Summary of the Offering System
This morning we are going to be concluding our study of the sacrificial system by doing two things. First of all, I want to give you an overview of the five offerings highlighting their similarities, their differences, and each one‟s primary significance. After that, we are going to look quickly at how each of these offerings draws our attention to Jesus. Remember the concept of an object lesson. These offerings were object lessons for the nation of Israel. They were designed by God to convey a deeper truth, and we‟ll see that deeper truth this morning.
Before we get into this, let‟s go over our memory project again. “Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, „Speak to the sons of Israel and say to them, „I am the LORD your God. You shall not do what is done in the land of Egypt where you lived, nor are you to do what is done in the land of Canaan where I am bringing you; you shall not walk in their statutes. You are to perform My judgments and keep My statutes, to live in accord with them; I am the LORD your God. So you shall keep My statutes and My judgments, by which a man may live if he does them; I am the LORD.‟”
Something to keep in mind as you are reading in Leviticus is the nature of chapter 6:8 through 7:38. This segment is a recap of the offering system from the perspective of the priesthood. In other words, the first five chapters of Leviticus all deal with the offerings from the perspective of the one bringing the offering: what animal is needed, the condition of the animal, how it is to be cut up, what part gets burned and what part goes to the priest, what the offering accomplishes, etc. The final chapter and a half focuses primarily on the role of the priest: what kind of clothes should he wear, what does he do with the ashes when the altar gets full, where does he eat the parts of the sacrifice and how much of it does he eat, etc.
So by the time you get to the end of chapter 7, you have finished the first segment of Leviticus, the offering system. It was a provision for them to be able to draw near to God. Starting in chapter 8, God turns His attention to the priesthood. God, in His goodness, provided the nation with mediators between Himself and the nation. The offering system certainly helped them draw near to God, but those animals couldn‟t communicate with God on the behalf of the people, and God couldn‟t communicate with the animals. There needed to be a mediator.
BURNT – symbolizes total consecration
Lev. 1, a voluntary offering – used a bull ox, male sheep or goat – each animal representing a significant financial cost
Involved atonement, but no forgiveness: 1:4
Unique to this offering: it was totally consumed
Provided a soothing aroma to God: 1:9, 13, 17
GRAIN – symbolizes daily provision
Lev. 2, a voluntary offering – used a variety of grains
No atonement was accomplished – this was purely an expression of gratitude for God‟s provision of food
Emphasis on purity, no honey or yeast
Emphasis on permanency as seen in the use of salt
Only a portion burned, remainder went to the priests: 2:3
Provided a soothing aroma to God: 2:2, 9
Unique to this offering: it was bloodless
PEACE – symbolizes spiritual fellowship
Lev. 3, a voluntary offering – used an ox, lamb, or goat
No atonement was accomplished – this was a meal celebrating the existence of peace between God and the one bringing the offering
Only a portion was burned
Unique to this offering: remainder eaten by priest and offerer: 7:14
Provided a soothing aroma to God: 3:5, 16
SIN – symbolizes substitutionary atonement
Lev. 4:1 – 5:13, a mandatory offering – used an ox, lamb, goat, dove / pigeon, fine grain
Involved atonement with forgiveness, unlike the burnt:4:20, 31, 35
Instructions given for four different groups: high priest, whole congregation, a leader, a common person
A portion was burned, remainder went to the priests: 5:13
unique to this offering: part was burned outside the camp – 4:12 – very symbolic!
Provided a soothing aroma to God only in the case of offering for a common person: 4:31
Covered sins where it was impossible to undo the damage
TRESPASS – symbolizes reparation and satisfaction
Lev. 5:14 – 6:7, a mandatory offering – used a ram exclusively
Involved atonement with forgiveness: 5:16, 18
A portion was burned, remainder went to` the priests: 7:5-7
Unique to this offering: it involved a payment of an additional 20%
It was not a soothing aroma
Summary: so this is the overview of the five offerings. They were graphic. They were full of sensory stimuli, and they vividly portrayed significant spiritual truths. But from our perspective, they were deficient! They were exactly what God established for them, and to the extent they obeyed God‟s directions they were in fellowship with Him, but they only accomplished a temporal restoration. They were a short-term solution to a long-term problem. And this was by design, because each of these offerings was pointing the way to Jesus – the eternal solution to an eternal problem.
Monday, February 21, 2011
Christ in the Sacrificial System
Animals Involved
1. Ox – Christ is the strong servant (Isa. 52:13, 53:11) who was obedient unto death (Phil. 2:5-8).
2. Lamb – (Jn. 1:29, 1 Pt. 1:9) Christ was meek, pure, and silent in the face of death (Isa. 53:7).
3. Goat – Christ was numbered with transgressors (Isa. 53:12), and goats are almost always associated with sin (Mt. 25:32-33).
4. Ram – Christ was the substitute (Gen. 22:13) on the cross for us.
5. Dove / Pigeon – Christ was the mourning (Lk. 13:34-35), innocent (Mt. 27:22-25), poor (Lk. 2:22-24) sacrifice.
Burnt Offering – total consecration
Christ, the “strong servant” of Isaiah, symbolized by the bull ox, voluntarily died for us. Like the burnt offering, it was a complete sacrifice, so much so that He struggled with it, according to Mt. 26:39. Three times He implored His Father, “if it is possible, let this cup pass from me.” But He submitted to the will of His Father and held nothing back.
Grain Offering – daily provision
As the flour was spun repeatedly to remove all but the finest particles, Christ is the pure mediator between God and man. He had no corrupting influences, like the yeast and honey, and His promises to meet our needs for daily provision (Mt. 6:25-34) are as permanent as He is, as symbolized by the salt.
Peace Offering – spiritual fellowship
Christ “Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one, and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace.” Eph. 2:14-15 In the same way that God, the priest, and the family of the one bringing the sacrifice all ate of the sacrifice, Christ allows us to have full fellowship with the Godhead.
Sin Offering – substitutionary atonement
A sinless sacrifice was mandatory if man ever wanted to be at peace with God, and this first of the mandatory offerings accomplished atonement with forgiveness. It is impossible for sinful man to ever satisfy God’s wrath against sin – which is why satisfaction and reparation are not involved in the sin offering – so Christ died for us, “the just for the unjust,” as a substitute (2 Cor. 5:21). Also, we read in Heb. 13 that “the bodies of those animals whose blood is brought into the holy place by the high priest as an offering for sin, are burned outside the camp. Therefore Jesus also, that He might sanctify the people through His own blood, suffered outside the gate.”
Trespass Offering – reparation and satisfaction
In Isa. 53:10 we read that “the LORD was pleased to crush Him [Christ], putting Him to grief; if He would render Himself as a guilt offering.” The word for “guilt offering” in this verse is the very same word used for “trespass offering” in Lev. 5! Jesus, and Jesus alone, can pay the debt of sinners to God. God has been tremendously violated by our sin, and because of the magnitude of the violation, fair compensation would not have sufficed! My death for my sins would not fix the problem. Only the death of Jesus would satisfy the demands of a holy God who established the concept of 20% more in the trespass offering.
Heb. 10:1-6
“For the Law, since it has only a shadow of the good things to come and not the very form of things, can never by the same sacrifices year by year, which they offer continually, make perfect those who draw near. 2 Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, because the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have had consciousness of sins? 3 But in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins year by year. 4 For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. 5 Therefore, when He comes into the world, He says, "Sacrifice and offering Thou hast not desired, but a body Thou hast prepared for Me; 6 in whole burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin Thou hast taken no pleasure.”
1. Ox – Christ is the strong servant (Isa. 52:13, 53:11) who was obedient unto death (Phil. 2:5-8).
2. Lamb – (Jn. 1:29, 1 Pt. 1:9) Christ was meek, pure, and silent in the face of death (Isa. 53:7).
3. Goat – Christ was numbered with transgressors (Isa. 53:12), and goats are almost always associated with sin (Mt. 25:32-33).
4. Ram – Christ was the substitute (Gen. 22:13) on the cross for us.
5. Dove / Pigeon – Christ was the mourning (Lk. 13:34-35), innocent (Mt. 27:22-25), poor (Lk. 2:22-24) sacrifice.
Burnt Offering – total consecration
Christ, the “strong servant” of Isaiah, symbolized by the bull ox, voluntarily died for us. Like the burnt offering, it was a complete sacrifice, so much so that He struggled with it, according to Mt. 26:39. Three times He implored His Father, “if it is possible, let this cup pass from me.” But He submitted to the will of His Father and held nothing back.
Grain Offering – daily provision
As the flour was spun repeatedly to remove all but the finest particles, Christ is the pure mediator between God and man. He had no corrupting influences, like the yeast and honey, and His promises to meet our needs for daily provision (Mt. 6:25-34) are as permanent as He is, as symbolized by the salt.
Peace Offering – spiritual fellowship
Christ “Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one, and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace.” Eph. 2:14-15 In the same way that God, the priest, and the family of the one bringing the sacrifice all ate of the sacrifice, Christ allows us to have full fellowship with the Godhead.
