THE LORD SAID to Moses: 9“Give Aaron and his sons this command: ‘These are the regulations for the burnt offering: The burnt offering is to remain on the altar hearth throughout the night, till morning, and the fire must be kept burning on the altar. 10The priest shall then put on his linen clothes, with linen undergarments next to his body, and shall remove the ashes of the burnt offering that the fire has consumed on the altar and place them beside the altar. 11Then he is to take off these clothes and put on others, and carry the ashes outside the camp to a place that is ceremonially clean. 12The fire on the altar must be kept burning; it must not go out. Every morning the priest is to add firewood and arrange the burnt offering on the fire and burn the fat of the fellowship offerings on it. 13The fire must be kept burning on the altar continuously; it must not go out.
14“‘These are the regulations for the grain offering: Aaron’s sons are to bring it before the LORD, in front of the altar. 15The priest is to take a handful of fine flour and oil, together with all the incense on the grain offering, and burn the memorial portion on the altar as an aroma pleasing to the LORD. 16Aaron and his sons shall eat the rest of it, but it is to be eaten without yeast in a holy place; they are to eat it in the courtyard of the Tent of Meeting. 17It must not be baked with yeast; I have given it as their share of the offerings made to me by fire. Like the sin offering and the guilt offering, it is most holy. 18Any male descendant of Aaron may eat it. It is his regular share of the offerings made to the LORD by fire for the generations to come. Whatever touches them will become holy.’”
19The LORD also said to Moses, 20“This is the offering Aaron and his sons are to bring to the LORD on the day he is anointed: a tenth of an ephah of fine flour as a regular grain offering, half of it in the morning and half in the evening. 21Prepare it with oil on a griddle; bring it well-mixed and present the grain offering broken in pieces as an aroma pleasing to the LORD. 22The son who is to succeed him as anointed priest shall prepare it. It is the LORD’s regular share and is to be burned completely. 23Every grain offering of a priest shall be burned completely; it must not be eaten.”
24The LORD said to Moses, 25“Say to Aaron and his sons: ‘These are the regulations for the sin offering: The sin offering is to be slaughtered before the LORD in the place the burnt offering is slaughtered; it is most holy. 26The priest who offers it shall eat it; it is to be eaten in a holy place, in the courtyard of the Tent of Meeting. 27Whatever touches any of the flesh will become holy, and if any of the blood is spattered on a garment, you must wash it in a holy place. 28The clay pot the meat is cooked in must be broken; but if it is cooked in a bronze pot, the pot is to be scoured and rinsed with water. 29Any male in a priest’s family may eat it; it is most holy. 30But any sin offering whose blood is brought into the Tent of Meeting to make atonement in the Holy Place must not be eaten; it must be burned.
7:1“‘These are the regulations for the guilt offering, which is most holy: 2The guilt offering is to be slaughtered in the place where the burnt offering is slaughtered, and its blood is to be sprinkled against the altar on all sides. 3All its fat shall be offered: the fat tail and the fat that covers the inner parts, 4both kidneys with the fat on them near the loins, and the covering of the liver, which is to be removed with the kidneys. 5The priest shall burn them on the altar as an offering made to the LORD by fire. It is a guilt offering. 6Any male in a priest’s family may eat it, but it must be eaten in a holy place; it is most holy.
7“‘The same law applies to both the sin offering and the guilt offering: They belong to the priest who makes atonement with them. 8The priest who offers a burnt offering for anyone may keep its hide for himself. 9Every grain offering baked in an oven or cooked in a pan or on a griddle belongs to the priest who offers it, 10and every grain offering, whether mixed with oil or dry, belongs equally to all the sons of Aaron.
Original Meaning
EARLIER DIVINE SPEECHES in Leviticus concerning voluntary and mandatory sacrifices were directed to the Israelite people as a whole (1:2—voluntary; 4:2—mandatory). Now two speeches by the Lord (6:8–23 and 6:24–7:21) are addressed to “Aaron and his sons” (6:9, 25), that is, the priests. Here there are supplementary instructions regarding the same kinds of sacrifices as in 1:1–6:7 and in the same order (burnt, grain, purification, reparation), except that the well-being offering is now placed last (7:11–21). The well-being offering comes at the end because the main organizing principle is apportionment of sacrifices, which distinguishes between most holy offerings accessible only to priests (6:8–7:10), and holy offerings (i.e., well-being offerings), of which laypersons can also receive physical benefit (7:11–21).
