, reaching out with love so mysteriously pure, so alien to our selfish world, that we come out of curiosity and hope. From deep within us the cross event awakens a primal longing for something we once had and lost: love the way it is meant to be.

There is evidence all around us that God exists. But it is Christ on the cross who answers our questions about God’s character, draws us to desire an intimate relationship with Him, and gives us hope that we can be and have all that is good.13

Here is glory and hope that make the Hope diamond look like a worthless pebble!

Contemporary Significance

SACRIFICE WITH JOY. The well-being offering reminds us that healthy interaction with God does not always focus on problems, including the need to get rid of sins that separate us from him. How do we like it when every exchange with another person revolves around that person’s troubles? Soon we can get to feeling that the individual is self-centered, does not really care about us, and does not believe in our ability to help. Similar dynamics apply to the divine-human relationship. L. Crabb says it more jarringly than I would dare: “Whenever we place a higher priority on solving our problems than on pursuing God, we are immoral.”14

Like ancient Israelites who brought well-being offerings to the sanctuary, we can joyfully express thanks to God in all kinds of ways, including prayer, praise through music, and tangible gifts to him and his work of service for others. We can also fulfill vows of commitment, resources, or service, and we can simply express love and devotion to him anytime we wish. In these ways we can learn to live in God’s presence. Brother Lawrence (Nicholas Herman of Lorraine, 1611–1691) profoundly described this experience:

But when we are faithful to keep ourselves in His holy presence, and set Him always before us, this not only hinders our offending Him and doing anything that may displease Him, at least wilfully, but it also begets in us a holy freedom, and, if I may so speak, a familiarity with God, wherewith we ask, and that successfully, the graces we stand in need of. In fine, by often repeating these acts, they become habitual, and the presence of God rendered as it were natural to us.15

No matter how rich or poor our outward circumstances, there is always a reason to rejoice. At the very least, we have the rich hope of a better, eternal life through Christ’s sacrifice. If this doesn’t evoke thankfulness, praise, and spontaneous outbursts of devotion, what could?

Does a person who wins millions of dollars or the ultimate vacation getaway restrain joy if it is not to be utilized or enjoyed immediately? Of course not. There is a lot of jumping up and down, hugging with happy tears, and gleeful squealing to accompany repeated exclamations: “Wow! Can you believe this has really happened to us? Thank you! Thank you!” So why aren’t we just as exuberant when we have received through Christ an infinitely more valuable gift package that includes eternal life free of all unhappiness or pain, with a secure place of residence in a perfect world (John 3:16; 14:1–3; Rev. 21–22)? Talk about an ultimate getaway!

Why are we so restrained? Don’t we really believe? “The opposite of joy is not sorrow. It is unbelief.”16 So joy is not merely an emotion, it is a principle, a moral imperative: “Know that joy is rarer, more difficult, and more beautiful than sadness. Once you make this all-important discovery, you must embrace joy as a moral obligation.”17 Unlike self-gratification, joy looks upward to God and onward to what he offers needy people.