Sin Offering – substitutionary atonement
A sinless sacrifice was mandatory if man ever wanted to be at peace with God, and this first of the mandatory offerings accomplished atonement with forgiveness. It is impossible for sinful man to ever satisfy God’s wrath against sin – which is why satisfaction and reparation are not involved in the sin offering – so Christ died for us, “the just for the unjust,” as a substitute (2 Cor. 5:21). Also, we read in Heb. 13 that “the bodies of those animals whose blood is brought into the holy place by the high priest as an offering for sin, are burned outside the camp. Therefore Jesus also, that He might sanctify the people through His own blood, suffered outside the gate.”
Trespass Offering – reparation and satisfaction
In Isa. 53:10 we read that “the LORD was pleased to crush Him [Christ], putting Him to grief; if He would render Himself as a guilt offering.” The word for “guilt offering” in this verse is the very same word used for “trespass offering” in Lev. 5! Jesus, and Jesus alone, can pay the debt of sinners to God. God has been tremendously violated by our sin, and because of the magnitude of the violation, fair compensation would not have sufficed! My death for my sins would not fix the problem. Only the death of Jesus would satisfy the demands of a holy God who established the concept of 20% more in the trespass offering.
Heb. 10:1-6
“For the Law, since it has only a shadow of the good things to come and not the very form of things, can never by the same sacrifices year by year, which they offer continually, make perfect those who draw near. 2 Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, because the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have had consciousness of sins? 3 But in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins year by year. 4 For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. 5 Therefore, when He comes into the world, He says, "Sacrifice and offering Thou hast not desired, but a body Thou hast prepared for Me; 6 in whole burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin Thou hast taken no pleasure.”
The Trespass Offering
The Sacrificial System – How To Draw Near To God
The Trespass Offering
Lev. 5:14 – 6:7
This morning we are in Leviticus 5 and we will be looking at the last of the five offerings that regulated the sacrificial system of Old Testament Israel. The first three of these offerings – burnt, grain, and peace – were voluntary, and the final two – the sin and trespass – were mandatory. The overall purpose of these offerings was that they enabled the person bringing it to “draw near” to God. God is holy, and they weren‟t – and that‟s a problem! Sometimes the distance between them and God was sin, and sometimes the distance was because Christ had not yet come on the scene to serve as the one “mediator between God and man.” These offerings allowed the people to deal with the sin (sin and trespass) and the lack of a mediator (burnt, grain, and peace offerings – two of the three offerings did not accomplish “atonement”) and actually approach, or draw near to, and be in fellowship with God.
Memory Project: “Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, „Speak to the sons of Israel and say to them, „I am the LORD your God. You shall not do what is done in the land of Egypt where you lived, nor are you to do what is done in the land of Canaan where I am bringing you; you shall not walk in their statutes. You are to perform My judgments and keep My statutes, to live in accord with them; I am the LORD your God. So you shall keep My statutes and My judgments, by which a man may live if he does them; I am the LORD.‟”
The final offering is called the trespass offering. If you‟ll look with me at 5:15, if you are using the NAS you read, “if a person acts unfaithfully.” In the NIV it reads, “If a person commits a violation.” And in the KJV, it reads, “If a soul commit a trespass.” This is where we get the label for this offering, and in contrast to the sin offering we looked at last week, the instructions for this one has only 13 verses describing it.
As we think about the significance of the trespass offering, it was designed to cover two different categories of sins. We see the first category mentioned in verse 15, “If any one commit a trespass, and sin unwittingly, in the holy things of the LORD.” Committing a trespass in the “things of the Lord” would involve things like not bringing in a full tithe of your crops (that could be hard to verify), or maybe sacrificing an animal that was sickly. The other category of sins the trespass offering covered is seen in chapter 6 verse 2, “When a person sins and acts unfaithfully against the LORD, and deceives his companion in regard to a deposit or a security entrusted to him, or through robbery, or if he has extorted from his companion.” This category of sins all focus on sinning against a fellow Israelite. So what we see here is actually a replication of the ten commandments – the first four all deal with our relationship to God, and the last six all deal with our relationship to our fellow man.
Now, as we read these verses earlier, you probably noticed a word that we looked at last week – the word “unintentional.” Verse 15 says, “If a person acts unfaithfully and sins unintentionally against the Lord’s holy things . . .” Since that is true, what is the difference between these two offerings? In a word, it is the concept of restitution. In the sin offering we looked at last week, restitution was not possible. If you had a farm accident and your hired helper was killed, there is nothing you can do to make up for it. If you accidentally brushed up against a leper, there was nothing you could do to undo your defilement. In cases like this, you offered a sin offering and went your way. That isn‟t the case with the trespass offering – restitution is possible when you steal something from someone or withhold something that belongs to God.
There are several things that are very interesting about this offering that I want to spend some time developing. The first is that this offering highlights the horizontal nature of sin. When we sin, our relationship with our fellow man is hurt. This is the significance of what the prodigal said when he came back home. “Father, I have sinned against heaven and in your sight.” Sin is never limited to being an offense against God alone, and part of what brings about the restoration of fellowship with God is the restoration of fellowship with your fellow man. That is a very important concept, and to illustrate for us the importance of it, let‟s go to the book of Philemon and see this biblical principle.
In a nutshell, the book of Philemon is a letter written by the Apostle Paul. He is in prison in Rome, and he is writing to a Christian by the name of Philemon, who had a runaway slave named Onesimus. When Onesimus took off, it is very possible that he stole some money from his owner, and eventually he ends up in Rome. In Rome, his path crosses Paul‟s, and Paul leads him to Christ. What is Paul supposed to do now with this newly saved, runaway slave?
Do you send him back to his master and expect him to submit to all the evils and horrors of slavery in the Roman era?
How much can you ask of a new Christian? Cf. “take them where they are . . .”
Do you ask the slave‟s owner to overlook the crime and “just let bygones be bygone.”
Paul has a very delicate situation on his hands and I love how he deals with it. Let‟s start reading in verse eight where he begins by throwing his weight around.
Therefore, though I have enough confidence in Christ to order you to do that which is proper [he is an apostle with tremendous authority in the church], 9 yet for love's sake I rather appeal to you-- [and now he is going to lay it on thick!] since I am such a person as Paul, the aged, and now also a prisoner of Christ Jesus -- 10 I appeal to you for my child, whom I have begotten in my imprisonment, Onesimus, 11 who formerly was useless to you, but now is useful both to you and to me. 12 And I have sent him back to you in person [this answers our first question – do you expect new converts to do hard things?], that is, sending my very heart, 13 whom I wished to keep with me, that in your behalf he might minister to me in my imprisonment for the gospel; 14 but without your consent I did not want to do anything, that your goodness should not be as it were by compulsion, but of your own free will. 15 For perhaps he was for this reason parted from you for a while, that you should have him back forever [he is acknowledging God‟s sovereignty here], 16 no longer as a slave, but more than a slave, a beloved brother, especially to me, but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord. 17 If then you regard me a partner, accept him as you would me. 18 But if he has wronged you in any way, or owes you anything, charge that to my account.
That last phrase is significant because Paul is offering to pay back the money Onesimus stole. Was Paul just being kind and generous, or is there a larger issue at stake? I believe there is a larger principle being followed, and that principle has its roots in Lev. 5 and the trespass offering which focuses on restitution.
So the most obvious and significant relationship that suffers when we sin is that of our relationship with God. Sin breaks God‟s heart and our fellowship with Him. But what other kind of relationships suffer? The next most obvious relationship that suffers is that of our relationship with the sinned against party. Let‟s go back to Lev. 6 where God gives us some illustrations of the sins for which the trespass offering was necessary.
Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, 2 "When a person sins and acts unfaithfully against the LORD, and deceives his companion in regard to a deposit or a security entrusted to him, or through robbery, or if he has extorted from his companion, 3 or has found what was lost and lied about it and sworn falsely, so that he sins in regard to any one of the things a man may do; 4 then it shall be, when he sins and becomes guilty, that he shall restore what he took by robbery, or what he got by extortion, or the deposit which was entrusted to him, or the lost thing which he found.
Examples of sins needing the trespass offering were robbery, extortion, not returning a deposit, or keeping something of value you found that you knew belonged to someone else. This could also cover things like not paying your laborer his wages at the end of the day. But each of these sins involves an offended party – someone is hurt by your sinful actions. It is important to understand that not only was God offended, but also your fellow Israelite was offended.
Have you ever thought about how easy it is to make things right with God? It‟s relatively easy, isn‟t it? There is a degree of anonymity (not technically, but I can‟t see Him), and He‟s predictable in how He responds, according to 1 John 1:9. “If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” But dealing with the sinned against party is a different story, isn‟t it? I can see him, and he‟s not really predictable.
But getting back to Paul and Philemon, Paul knew that the sin of Onesimus was offensive to not only God but also Philemon. So if Onesimus was going to be right with God, he was also going to have to be right with Philemon. That is the overriding principle behind the trespass offering. It was designed to bring about peace and reconciliation not only between the sinner and his God but also between the sinner and the person he has sinned against.