Here we look at supplementary instructions for the most holy burnt offerings (6:8–13), grain offerings (6:14–23), purification offerings (6:24–30), reparation offerings (7:1–7), and the summary that dovetails with the latter (7:7–10). In the next chapter we will explore well-being offerings and related matters, plus the conclusion to the sacrificial prescriptions (7:11–38).
Burnt offerings. No portions of burnt offerings are eaten by human beings. So 6:8–12 concerns maintenance of the altar fire (cf. 1:7). A threefold repetition emphasizes that keeping the fire going is of paramount importance (6:9, 12, 13). Leviticus 9:24 will later tell us why: The Lord himself lit it! So when the altar fire consumes a sacrifice, it is the Lord consuming it by fire.
The burnt offering is connected to the altar fire in a special way. (1) A burnt offering is wholly consumed by the fire. (2) It is literally the foundation sacrifice, on which all other sacrifices are physically placed (3:5; 6:12). (3) It is the continual burning of the regular morning and evening burnt offering (Num. 28:1–8) that helps to keep the altar fire burning around the clock, including through the night (Lev. 6:9). So it is logical that the outer altar is termed the “altar of burnt offering” (4:7, 10, 18, etc.).
The directions in 6:10–11 for removing and disposing of ashes from the outer altar to keep the fire going are the only biblical information we have about physically cleaning the sanctuary. In this procedure, we see clear demarcations between boundaries of categories relevant to the sanctuary: holy, profane (non-holy), and pure. The ashes must be transferred from the holy domain to the profane realm outside. Because they come from holy sacrifices, the part of the profane realm to which they go must be pure rather than impure. Holiness is compatible with purity but not with impurity (cf. 7:20–21).1
Grain offerings. Verses 14–23 are subdivided into two parts. The first specifies the way priests must eat their portions of grain offerings brought by laypersons (vv. 14–18). The second, introduced with a new divine speech, gives directions for grain offerings brought by priests (vv. 19–23). Here is recorded a kind of cooked grain offering not included in chapter 2 because it is mandatory. It is offered by Aaron and the succession of those among his descendants who fill the high priestly office, starting at the time when he is anointed and continuing regularly (tamid) after that (vv. 20, 22). Paralleling the daily burnt offering complex (Num. 28:1–8), the high priest offers half of his grain offering in the morning and the other half in the evening (Lev. 6:20).
Because the high priest sacrifices his special grain offering on his own behalf, it must be wholly burned up (v. 22), with no portion serving as an agent’s commission. Verse 23 places this instruction within a general rule that also applies to grain offerings of ordinary priests: “Every grain offering of a priest shall be burned completely; it must not be eaten.”
Purification offerings. Chapter 4 did not say what happens to the remaining meat of an “outer altar” purification offering, which is sacrificed on behalf of a chieftain or commoner (4:22–35). Leviticus 6:24–30 now fills in the blank: It belongs to the officiating priest. Because the meat is “most holy” (6:29), it carries restrictions: The priest must eat it in the courtyard of the tabernacle, and it can only be shared with males among priestly family members.
Verse 30 reminds us of a limitation that we already know from 4:11–12, 21 regarding the “outer sanctum” sacrifices of the high priest and the entire community: “No purification offering, however, may be eaten from which any blood is brought into the Tent of Meeting to effect purgation in the shrine; it shall be consumed in fire.”2 This also applies to the special purification offerings that purge the entire sanctuary with blood on the Day of Atonement (16:27). The rule does not mean that every purification offering from which blood is not brought into the sacred Tent may be eaten. In the very first sacrifice officiated by the priests, which was a purification offering on behalf of themselves, Aaron daubed the blood on the horns of the outer altar, but the remainder of the victim was incinerated outside the camp rather than eaten (9:8–11), because the officiating priests were also the offerers and could not receive an “agent’s commission” from their own sacrifice (cf. 6:23).