Let‟ s take a minute and look at this matter of reparation. The way this offering restored relationships between estranged human parties is seen in Lev. 6:4-5 – “then it shall be, when he sins and becomes guilty, that he shall restore [“to return”] what he took by robbery, or what he got by extortion, or the deposit which was entrusted to him, or the lost thing which he found, or anything about which he swore falsely; he shall make restitution [the word is shalem – sounds familiar, doesn‟t it? It is very close to shalom, the greeting of “peace.” It means “to be complete” or “sound”] for it in full, and add to it one fifth more. He shall give it to the one to whom it belongs on the day he presents his guilt offering.”
The way this worked is that if you defrauded your neighbor of 100 shekels of silver, when you were exposed in your fraud, before you brought your ram to the tabernacle for a trespass offering, you took 120 shekels of silver to the one you defrauded. This is not an “eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth” kind of justice, is it? This is a principle that says, crime doesn‟t pay. In fact, in this kind of a setup, the crime cost you more than you could gain from your criminal activity.
Restoration (giving back what you took) plus restitution (plus 20% more) is a concept that is critical to the maintenance of a stable society. Societies that don‟t practice this have prison systems that are bursting at the seams. If you don‟t believe me, go with me tomorrow night and I‟ll show you the result of a penal system that has replaced restoration and restitution with imprisonment. Let‟s say a man steals $30,000.00 and blows it all on a two month crack binge. He is sentenced to 12 years in prison and a $4,000.00 fine. Does that punishment bring about restoration and restitution? No. Has he paid his debt to society? No.
There was a time in our country when we had debtor‟s prisons. In fact, they lasted up into the late 1850‟s. Debtor‟s prison was where a person spent time until he could literally “pay his debt to society.” If you declared bankruptcy, that was where you went! Bankruptcy was not considered an “unfortunate reality of tough financial times.” It was considered theft, and sometimes you were branded with the letter “T” on your thumb to let everyone know you were a thief.1 Restoration and restitution were important concepts, as well as strong deterrents.
Now, is it a coincidence that our country‟s prison system exploded with growth at the same time we switched from a philosophy of restitution to a philosophy of rehabilitation? Not at all. There was a philosophical change in America‟s penal system that said the solution to crime is rehabilitation. The thinking was that more than anything else, the criminal needs
1 http://www.ihatedebt.com/ALookatDebt/TheHistoryofDebtinAmerica/index.php
education. Education and rehabilitation are not deterrents to crime. Restoration and restitution are!
The reason I‟m taking the time to show you this is because the trespass offering has this concept built into it. It illustrates God‟s wisdom in two ways. First of all, the potential criminal has to decide if the risk is worth it – which is actually a deterrent to the crime. He has to weigh the benefit of the crime with the risk of getting caught and being worse off after the crime than he is in his current situation. In addition to this, we see God expanding his focus from the broken relationship between God and man to the broken relationship between man and man.
So, what does all this mean for us today? There are at least two layers of application we can make. On the surface level, we can see the importance of dealing with sin at a much deeper level than we are accustomed to. The trespass offering digs deep and addresses sin at the level of motives and deterrents and restored relationships. One of these days I want to speak about the foolishness of “time out” as a child rearing device. I spent six hours yesterday with 1,900 men whom had been given a “time out” by our penal system – and the sad thing is that they aren‟t being dealt with at the heart level like the trespass offering demands.
But at a deeper level, how can we humans be restored to a right relationship with God? Where do we go to find not only an adequate payment for our sins but also 20% more? This is why the writer of Hebrews says, “For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.” So where do we go? We go to Jesus! The sacrificial death of Jesus more than covered our sins.
The Trespass Offering
Lev. 5:14 – 6:7
This morning we are in Leviticus 5 and we will be looking at the last of the five offerings that regulated the sacrificial system of Old Testament Israel. The first three of these offerings – burnt, grain, and peace – were voluntary, and the final two – the sin and trespass – were mandatory. The overall purpose of these offerings was that they enabled the person bringing it to “draw near” to God. God is holy, and they weren‟t – and that‟s a problem! Sometimes the distance between them and God was sin, and sometimes the distance was because Christ had not yet come on the scene to serve as the one “mediator between God and man.” These offerings allowed the people to deal with the sin (sin and trespass) and the lack of a mediator (burnt, grain, and peace offerings – two of the three offerings did not accomplish “atonement”) and actually approach, or draw near to, and be in fellowship with God.
Memory Project: “Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, „Speak to the sons of Israel and say to them, „I am the LORD your God. You shall not do what is done in the land of Egypt where you lived, nor are you to do what is done in the land of Canaan where I am bringing you; you shall not walk in their statutes. You are to perform My judgments and keep My statutes, to live in accord with them; I am the LORD your God. So you shall keep My statutes and My judgments, by which a man may live if he does them; I am the LORD.‟”
The final offering is called the trespass offering. If you‟ll look with me at 5:15, if you are using the NAS you read, “if a person acts unfaithfully.” In the NIV it reads, “If a person commits a violation.” And in the KJV, it reads, “If a soul commit a trespass.” This is where we get the label for this offering, and in contrast to the sin offering we looked at last week, the instructions for this one has only 13 verses describing it.
As we think about the significance of the trespass offering, it was designed to cover two different categories of sins. We see the first category mentioned in verse 15, “If any one commit a trespass, and sin unwittingly, in the holy things of the LORD.” Committing a trespass in the “things of the Lord” would involve things like not bringing in a full tithe of your crops (that could be hard to verify), or maybe sacrificing an animal that was sickly. The other category of sins the trespass offering covered is seen in chapter 6 verse 2, “When a person sins and acts unfaithfully against the LORD, and deceives his companion in regard to a deposit or a security entrusted to him, or through robbery, or if he has extorted from his companion.” This category of sins all focus on sinning against a fellow Israelite. So what we see here is actually a replication of the ten commandments – the first four all deal with our relationship to God, and the last six all deal with our relationship to our fellow man.
Now, as we read these verses earlier, you probably noticed a word that we looked at last week – the word “unintentional.” Verse 15 says, “If a person acts unfaithfully and sins unintentionally against the Lord’s holy things . . .” Since that is true, what is the difference between these two offerings? In a word, it is the concept of restitution. In the sin offering we looked at last week, restitution was not possible. If you had a farm accident and your hired helper was killed, there is nothing you can do to make up for it. If you accidentally brushed up against a leper, there was nothing you could do to undo your defilement. In cases like this, you offered a sin offering and went your way. That isn‟t the case with the trespass offering – restitution is possible when you steal something from someone or withhold something that belongs to God.
There are several things that are very interesting about this offering that I want to spend some time developing. The first is that this offering highlights the horizontal nature of sin. When we sin, our relationship with our fellow man is hurt. This is the significance of what the prodigal said when he came back home. “Father, I have sinned against heaven and in your sight.” Sin is never limited to being an offense against God alone, and part of what brings about the restoration of fellowship with God is the restoration of fellowship with your fellow man. That is a very important concept, and to illustrate for us the importance of it, let‟s go to the book of Philemon and see this biblical principle.
In a nutshell, the book of Philemon is a letter written by the Apostle Paul. He is in prison in Rome, and he is writing to a Christian by the name of Philemon, who had a runaway slave named Onesimus. When Onesimus took off, it is very possible that he stole some money from his owner, and eventually he ends up in Rome. In Rome, his path crosses Paul‟s, and Paul leads him to Christ. What is Paul supposed to do now with this newly saved, runaway slave?
Do you send him back to his master and expect him to submit to all the evils and horrors of slavery in the Roman era?
How much can you ask of a new Christian? Cf. “take them where they are . . .”
Do you ask the slave‟s owner to overlook the crime and “just let bygones be bygone.”
Paul has a very delicate situation on his hands and I love how he deals with it. Let‟s start reading in verse eight where he begins by throwing his weight around.
Therefore, though I have enough confidence in Christ to order you to do that which is proper [he is an apostle with tremendous authority in the church], 9 yet for love's sake I rather appeal to you-- [and now he is going to lay it on thick!] since I am such a person as Paul, the aged, and now also a prisoner of Christ Jesus -- 10 I appeal to you for my child, whom I have begotten in my imprisonment, Onesimus, 11 who formerly was useless to you, but now is useful both to you and to me. 12 And I have sent him back to you in person [this answers our first question – do you expect new converts to do hard things?], that is, sending my very heart, 13 whom I wished to keep with me, that in your behalf he might minister to me in my imprisonment for the gospel; 14 but without your consent I did not want to do anything, that your goodness should not be as it were by compulsion, but of your own free will. 15 For perhaps he was for this reason parted from you for a while, that you should have him back forever [he is acknowledging God‟s sovereignty here], 16 no longer as a slave, but more than a slave, a beloved brother, especially to me, but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord. 17 If then you regard me a partner, accept him as you would me. 18 But if he has wronged you in any way, or owes you anything, charge that to my account.
That last phrase is significant because Paul is offering to pay back the money Onesimus stole. Was Paul just being kind and generous, or is there a larger issue at stake? I believe there is a larger principle being followed, and that principle has its roots in Lev. 5 and the trespass offering which focuses on restitution.