Reparation Offerings and Priestly Portions (7:1–10)
REPARATION OFFERINGS AND PRIESTLY PORTIONS. We have already discussed 7:1–7, which provides the procedural outline for the reparation offering that is lacking in 5:14–6:7 (see comments). Although this outline of activities necessarily includes more detail than the supplementary instructions regarding grain and purification offerings, it similarly leads into the matter of priestly portions: As with the purification offering, the meat of a most sacred reparation offering must be eaten by a male of the priests in the sacred precincts (7:6–7). Since the text has just referred to priestly ownership of purification and reparation offerings (v. 7), the following verses (vv. 8–10) take the opportunity to continue conveniently summarizing priestly perquisites for most holy sacrifices.
In the ancient Near East, consumption of sacrificial portions by priests was not confined to Israel. For example, on the fourth day of the Hittite Ninth Year Festival of Telipinu, the following sacrifice takes place:
22′–24′ [The]n the crown prince o[ffers] 1 bovine and 2 sheep to Telipinu [and] they cut [them open]. Then [th]ey [lay asid]e livers and he[arts] and roast them with a broiler, and the crown pr[ince . . .
25′–26′ [and they set] the whole livers and hearts before the god; he libates [bee]r and wine three times. (Nr. 7 Obv. I 22′–26′).
Later the livers and hearts are eaten by priests:
7′ Four priests of Kašḫa . . . a [turn] (their) eyes [toward the river]
8′–9′ and sit down and take the liver[s and hearts] and eat (them) . . . (Nr. 8 Obv. II 7′–9′).3
Bridging Contexts
TWO SIDES OF divine fire. The Lord lit the fire on the altar in the courtyard of the desert sanctuary only once, when fire came out from before him and consumed the inauguration sacrifices (9:24). This holy fire on the altar had to be kept going (6:8–13) because it was the dynamic center of the sacrificial system. Offerings consumed by the fire were turned into smoke as “food” for the Lord (e.g., 1:9; Num. 28:2). If the divine fire went out, the power of this symbolism would be drastically diminished.
We can talk about the evocative power of fire from the sun that sustains all life on our planet or fire as a natural “element,” control of which sets human beings apart from all other creatures. Because of the essential, mysterious qualities of fire, it plays an important role in rituals of many religions,4 and in the ancient Near East non-Israelites (and apostate Israelites; Ezek. 8:16) worshiped Shamash, the sun-god. But here our focus is on divine fire from the God of Israel.
When Moses experienced his first close encounter with Israel’s deity, the Lord appeared to him in a miraculous flame of fire at an incandescent bush (Ex. 3:2). When the Israelites set forth from Egypt, God’s fiery Presence provided guidance, direction, and protection (13:21; 14:24). While his Presence was beneficial to his people, it was simultaneously frightening and dangerous to his enemies. These contrasting qualities parallel those of mundane fire: It is friendly when it cooks our food and heats our houses, but when it gets out of control or is used as a weapon, it can be terrifyingly destructive.
Divine fire associated with God’s Presence (cf. Ezek. 1:4, 13, 27; Dan. 7:9–10) is a power beyond human control, which can be a boon or a bane, depending on whether people are with him or against him. For those who are out of harmony with him, it can be an instrument of retributive justice (Gen. 19:24–25, 28; Lev. 10:1–2; Num. 16:35). Even those in accord with him must treat his blazing Presence with the utmost caution and respect for boundaries, as when the Israelites prepared to meet the Lord at Mount Sinai (Ex. 19:12–13, 18, 23–24).
When the divine Presence took up his abode at the tabernacle, there were strict boundaries so that only authorized personnel were permitted to enter the sacred Tent. Nevertheless, laypeople had access to the divine fire in the sense that they could bring their offerings into the court and have the priests send them to God in the form of smoke. When the sanctuary and its altar became an ongoing functional equivalent of Mount Sinai, the divine fire came from the mountain to the multitude.