So the most obvious and significant relationship that suffers when we sin is that of our relationship with God. Sin breaks God‟s heart and our fellowship with Him. But what other kind of relationships suffer? The next most obvious relationship that suffers is that of our relationship with the sinned against party. Let‟s go back to Lev. 6 where God gives us some illustrations of the sins for which the trespass offering was necessary.
Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, 2 "When a person sins and acts unfaithfully against the LORD, and deceives his companion in regard to a deposit or a security entrusted to him, or through robbery, or if he has extorted from his companion, 3 or has found what was lost and lied about it and sworn falsely, so that he sins in regard to any one of the things a man may do; 4 then it shall be, when he sins and becomes guilty, that he shall restore what he took by robbery, or what he got by extortion, or the deposit which was entrusted to him, or the lost thing which he found.
Examples of sins needing the trespass offering were robbery, extortion, not returning a deposit, or keeping something of value you found that you knew belonged to someone else. This could also cover things like not paying your laborer his wages at the end of the day. But each of these sins involves an offended party – someone is hurt by your sinful actions. It is important to understand that not only was God offended, but also your fellow Israelite was offended.
Have you ever thought about how easy it is to make things right with God? It‟s relatively easy, isn‟t it? There is a degree of anonymity (not technically, but I can‟t see Him), and He‟s predictable in how He responds, according to 1 John 1:9. “If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” But dealing with the sinned against party is a different story, isn‟t it? I can see him, and he‟s not really predictable.
But getting back to Paul and Philemon, Paul knew that the sin of Onesimus was offensive to not only God but also Philemon. So if Onesimus was going to be right with God, he was also going to have to be right with Philemon. That is the overriding principle behind the trespass offering. It was designed to bring about peace and reconciliation not only between the sinner and his God but also between the sinner and the person he has sinned against.
Let‟ s take a minute and look at this matter of reparation. The way this offering restored relationships between estranged human parties is seen in Lev. 6:4-5 – “then it shall be, when he sins and becomes guilty, that he shall restore [“to return”] what he took by robbery, or what he got by extortion, or the deposit which was entrusted to him, or the lost thing which he found, or anything about which he swore falsely; he shall make restitution [the word is shalem – sounds familiar, doesn‟t it? It is very close to shalom, the greeting of “peace.” It means “to be complete” or “sound”] for it in full, and add to it one fifth more. He shall give it to the one to whom it belongs on the day he presents his guilt offering.”
The way this worked is that if you defrauded your neighbor of 100 shekels of silver, when you were exposed in your fraud, before you brought your ram to the tabernacle for a trespass offering, you took 120 shekels of silver to the one you defrauded. This is not an “eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth” kind of justice, is it? This is a principle that says, crime doesn‟t pay. In fact, in this kind of a setup, the crime cost you more than you could gain from your criminal activity.
Restoration (giving back what you took) plus restitution (plus 20% more) is a concept that is critical to the maintenance of a stable society. Societies that don‟t practice this have prison systems that are bursting at the seams. If you don‟t believe me, go with me tomorrow night and I‟ll show you the result of a penal system that has replaced restoration and restitution with imprisonment. Let‟s say a man steals $30,000.00 and blows it all on a two month crack binge. He is sentenced to 12 years in prison and a $4,000.00 fine. Does that punishment bring about restoration and restitution? No. Has he paid his debt to society? No.
There was a time in our country when we had debtor‟s prisons. In fact, they lasted up into the late 1850‟s. Debtor‟s prison was where a person spent time until he could literally “pay his debt to society.” If you declared bankruptcy, that was where you went! Bankruptcy was not considered an “unfortunate reality of tough financial times.” It was considered theft, and sometimes you were branded with the letter “T” on your thumb to let everyone know you were a thief.1 Restoration and restitution were important concepts, as well as strong deterrents.
Now, is it a coincidence that our country‟s prison system exploded with growth at the same time we switched from a philosophy of restitution to a philosophy of rehabilitation? Not at all. There was a philosophical change in America‟s penal system that said the solution to crime is rehabilitation. The thinking was that more than anything else, the criminal needs
1 http://www.ihatedebt.com/ALookatDebt/TheHistoryofDebtinAmerica/index.php
education. Education and rehabilitation are not deterrents to crime. Restoration and restitution are!
The reason I‟m taking the time to show you this is because the trespass offering has this concept built into it. It illustrates God‟s wisdom in two ways. First of all, the potential criminal has to decide if the risk is worth it – which is actually a deterrent to the crime. He has to weigh the benefit of the crime with the risk of getting caught and being worse off after the crime than he is in his current situation. In addition to this, we see God expanding his focus from the broken relationship between God and man to the broken relationship between man and man.
So, what does all this mean for us today? There are at least two layers of application we can make. On the surface level, we can see the importance of dealing with sin at a much deeper level than we are accustomed to. The trespass offering digs deep and addresses sin at the level of motives and deterrents and restored relationships. One of these days I want to speak about the foolishness of “time out” as a child rearing device. I spent six hours yesterday with 1,900 men whom had been given a “time out” by our penal system – and the sad thing is that they aren‟t being dealt with at the heart level like the trespass offering demands.
But at a deeper level, how can we humans be restored to a right relationship with God? Where do we go to find not only an adequate payment for our sins but also 20% more? This is why the writer of Hebrews says, “For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.” So where do we go? We go to Jesus! The sacrificial death of Jesus more than covered our sins.
The Sin Offering
The Sacrificial System – How To Draw Near To God
The Sin Offering - Lev. 4 – 5:13
This morning we are in Lev. 4 and we will be considering the fourth of the offerings, the sin offering. Up to this point we have looked at three voluntary offerings – the burnt, the grain, and the peace offering. These offerings were all motivated by gratitude and love for God. Anyone could bring them at any time he wanted to and as the smoke went up to heaven, God said it was a soothing aroma in His nostrils. It pleases Him when His children acknowledge His goodness to them. Starting this morning, we are going to be looking at a different category of offerings, offerings dealing with sin.
Let‟s take a minute and work on our memory project. I hope you appreciate the timeless nature of what God is saying in this passage. For you and me today, we don‟t literally worry about what the historical Canaanites did, nor do we worry about what the 5th Century B.C. Egyptians did or didn‟t do. What we do have in common with the Children of Israel is that we are surrounded by a culture that is actively opposed to God. We are light surrounded by darkness. We are pilgrims and strangers who are “in the world, but not of the world.” We are ambassadors who have been sent to a foreign country by our King, and while we are here in this strange land, we have to be careful of how much we assimilate from the area we live in. That little statement, “When in Rome, do as the Romans do,” does not hold true for the follower of Christ! So as we work on the memory project, keep in mind that it holds a very relevant message for us.
“Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, „Speak to the sons of Israel and say to them, „I am the LORD your God. You shall not do what is done in the land of Egypt where you lived, nor are you to do what is done in the land of Canaan where I am bringing you; you shall not walk in their statutes. You are to perform My judgments and keep My statutes, to live in accord with them; I am the LORD your God. So you shall keep My statutes and My judgments, by which a man may live if he does them; I am the LORD.‟” Lev. 18:1-5
The first thing that caught my attention about the sin offering is that there are a lot of verses dedicated to it. Up to this point, God has taken about 17 verses to describe each of the previous offerings, but when it comes to this sin offering, we see nearly 50 verses given over to instructions. That is nearly times as much as the previous ones! What does this mean for us? That this was an offering that was in much demand. In fact, one of the striking features of this chapter four and first half of chapter five is that God took the time to outline four categories of people who would need the offering.
He starts with a sinning priest in verse 3 – “if the anointed priest sins so as to bring guilt on the people, then, he moves on to a congregational wide sin in verse 13 – “Now if the whole congregation of Israel commits error, then he moves to the next category, that of a sinning leader in verse 22 – “When a leader sins and unintentionally does any one of all the things which the LORD God has commanded not to be done,” and finally, in verse 27 he deals with everybody else in the nation, the common people. “Now if anyone of the common people sins unintentionally in doing any of the things which the LORD has commanded not to be done, and becomes guilty.” The point is that there is no one who doesn‟t need to know how to deal with sin. It is universal in its scope.
Something you probably caught in these last two categories of people was the word “unintentional” in verses 22 and 27, “when a leader sins unintentionally,” and “if one of the common people sin unintentionally.” The word is used in verse one as well, “if a person sins unintentionally.” What is this “unintentional” kind of sin that the sin offering was designed to cover?
The word translated as “unintentional” has the idea of “inadvertent” or “accidental.” It was used in the OT to describe manslaughter as opposed to murder. If you had an accident on your farm and unfortunately, someone was killed, you were guilty before the law, but it was completely different from premeditated murder when you lie in wait for the person. Probably the best way to describe “unintentional” sin it is to contrast it with another kind of sin, defiant sin. We see a good illustration of this in Num. 15:27-36.
27 'Also if one person sins unintentionally, then he shall offer a one year old female goat for a sin offering. 28 'And the priest shall make atonement before the LORD for the person who goes astray when he sins unintentionally, making atonement for him that he may be forgiven.
29 'You shall have one law for him who does anything unintentionally, for him who is native among the sons of Israel and for the alien who sojourns among them. 30 'But the person who does anything defiantly [The word means to be high, upraised, or uplifted. It is the fist raised in defiance], whether he is native or an alien, that one is blaspheming the LORD; and that person shall be cut off from among his people. 31 'Because he has despised the word of the LORD and has broken His commandment, that person shall be completely cut off; his guilt shall be on him.'" 32 Now while the sons of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering wood on the sabbath day. 33 And those who found him gathering wood brought him to Moses and Aaron, and to all the congregation; 34 and they put him in custody because it had not been declared what should be done to him. 35 Then the LORD said to Moses, "The man shall surely be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp." 36 So all the congregation brought him outside the camp, and stoned him to death with stones, just as the LORD had commanded Moses.
Over the years I have always thought of this passage as being somewhat excessive. It made me uncomfortable, it seemed brutal, harsh, and even uncivilized. But when I read it again this week considering the difference between “unintentional” sins and “defiant” sin, I saw it in a new light. God was illustrating the different types of sin in this story. This guy wasn‟t out simply picking up some sticks on Saturday afternoon to make a fire, he was blatantly defying God. It was the raised fist in God‟s face, it was the defiant posture of “you can‟t tell me what to do.” That is why it was so strongly dealt with.
How many of you have ever seen a young child blatantly defy his parents? It seems like most of my children tested the boundaries in this way, and we dealt with it very strongly. In fact, I dealt with it so strongly one time that I prayed that the child wouldn‟t get sick in the next day or so and have to go to the Doctor, because the Doctor would have seen a black and blue butt! Defiant, raised fist rebellion, cannot be tolerated. It was dealt with decisively in God‟s nation of Israel, Paul gives explicit instructions about how to handle it in the church, and as parents, we need to take it just as seriously as God and Paul did.
Leviticus 4 and the sin offering was not for sins like this! The sin offering covered things like what we see in chapter 5. “Now if a person sins, after he hears a public adjuration to testify, when he is a witness, whether he has seen or otherwise known, if he does not tell it, then he will bear his guilt [not coming forward to testify at a trial]. 2 'Or if a person touches any unclean thing, whether a carcass of an unclean beast, or the carcass of unclean cattle, or a carcass of unclean swarming things, though it is hidden from him, and he is unclean, then he will be guilty. 3 'Or if he touches human uncleanness, of whatever sort his uncleanness may be with which he becomes unclean, and it is hidden from him, and then he comes to know it, he will be guilty [accidental defilement]. 4 'Or if a person swears thoughtlessly with his lips to do evil or to do good, in whatever matter a man may speak thoughtlessly with an oath, and it is hidden from him, and then he comes to know it, he will be guilty in one of these [thoughtless vow]. 5 'So it shall be when he becomes guilty in one of these, that he shall confess that in which he has sinned.” Each of these three sins constitute a real breach of the law, and the sinner stands guilty. But they are not on par with premeditated, defiant rebellion.
Several interesting things to note about this offering. First of all, there is a scale of expense depending on your role in the nation. If you were a priest, it cost you a bull; if you were a leader, it cost you a male goat; and if you were a common person, it cost you a female goat or a lamb. If you were a poor common person, you could even bring grain instead of an animal. What is going on here? The principle being invoked is expressed most clearly in James 3:1. “Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we shall incur a stricter judgment.” The way Jesus put it in Luke 12 was, “From everyone who has been given much, shall much be required, and to whom they entrusted much, of him they will require all the more.”
Which is worse, for me to cheat on my income taxes, or for you to cheat on your income taxes? It is worse when I do. Why? Because spiritual leaders are held to a higher standard than the rest of the congregation, and the model for that is established all the way back in Lev. 4. And just to make sure we understand the principle, look at verse 3. What are the consequences of the priest sinning. “If the anointed priest sins so as to bring guilt on the people . . .” When the priest sinned, the guilt was imputed to the people!
Dr. Martin Lloyd-Jones was asked one time, “What is your congregation‟s greatest need?” I would imagine that the person asking was expecting an answer along the lines of “they need a vibrant relationship with Jesus,” or, “they need to be involved in daily prayer and Bible study,” or “they need to be integrated into a small group accountability setting,” or something of that nature. Instead, what he said was, “What my people need more than anything else is to have a holy pastor.” Think about that. He understood the concept being established in Lev. 4:3.
The Apostle Paul did too. When he was giving advice to a young pastor by the name of Timothy, he told him in 1 Tim. 4:16, “Pay close attention to yourself, and to your teaching.” The chronology of that statement is critical! What was Timothy‟s primary area of concern to be? His people or himself? Himself! Sounds selfish, doesn‟t it? It sounds selfish until you appreciate the critical nature of spiritual leadership. It you have ever wondered how to pray for your pastor, this is a good place to start.
The second thing to note about this sacrifice is the way the blood was used. In the previous bloody offerings, the blood was poured or sprinkled around the altar where the animal was going to be burned. In this offering, there was a more elaborate ritual. After the blood was caught in a basin, the priest would take it into the Tabernacle itself. The tabernacle was divided into two areas called the Holy Place, and the Holy of Holies. Separating these two areas was a heavy curtain called the veil. Behind the veil, in the Holy of Holies, was the Ark of the Covenant. This place was so sacred that that the High Priest could only go in there once a year, and it was so holy because that is where the presence of the Lord resided. Standing in front of this curtain that separated him from the actual presence of God, he would sprinkle the blood seven times, before the Lord. Then, while still in the Holy Place, he would go to the altar where they burned incense and smear some blood on each of the four corners of the altar. Then he would leave the Tabernacle, and go back to the altar where they would burn the offerings and pour out all that remained at the base of the altar. You can see how this is much more involved than the other offerings. What is going on here?
Generally speaking, this is where we start to see the connection between sin and blood. It was a sin offering, and the first thing that was done with the blood is that it was taken right up to where the presence of God was residing and sprinkled seven times. The emphasis is on visibility and proximity to God. Then, the blood was smeared on the four corners of the altar of incense. The significance of this altar is that it represented the prayers of God‟s people. In the same way that the cloud of smoke would ascend toward heaven, you get a visualization of prayer ascending to God. But along with the incense was the blood that had been applied. And finally, the priest would exit the tabernacle, make his way to the brazen altar and pour out the remainder of the blood.
Sin requires the shedding of blood. In the Garden of Eden when Adam and Eve sinned, God killed an animal and used the skins to make clothing for them. There was bloodshed, and that was when the model was established. It is elaborated on in this sacrifice, and it culminated in the death of Jesus. Had Jesus been suffocated, or strangled, or electrocuted, or injected with poison, His death would not have accomplished the forgiveness of our sins.
Remember that as you are holding the little cup of grape juice when we celebrate the Lord‟s Supper. That is what the cup reminds us of. The way Peter puts it is that we “were not redeemed with perishable things like silver or gold from your futile way of life inherited from your forefathers, but with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ.”
The Sin Offering - Lev. 4 – 5:13
This morning we are in Lev. 4 and we will be considering the fourth of the offerings, the sin offering. Up to this point we have looked at three voluntary offerings – the burnt, the grain, and the peace offering. These offerings were all motivated by gratitude and love for God. Anyone could bring them at any time he wanted to and as the smoke went up to heaven, God said it was a soothing aroma in His nostrils. It pleases Him when His children acknowledge His goodness to them. Starting this morning, we are going to be looking at a different category of offerings, offerings dealing with sin.
Let‟s take a minute and work on our memory project. I hope you appreciate the timeless nature of what God is saying in this passage. For you and me today, we don‟t literally worry about what the historical Canaanites did, nor do we worry about what the 5th Century B.C. Egyptians did or didn‟t do. What we do have in common with the Children of Israel is that we are surrounded by a culture that is actively opposed to God. We are light surrounded by darkness. We are pilgrims and strangers who are “in the world, but not of the world.” We are ambassadors who have been sent to a foreign country by our King, and while we are here in this strange land, we have to be careful of how much we assimilate from the area we live in. That little statement, “When in Rome, do as the Romans do,” does not hold true for the follower of Christ! So as we work on the memory project, keep in mind that it holds a very relevant message for us.
“Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, „Speak to the sons of Israel and say to them, „I am the LORD your God. You shall not do what is done in the land of Egypt where you lived, nor are you to do what is done in the land of Canaan where I am bringing you; you shall not walk in their statutes. You are to perform My judgments and keep My statutes, to live in accord with them; I am the LORD your God. So you shall keep My statutes and My judgments, by which a man may live if he does them; I am the LORD.‟” Lev. 18:1-5
The first thing that caught my attention about the sin offering is that there are a lot of verses dedicated to it. Up to this point, God has taken about 17 verses to describe each of the previous offerings, but when it comes to this sin offering, we see nearly 50 verses given over to instructions. That is nearly times as much as the previous ones! What does this mean for us? That this was an offering that was in much demand. In fact, one of the striking features of this chapter four and first half of chapter five is that God took the time to outline four categories of people who would need the offering.