The patriarchs had lit the fires for their own sacrifices, but the Israelite sacrificial system was more potent. As a foretaste of full restoration, when the dwelling of God will be with human beings in the ultimate sense (Rev. 21:3), divinity had come to abide with humanity. Transcendence had become immanent. By making his divine fire accessible to material offerings brought by human beings, God had partly rolled back the separation caused by the curse of sin.
In the New Testament, our God is still “a consuming fire” (Heb. 12:29; cf. Deut. 4:24). At the cross the positive and negative aspects of divine fire were metaphorically in effect. On the positive side, Christ’s human life was consumed for our benefit as a gift. On the negative side, he was consumed by divine retributive justice against our sin (cf. Isa. 53:5; 2 Cor. 5:21). Therefore it is unnecessary to pit the “gift” and “penal substitution” theories of atonement against each other. The event was a complex transaction that embodied more than one aspect. His gift was substitutionary. His substitution was a gift.
In the ancient Israelite sacrificial system, the retributive element of substitution was muted because the Aaronic priests did not die in place of others as Christ did (Heb. 7:27; 9:12–14, 25–26). Nevertheless, the retributive side of divine fire was not far in the background even from the beginning, when fire from the Lord accepted sacrifices on the altar but then destroyed Nadab and Abihu (Lev 9:24; 10:2), all within the same inauguration occasion.
The most dramatic Old Testament connection between Christ and sacrificial fire is found away from the sanctuary. In Judges 13, Manoah offered a burnt offering in the presence of the theophanic “angel of the LORD,” whose name is “wonderful” (Judg. 13:18; cf. v. 19; Isa. 9:6) and who is clearly identified elsewhere as the Yahweh himself (Judg. 6:16, 22–23).
By ascending with the fire of Manoah’s burnt offering, the “angel of the LORD” identified Himself with a sacrifice more clearly than at any other time. He went up to heaven with the smoke, which was a “pleasing odor” to the Lord (see Lev. 1:9), thereby prefiguring His offering of Himself more than 1,000 years later.5
Homage by the highest religious leader. Since the high priest’s grain offering was regular food, like the regular burnt offering with its accompanying grain offering (cf. Num. 28:1–8), the high priest offered it twice every day—morning and evening (Lev. 6:20). Such a pattern of regular maintenance offerings to deities, based on the fact that human beings ate two meals per day, was also common outside Israel among peoples such as the Babylonians and Hittites.6
While the high priest’s grain constituted an offering/sacrifice (qorban; 6:20), it was not a gift (ʾiššeh). Rather, it was “the LORD’s eternal due” (6:22, author’s transl.). In other comparable attestations of ḥoq (“statute/due”), the word refers to perquisites that the Lord assigned to the priests on a permanent basis as their dues from offerings brought by the Israelites (Ex. 29:28; Lev. 6:11; 7:34; 10:13, 15; 24:9; Num. 18:8, 11, 19). By contrast, the high priest’s regular offering went the other direction: from the priest to the Lord, who utilized all of it in the form of smoke. In this way the high priest contributed to the regular (tamid) complex of rituals that were required for maintaining God’s holy Presence among the Israelites.7 Aside from the regular burnt offering (see above), these rituals included offering incense (Ex. 30:7–8), tending the lamps (27:21; 30:8; Lev. 24:3–4), and changing the “bread of the Presence” every week on the Sabbath (Lev. 24:8).
Among the regular rituals, the high priest’s grain offering was a uniquely personal transaction between himself and God. Even though he occupied the highest official religious position in Israel, he rendered homage to the Lord as his superior every day. Thus his ministry was kept in true perspective: He was the house servant of the Most High.