He starts with a sinning priest in verse 3 – “if the anointed priest sins so as to bring guilt on the people, then, he moves on to a congregational wide sin in verse 13 – “Now if the whole congregation of Israel commits error, then he moves to the next category, that of a sinning leader in verse 22 – “When a leader sins and unintentionally does any one of all the things which the LORD God has commanded not to be done,” and finally, in verse 27 he deals with everybody else in the nation, the common people. “Now if anyone of the common people sins unintentionally in doing any of the things which the LORD has commanded not to be done, and becomes guilty.” The point is that there is no one who doesn‟t need to know how to deal with sin. It is universal in its scope.
Something you probably caught in these last two categories of people was the word “unintentional” in verses 22 and 27, “when a leader sins unintentionally,” and “if one of the common people sin unintentionally.” The word is used in verse one as well, “if a person sins unintentionally.” What is this “unintentional” kind of sin that the sin offering was designed to cover?
The word translated as “unintentional” has the idea of “inadvertent” or “accidental.” It was used in the OT to describe manslaughter as opposed to murder. If you had an accident on your farm and unfortunately, someone was killed, you were guilty before the law, but it was completely different from premeditated murder when you lie in wait for the person. Probably the best way to describe “unintentional” sin it is to contrast it with another kind of sin, defiant sin. We see a good illustration of this in Num. 15:27-36.
27 'Also if one person sins unintentionally, then he shall offer a one year old female goat for a sin offering. 28 'And the priest shall make atonement before the LORD for the person who goes astray when he sins unintentionally, making atonement for him that he may be forgiven.
29 'You shall have one law for him who does anything unintentionally, for him who is native among the sons of Israel and for the alien who sojourns among them. 30 'But the person who does anything defiantly [The word means to be high, upraised, or uplifted. It is the fist raised in defiance], whether he is native or an alien, that one is blaspheming the LORD; and that person shall be cut off from among his people. 31 'Because he has despised the word of the LORD and has broken His commandment, that person shall be completely cut off; his guilt shall be on him.'" 32 Now while the sons of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering wood on the sabbath day. 33 And those who found him gathering wood brought him to Moses and Aaron, and to all the congregation; 34 and they put him in custody because it had not been declared what should be done to him. 35 Then the LORD said to Moses, "The man shall surely be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp." 36 So all the congregation brought him outside the camp, and stoned him to death with stones, just as the LORD had commanded Moses.
Over the years I have always thought of this passage as being somewhat excessive. It made me uncomfortable, it seemed brutal, harsh, and even uncivilized. But when I read it again this week considering the difference between “unintentional” sins and “defiant” sin, I saw it in a new light. God was illustrating the different types of sin in this story. This guy wasn‟t out simply picking up some sticks on Saturday afternoon to make a fire, he was blatantly defying God. It was the raised fist in God‟s face, it was the defiant posture of “you can‟t tell me what to do.” That is why it was so strongly dealt with.
How many of you have ever seen a young child blatantly defy his parents? It seems like most of my children tested the boundaries in this way, and we dealt with it very strongly. In fact, I dealt with it so strongly one time that I prayed that the child wouldn‟t get sick in the next day or so and have to go to the Doctor, because the Doctor would have seen a black and blue butt! Defiant, raised fist rebellion, cannot be tolerated. It was dealt with decisively in God‟s nation of Israel, Paul gives explicit instructions about how to handle it in the church, and as parents, we need to take it just as seriously as God and Paul did.
Leviticus 4 and the sin offering was not for sins like this! The sin offering covered things like what we see in chapter 5. “Now if a person sins, after he hears a public adjuration to testify, when he is a witness, whether he has seen or otherwise known, if he does not tell it, then he will bear his guilt [not coming forward to testify at a trial]. 2 'Or if a person touches any unclean thing, whether a carcass of an unclean beast, or the carcass of unclean cattle, or a carcass of unclean swarming things, though it is hidden from him, and he is unclean, then he will be guilty. 3 'Or if he touches human uncleanness, of whatever sort his uncleanness may be with which he becomes unclean, and it is hidden from him, and then he comes to know it, he will be guilty [accidental defilement]. 4 'Or if a person swears thoughtlessly with his lips to do evil or to do good, in whatever matter a man may speak thoughtlessly with an oath, and it is hidden from him, and then he comes to know it, he will be guilty in one of these [thoughtless vow]. 5 'So it shall be when he becomes guilty in one of these, that he shall confess that in which he has sinned.” Each of these three sins constitute a real breach of the law, and the sinner stands guilty. But they are not on par with premeditated, defiant rebellion.
Several interesting things to note about this offering. First of all, there is a scale of expense depending on your role in the nation. If you were a priest, it cost you a bull; if you were a leader, it cost you a male goat; and if you were a common person, it cost you a female goat or a lamb. If you were a poor common person, you could even bring grain instead of an animal. What is going on here? The principle being invoked is expressed most clearly in James 3:1. “Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we shall incur a stricter judgment.” The way Jesus put it in Luke 12 was, “From everyone who has been given much, shall much be required, and to whom they entrusted much, of him they will require all the more.”
Which is worse, for me to cheat on my income taxes, or for you to cheat on your income taxes? It is worse when I do. Why? Because spiritual leaders are held to a higher standard than the rest of the congregation, and the model for that is established all the way back in Lev. 4. And just to make sure we understand the principle, look at verse 3. What are the consequences of the priest sinning. “If the anointed priest sins so as to bring guilt on the people . . .” When the priest sinned, the guilt was imputed to the people!
Dr. Martin Lloyd-Jones was asked one time, “What is your congregation‟s greatest need?” I would imagine that the person asking was expecting an answer along the lines of “they need a vibrant relationship with Jesus,” or, “they need to be involved in daily prayer and Bible study,” or “they need to be integrated into a small group accountability setting,” or something of that nature. Instead, what he said was, “What my people need more than anything else is to have a holy pastor.” Think about that. He understood the concept being established in Lev. 4:3.
The Apostle Paul did too. When he was giving advice to a young pastor by the name of Timothy, he told him in 1 Tim. 4:16, “Pay close attention to yourself, and to your teaching.” The chronology of that statement is critical! What was Timothy‟s primary area of concern to be? His people or himself? Himself! Sounds selfish, doesn‟t it? It sounds selfish until you appreciate the critical nature of spiritual leadership. It you have ever wondered how to pray for your pastor, this is a good place to start.
The second thing to note about this sacrifice is the way the blood was used. In the previous bloody offerings, the blood was poured or sprinkled around the altar where the animal was going to be burned. In this offering, there was a more elaborate ritual. After the blood was caught in a basin, the priest would take it into the Tabernacle itself. The tabernacle was divided into two areas called the Holy Place, and the Holy of Holies. Separating these two areas was a heavy curtain called the veil. Behind the veil, in the Holy of Holies, was the Ark of the Covenant. This place was so sacred that that the High Priest could only go in there once a year, and it was so holy because that is where the presence of the Lord resided. Standing in front of this curtain that separated him from the actual presence of God, he would sprinkle the blood seven times, before the Lord. Then, while still in the Holy Place, he would go to the altar where they burned incense and smear some blood on each of the four corners of the altar. Then he would leave the Tabernacle, and go back to the altar where they would burn the offerings and pour out all that remained at the base of the altar. You can see how this is much more involved than the other offerings. What is going on here?
Generally speaking, this is where we start to see the connection between sin and blood. It was a sin offering, and the first thing that was done with the blood is that it was taken right up to where the presence of God was residing and sprinkled seven times. The emphasis is on visibility and proximity to God. Then, the blood was smeared on the four corners of the altar of incense. The significance of this altar is that it represented the prayers of God‟s people. In the same way that the cloud of smoke would ascend toward heaven, you get a visualization of prayer ascending to God. But along with the incense was the blood that had been applied. And finally, the priest would exit the tabernacle, make his way to the brazen altar and pour out the remainder of the blood.
Sin requires the shedding of blood. In the Garden of Eden when Adam and Eve sinned, God killed an animal and used the skins to make clothing for them. There was bloodshed, and that was when the model was established. It is elaborated on in this sacrifice, and it culminated in the death of Jesus. Had Jesus been suffocated, or strangled, or electrocuted, or injected with poison, His death would not have accomplished the forgiveness of our sins.
Remember that as you are holding the little cup of grape juice when we celebrate the Lord‟s Supper. That is what the cup reminds us of. The way Peter puts it is that we “were not redeemed with perishable things like silver or gold from your futile way of life inherited from your forefathers, but with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ.”
Friday, February 4, 2011
The Peace Offering
The Sacrificial System – How To Draw Near To God
The Peace Offering - Lev. 3
Several years ago I was reading through the church services section of the newspaper, and what I saw was pretty amazing. The listings went something like this. “Next Saturday the Lutheran church will be hosting a free-will ham dinner.” The next add said, “The Methodist Church will be serving baked ziti from 5 – 7 PM on Wednesday evening. Proceeds to help the Methodist Mission to America.” As I continued to scan down the listing, the Baptist were serving roast beef, the Episcopalians corned beef, and the Presbyterians were having a steak and clam bake. I kid you not, practically every listing mentioned food! What is this thing Christians have with food?
This morning we are going to see the historical roots of the importance of food to the follower of Christ, so let‟s look at Lev. 3 and investigate the peace offering.
Similar to last week in our study of the grain offering, this offering is known by several other names as well. Your Bible may refer to it as the “thank” offering, and one resource I consult calls it the “saving” offering. The word that is used to describe this offering is actually one of the Hebrew words most of us are familiar with, it is the greeting “shalom.” Literally, it means “peace,” and that is the word used in our text, hence, the peace offering. But the reason it is referred to as the saving offering is because this kind of offering was what was offered when a treaty was struck between two kings or nations at war. As applied to our relationship with God, when we are at peace with God we are “saved,” so in a very general sense we can call it a saving offering.
I want to take a minute and look at the handout you were given this morning. Remember that Leviticus has two basic sections, how to obtain fellowship with God and how to maintain fellowship with God. We are in this first section that deals with “how to draw near to God,” which is all about the sacrifices, but there is one division that you need to be aware of that isn‟t on your handout. Instructions concerning the final offering ends in chapter 6:7. Starting in 6:8 and going through the end of chapter 7, there is a quick overview of the five sacrifices, but the emphasis on the priesthood. Chs. 1 – 5 all focus on the person bringing the sacrifice – what kind of an animal can he bring, what kind of condition does it have to be in, how does he kill it, etc.; but this last chapter and a half focus on the priest’s actions during the sacrifice – what does he do with the ashes, where does he sprinkle the blood, what part gets burned and what part is waved before the Lord? It‟s all about the priesthood, not the one offering the sacrifice.
So with that in mind, let‟s think about the specifics of this peace offering. To begin with, either a male or female animal could be used (v. 1) – which was unlike the burnt offering, which had to be a male only. The animal had to be perfect, the one bringing the offering after he had placed his hand on the head to signify the transferral of his condition to the animal, he then killed the animal, cut it into pieces and gave it to the priest.
Where things start to get a little different from the burnt offering is seen in verses 3 – 5. “And from the sacrifice of the peace offerings, he shall present an offering by fire to the LORD, [now note what gets put on the altar] the fat that covers the entrails and all the fat that is on the entrails, and the two kidneys with the fat that is on them, which is on the loins, and the lobe of the liver [another piece of fat], which he shall remove with the kidneys. 'Then Aaron's sons shall offer it up in smoke on the altar on the burnt offering, which is on the wood that is on the fire; it is an offering by fire of a soothing aroma to the LORD.”
Interestingly enough, the only parts of the animal that were thrown on the fire and consumed were the fat and the kidneys. Anatomically, it was only the fat that was easily removed. The one bringing the sacrifice didn‟t spend hours carving the animal up – he just took of the large areas of fat that were easily accessible. But this burning of the fat and kidneys only alerts us that something is a little different about this offering, and we see that difference elaborated on a little bit more in verse 11. Let‟s read this verse again and see if you can see a phrase we haven‟t come across yet. “The priest shall offer it up in smoke on the altar, as food, an offering by fire to the Lord.” What is the significance of this phrase – “as food,” especially in light of the fact that God doesn‟t need food? This phrase lets us know the primary significance of the peace offering, and that is that this is the only offering that involved eating a meal. It didn‟t come out explicitly in our reading of chapter three, but let‟s look at chapter seven where we see the rest of the information about this offering.
Starting in verse 11 we see the beginning of the instructions for the peace offering. “Now this is the law of the sacrifice of peace offerings which shall be presented to the LORD.” Drop down to verse 15 where we read, “Now as for the flesh of the sacrifice of his thanksgiving peace offerings, it shall be eaten on the day of his offering; he shall not leave any of it over until morning. 16 'But if the sacrifice of his offering is a votive or a freewill offering, it shall be eaten on the day that he offers his sacrifice; and on the next day what is left of it may be eaten; 17 but what is left over from the flesh of the sacrifice on the third day shall be burned with fire.” And then we drop down to verse 33 and read, “The one among the sons of Aaron who offers the blood of the peace offerings and the fat, the right thigh shall be his as his portion. 34 'For I have taken the breast of the wave offering and the thigh of the contribution from the sons of Israel from the sacrifices of their peace offerings, and have given them to Aaron the priest and to his sons as their due forever from the sons of Israel.”
What sets the peace offering apart from all the other ones is that it provided a meal for the officiating priest (the thigh and the breast), the person bringing the sacrifice (everything else), and, according to 3:11, even in a symbolic sense, God himself.
Let‟s look at a couple of other interesting dimensions of this offering that are brought out in chapter 7. In verse 30 we read “His own hands are to bring offerings by fire to the LORD. He shall bring the fat with the breast, that the breast may be presented as a wave offering before the LORD.” Then in verse 34 we read, “For I have taken the breast of the wave offering and the thigh of the contribution from the sons of Israel from the sacrifices of their peace offerings, and have given them to Aaron the priest and to his sons as their due forever from the sons of Israel.” From Ex. 29 we see that the thigh portion of this offering was to be “heaved” before the Lord.
The wave offering and the heave offering were not separate offerings, but a sub-category of the peace offering. “Waving” referred to a horizontal motion made with the breast portion, and “heaving” referred to a perpendicular motion made with the thigh portion. It didn‟t mean it was thrown! Both were symbolic gestures showing that ultimately they belonged to the Lord.
And while we are talking about sub-categories of the peace offering, chapter 7 shows us three more. First of all in verse 12 we see it could be a thanksgiving peace offering. “If he offers it by way of thanksgiving, then along with the sacrifice of thanksgiving he shall offer unleavened cakes mixed with oil, and unleavened wafers spread with oil, and cakes of well stirred fine flour mixed with oil.” Then down in verse 16, we see two additional choices, the peace offering could be a votive offering, probably better understood as a “vow” peace offering, or it could be a “freewill” peace offering. “But if the sacrifice of his offering is a votive or a freewill offering, it shall be eaten on the day that he offers his sacrifice; and on the next day what is left of it may be eaten.”
So the thing to remember about the peace offering it that it was a broad category of offerings, all of them voluntary offerings, just like the burnt and grain offerings. You offered them at your own initiative, there was no compulsion. And the most striking element of the peace offering is that it involved eating. We‟ll come back to that in a moment, but as we think about eating, I want us to think quickly about the prohibition on fat and blood. In 3:16 we read, “all fat is the LORD's. It is a perpetual statute throughout your generations in all your dwellings: you shall not eat any fat or any blood.” Then it is reiterated in chapter 7. 23“Speak to the sons of Israel, saying, 'You shall not eat any fat from an ox, a sheep, or a goat. [Note that the prohibition extends beyond sacrificial meals] 24 'Also the fat of an animal which dies, and the fat of an animal torn by beasts, may be put to any other use [candles, lubrication, medical], but you must certainly not eat it. 25 'For [and here we see how seriously God took this matter] whoever eats the fat of the animal from which an offering by fire is offered to the LORD, even the person who eats shall be cut off from his people.”
This is an interesting dimension of Israel‟s laws, and it catches our attention for at least four reasons.
1) First of all, it is called a “perpetual statute.” That means it is a long-term, binding, significant stipulation. This calls attention to the gravity of the rule.
2) It is not mentioned in conjunction with any of the other sacrifices – truly unique to this offering.
3) It applied to home life as well, not just the sacrificial meal. This means that the object lesson was to be visible on a daily basis, not just periodically as the sacrifice was made. And finally,
4) It is reiterated in chapter 7. God saw fit to make sure His people heard the rule twice.
So, what is the big deal about fat and blood? Let‟s start with blood. When we think about blood, our minds go back to Gen. 9:3-4. “Every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you; I give all to you, as I gave the green plant. 4 "Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.” Blood is what gives life to our flesh. If you cut off the blood flow to an organ, it will die because blood is what carries life giving nutrients and oxygen. That is in the physical realm. In the non-physical realm, we know that it is God who gives life to our flesh. In Gen. 2:7 we read that “the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living being.” What I want you to see is that blood is the physical representation of the spiritual reality. There is a connection between blood, and God, and life. That is why blood had to be poured out. It was sacred. The pagans would drink blood in hopes that the strength and vitality of the victim would become theirs. And God didn‟t let His people do that. And every time the blood was drained from an animal and poured out, God was reminding His people that He was the source of life for all flesh.
But what about the fat? Many people would look at this prohibition and see in it God‟s concern for the physical health of the nation. They would say that today we know that fat is bad for you – it causes heart disease, clogs your veins, and is linked to cancer and digestive disorders; but 4,000 years ago, people didn‟t know this, so God was protecting His people. They would say this is the thinking behind the prohibition against eating catfish an eels – they are bottom feeders. What is at the bottom of ponds and rivers, in addition to mud? All the feces of all the animals that inhabit that water! So to protect the health of the Israelites, God banned those kinds of fish from being eaten.