The paradox of purification offering blood. Profound implications for salvation arise from 6:27–28, where there are supplementary instructions regarding unique dynamic properties of the “outer altar” purification offering. In verse 27, anything that touches its flesh contracts holiness from it, which means that it henceforth belongs to the sanctuary. A garment is an exception, however:
The garment does not become holy by coming into contact with the blood of the purification offering. Instead of being confiscated by the sanctuary, as would any object that is rendered holy, it is restored to its former status by having its so-called holiness effaced through washing. Thus the garment is actually treated as if it were impure, for it is impure clothing that always requires laundering (e.g., 11:25, 28, 40; 15:5–8, 10–11). This ambivalence of the purification offering, which will be present in even sharper form in the following verse, should occasion no surprise.8
Accidental spattering on a priest’s or layperson’s garment could happen when blood spurted from the victim at the moment of slaughter or splashed from the collection vessel as the priest carried it to the altar.9 So the blood contacts the garment, thereby contaminating it, before the blood is applied to the altar.10 Thus, as N. Zohar has recognized, the pollution must come from the offerer rather than from the altar.11 This agrees with our earlier conclusion (see Lev. 4) that the goal of an “outer altar” or “outer sanctum” purification offering is to expiate (kipper) for the offerer from (min) his or her evil, that is, remove the evil from that person (e.g., 4:26; 12:7).
Also recognizing that sacrificial expiation purified persons, P. Jenson has suggested: “While blood is not applied to the person requiring purification, there may have been practical reasons for this.”12 In fact, there is an important conceptual reason. Since the contamination borne by an “outer altar” or “outer sanctum” purification offering comes from the offerer (see above), it is obvious why the blood of such a sacrifice would not be physically applied to the offerer: It is already carrying impurity from that person, who has an ownership connection with the animal from which the blood is taken, and who has already physically contacted this victim. Why give the evil back to the one who is trying to get rid of it?
The New Testament applies to Christ’s sacrifice the idea that blood cleanses persons: “But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin” (1 John 1:7; emphasis supplied). Here sin is removed from the sinners themselves, not from an earthly or heavenly sanctuary.
Just as purification offering blood imparts impurity to a garment, the edible meat for the priest transmits pollution to the vessel in which it is cooked (Lev. 6:28; cf. 11:31–33) in spite of the fact that this flesh never contacts the altar. So paradoxically, a purification offering carries a kind of impurity even though it is “most holy” (6:25).13
In order to accomplish purification, holiness and impurity come together in purification offerings even though the two categories are enemies and must be strictly segregated from each other elsewhere in the ritual system (e.g., 7:20–21; 15:31).14 This kind of sacrifice carries human pollution in a sense that does not neutralize its holiness, just as the waste-bearing function of blood in a living organism does not neutralize the life-giving role of the same blood as it supplies the body with oxygen and nutrients.15 Blood that carries away waste products is not bad, defective blood; it is simply doing its job. Similarly, the process of removing evil from Israelites did not negate the sacred function of the sanctuary, its rituals, and its priesthood.16
Although Christ was born holy (Luke 1:35), during his ministry he came in close contact with diseased and sinful people in order to heal and forgive them. This did not sully him or diminish his holiness. Similarly, the fact that he has borne our sins and his blood has carried them away (1 John 1:7) does not mean that he and his blood are defective in any way. This paradoxical contact between his holiness and our impurity is essential to his mediatorial role as Victim-Priest. Only through his holy touch can we be healed, forgiven, cleansed, and sanctified.
The immunity of the Israelite sanctuary to human sin and physical ritual impurity had its limits: All evils of the Israelites that had affected it throughout the year were to be purged out on the Day of Atonement (16:16, 18–19, 33–34).17 How did sins and impurities expiated by purification offerings throughout the year get into the sanctuary so that it had to be cleansed? In light of what we now know from 6:27–28 regarding unique transfer properties of purification offerings, the answer is simple: By carrying evils from those who offered them, these sacrifices polluted what they touched even accidentally. Since the ritual required that the blood and suet contact part of the sanctuary, the sanctuary received contamination that had to be removed on the Day of Atonement.
Why would the Lord require temporary contamination of his sanctuary by purification offerings throughout the year? “YHWH prefers that evils be acknowledged, brought meekly to the sanctuary, and turned over to him rather than left to run wild and rampage into the sphere of holiness.”18 His goal was to purify faulty people, not to pollute his sanctuary, but the effect on the sanctuary was an inevitable side-effect. In our study of Leviticus 16, we will search for the meaning of the sanctuary’s defilement.
Contemporary Significance
KEEPERS OF THE FLAME. At the center of ancient Israelite worship was holy fire. At its core, the religion of God’s people was not a social club, political bloc, or system of dogma. It was an ongoing encounter with the divine. For this experience to continue, the “pilot light” had to remain lit. Sparks of any other kindling were ruled out. God’s response to Nadab and Abihu’s unauthorized fire (Lev. 10:1–2) showed for all time what he thought of that approach, which puts humankind in place of God at the center of worship.
Whatever is not divinely appointed, is offering up strange fire. There is in many a strange itch after superstition: they love a gaudy religion, and are more for the pomp of worship than the purity; which cannot be pleasing to God. As if God were not wise enough to appoint the manner how he will be served, man will be so bold as to prescribe for him. To thrust human inventions into sacred things, is doing our will, not God’s; and he will say, quis quaesivit haec? ‘Who has required this at your hand?’19
As in Old Testament times, God’s ministers of the twenty-first century A.D. are to be keepers of the flame and teachers of instruction (Torah) from the Lord, not lighters of the fire and inventors of their own doctrines. Is this a less sacred trust now that Christ has come and realities have taken the place of “shadows” (Col. 2:17)? Is it less important that God be at the center of our worship now that the gospel has come “with power, with the Holy Spirit and with deep conviction” (1 Thess. 1:5)? As in days of old, we can expect that where God is present, we will find divine fire that illuminates the dark pathways of our lives, protects loyal ones from evil, and purifies us from sin.
Rather than presuming to preach and teach our own thoughts in order to polish our popular image, we are obliged to allow God’s Word, illuminated by his Spirit, to kindle inspiration. Like the Olympic torch, God’s gospel fire is to be relayed around the world in all kinds of ways, but it must come from the source—the sacred, eternal flame.
The human touch of holiness. Through purification offerings and through Christ’s ministry, God has allowed the unthinkable—holiness contacted by defilement—to help those who are otherwise without help. Likewise, Christ said to his Father regarding his disciples: “As you sent me into the world, I have sent them into the world” (John 17:18).
Christians are to be “a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God,” not to remain aloof in isolated piety, but in order “that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light” (1 Peter 2:9). Christ has commissioned his holy people to go out into the dark, polluted environment from which they came in order to praise God, not merely with words, but by serving as he did through contact with everyone in need, which is everyone (John 17:18; cf. Matt. 10; 28:19–20; Acts 1:8). As Francis of Assisi put it, “Preach the gospel. Use words if you have to.”
If we take Matthew 25 seriously, caring for those in need is not optional for Christians. Christ takes personally our willingness to contact and help people in unfortunate circumstances, saying, “whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me” (Matt. 25:40). Mother Teresa understood:
Jesus comes to meet us. To welcome him, let us go to meet him. He comes to us in the hungry, the naked, the lonely, the alcoholic, the drug addict, the prostitute, the street beggars. He may come to you or me in a father who is alone, in a mother, in a brother, or in a sister. If we reject them, if we do not go out to meet them, we reject Jesus himself.20
A young boy wanted to meet God. He knew it was a long trip to where God lived, so he packed his small suitcase with Twinkies and a six-pack of root beer before starting on his journey. When he had gone about three blocks, he met a lonely, elderly gentleman, who was sitting in a park just staring at some pigeons. The lad sat down next to him and opened his suitcase. He was about to take a swig of root beer when he noticed that the old man looked hungry. So he offered him a Twinkie. The man gratefully accepted it and smiled at the small boy.
The smile was so pleasant that the boy wanted to see it again, so he offered him a root beer. Again the elderly man smiled. The boy was delighted! They sat there all afternoon eating and smiling, but never said a word.
As it grew dark, the boy realized how tired he was and got up to leave. But after going a few steps, he turned around, ran back to the old man, and gave him a hug. That brought the biggest smile of all.
When the boy walked in the door of his house a few minutes later, his mother was surprised by the look of joy on his face. She asked, “What did you do today that made you so happy?”
He replied, “I had lunch with God.” Before his mother could respond, he added, “You know what? He’s got the most beautiful smile I’ve ever seen!”
Meanwhile, the old man also went home full of joy. Amazed by the look of peace on his face, his son asked, “Dad, what did you do today that made you so happy?”
He replied, “I ate Twinkies in the park with God,” and added, “You know, he’s much younger than I expected.”