I don‟t believe that is the rationale here. Is fat really bad for you? Not necessarily. In the 1980‟s fat was public enemy #1, but now health experts are a little more cautious in their assertions. Now, in certain contexts fat is bad, such as when you eat too much of it, or when it is accompanied by a sedentary lifestyle, but eating fat isn‟t like eating poison. I remember a teacher telling us about his grandmother who collected all the fat on the plates leftover from the Sunday ham, she would sprinkle salt on it, and then eat it! And then he said, “It killed her!” when she was 93. In the Arctic regions where great amounts of energy is consumed keeping your body warm, fat is a vital part of your diet. So I don‟t believe what God is after here is a health provision.
Think with me a little bit about fat. Up until the last couple of hundred years, fat was an incredibly valuable asset. If you were to drive across the Rip Van Winkle bridge and go to Hudson, you could look at the street signs and see that all of them have a little whale on them. What is that all about? Hudson used to be a whaling town. Some historians think that whales used to come up the Hudson River as far as Poughkeepsie (an Indian word for “where the fresh meets the salt), but more likely is that the whaling vessels would bring their loads of whale blubber to Hudson to be rendered into whale oil. And when you think about it, whale oil was similar to the petroleum industry 200 years ago. So remember, fat was valuable.
Secondly, fat used to be a sign of wealth. What do you suppose is the connection between fat and wealth? Only wealthy people could afford enough food to get fat. So if you were fat, that said something about your net worth, especially in the Arabic world! When I was in college, we had an elderly missionary speaking in chapel one time, and I only remember one thing about his message. He had spent many years working in Arabic lands, and he told us that in their culture, fat was a sign of beauty. Again, it was tied to wealth, but more than that, fat was prized as being desirable in a woman. And what was disgusting to us was that some sheiks had harems of women who were so obese, they couldn‟t walk. He compared them to walruses that just rolled around to get to where they wanted to go. So in the Arabic culture, fat was not disgusting – it was a valuable commodity, and it signified health, wealth, and beauty.
And it burns very well! I believe that part of what was going on in burning the fat is that in the practical realm, it helped the fire burn. But this understanding of the prohibition of eating fat fits perfectly into the overarching meaning of the offering in that it was costly! That was a valuable portion of the animal, and to whom did it belong? God. Lev. 3:16 – “The fat belongs to the Lord.” So what we see in this prohibition is more object lessons – God is the one who gives life, whether to man or animal; and the valuable fat was sacrificed to God.
What does this mean for us today? I want to read a paragraph explaining the rationale of our fellowship committee. “It is hard to overstate the importance of social fellowship in the life of the follower of Christ. Jesus and the disciples apparently spent a lot of time eating (they must have been Baptists), and the connection between food and significant spiritual events is startling. Jesus‟ first miracle took place in the context of a wedding and involved the miraculous creation of wine (John 2). Several other miracles involved food as well (Mt. 14, 15). He instituted the Lord‟s Supper at a meal (Mt. 26), and a church-wide fellowship meal was a regular part of the early church (1 Cor. 11). After Peter denied Jesus, he was restored to fellowship during a breakfast shared with the risen Christ (Jn. 21). Profound spiritual truths were taught in the context of meals as well. Mary and Martha learned about what things are really necessary in life at a meal (Lk. 10), and Simon the Pharisee learned a huge lesson about forgiveness during a dinner (Lk. 7). It is not surprising then, that a large meal figures prominently in our entrance into heaven (Rev. 19:9).”
Parties who are estranged from one another cannot eat a meal together – they have to be at peace to be able to do that. And that is the significance of the peace offering.
The Peace Offering - Lev. 3
Several years ago I was reading through the church services section of the newspaper, and what I saw was pretty amazing. The listings went something like this. “Next Saturday the Lutheran church will be hosting a free-will ham dinner.” The next add said, “The Methodist Church will be serving baked ziti from 5 – 7 PM on Wednesday evening. Proceeds to help the Methodist Mission to America.” As I continued to scan down the listing, the Baptist were serving roast beef, the Episcopalians corned beef, and the Presbyterians were having a steak and clam bake. I kid you not, practically every listing mentioned food! What is this thing Christians have with food?
This morning we are going to see the historical roots of the importance of food to the follower of Christ, so let‟s look at Lev. 3 and investigate the peace offering.
Similar to last week in our study of the grain offering, this offering is known by several other names as well. Your Bible may refer to it as the “thank” offering, and one resource I consult calls it the “saving” offering. The word that is used to describe this offering is actually one of the Hebrew words most of us are familiar with, it is the greeting “shalom.” Literally, it means “peace,” and that is the word used in our text, hence, the peace offering. But the reason it is referred to as the saving offering is because this kind of offering was what was offered when a treaty was struck between two kings or nations at war. As applied to our relationship with God, when we are at peace with God we are “saved,” so in a very general sense we can call it a saving offering.
I want to take a minute and look at the handout you were given this morning. Remember that Leviticus has two basic sections, how to obtain fellowship with God and how to maintain fellowship with God. We are in this first section that deals with “how to draw near to God,” which is all about the sacrifices, but there is one division that you need to be aware of that isn‟t on your handout. Instructions concerning the final offering ends in chapter 6:7. Starting in 6:8 and going through the end of chapter 7, there is a quick overview of the five sacrifices, but the emphasis on the priesthood. Chs. 1 – 5 all focus on the person bringing the sacrifice – what kind of an animal can he bring, what kind of condition does it have to be in, how does he kill it, etc.; but this last chapter and a half focus on the priest’s actions during the sacrifice – what does he do with the ashes, where does he sprinkle the blood, what part gets burned and what part is waved before the Lord? It‟s all about the priesthood, not the one offering the sacrifice.
So with that in mind, let‟s think about the specifics of this peace offering. To begin with, either a male or female animal could be used (v. 1) – which was unlike the burnt offering, which had to be a male only. The animal had to be perfect, the one bringing the offering after he had placed his hand on the head to signify the transferral of his condition to the animal, he then killed the animal, cut it into pieces and gave it to the priest.
Where things start to get a little different from the burnt offering is seen in verses 3 – 5. “And from the sacrifice of the peace offerings, he shall present an offering by fire to the LORD, [now note what gets put on the altar] the fat that covers the entrails and all the fat that is on the entrails, and the two kidneys with the fat that is on them, which is on the loins, and the lobe of the liver [another piece of fat], which he shall remove with the kidneys. 'Then Aaron's sons shall offer it up in smoke on the altar on the burnt offering, which is on the wood that is on the fire; it is an offering by fire of a soothing aroma to the LORD.”
Interestingly enough, the only parts of the animal that were thrown on the fire and consumed were the fat and the kidneys. Anatomically, it was only the fat that was easily removed. The one bringing the sacrifice didn‟t spend hours carving the animal up – he just took of the large areas of fat that were easily accessible. But this burning of the fat and kidneys only alerts us that something is a little different about this offering, and we see that difference elaborated on a little bit more in verse 11. Let‟s read this verse again and see if you can see a phrase we haven‟t come across yet. “The priest shall offer it up in smoke on the altar, as food, an offering by fire to the Lord.” What is the significance of this phrase – “as food,” especially in light of the fact that God doesn‟t need food? This phrase lets us know the primary significance of the peace offering, and that is that this is the only offering that involved eating a meal. It didn‟t come out explicitly in our reading of chapter three, but let‟s look at chapter seven where we see the rest of the information about this offering.
Starting in verse 11 we see the beginning of the instructions for the peace offering. “Now this is the law of the sacrifice of peace offerings which shall be presented to the LORD.” Drop down to verse 15 where we read, “Now as for the flesh of the sacrifice of his thanksgiving peace offerings, it shall be eaten on the day of his offering; he shall not leave any of it over until morning. 16 'But if the sacrifice of his offering is a votive or a freewill offering, it shall be eaten on the day that he offers his sacrifice; and on the next day what is left of it may be eaten; 17 but what is left over from the flesh of the sacrifice on the third day shall be burned with fire.” And then we drop down to verse 33 and read, “The one among the sons of Aaron who offers the blood of the peace offerings and the fat, the right thigh shall be his as his portion. 34 'For I have taken the breast of the wave offering and the thigh of the contribution from the sons of Israel from the sacrifices of their peace offerings, and have given them to Aaron the priest and to his sons as their due forever from the sons of Israel.”
What sets the peace offering apart from all the other ones is that it provided a meal for the officiating priest (the thigh and the breast), the person bringing the sacrifice (everything else), and, according to 3:11, even in a symbolic sense, God himself.
Let‟s look at a couple of other interesting dimensions of this offering that are brought out in chapter 7. In verse 30 we read “His own hands are to bring offerings by fire to the LORD. He shall bring the fat with the breast, that the breast may be presented as a wave offering before the LORD.” Then in verse 34 we read, “For I have taken the breast of the wave offering and the thigh of the contribution from the sons of Israel from the sacrifices of their peace offerings, and have given them to Aaron the priest and to his sons as their due forever from the sons of Israel.” From Ex. 29 we see that the thigh portion of this offering was to be “heaved” before the Lord.
The wave offering and the heave offering were not separate offerings, but a sub-category of the peace offering. “Waving” referred to a horizontal motion made with the breast portion, and “heaving” referred to a perpendicular motion made with the thigh portion. It didn‟t mean it was thrown! Both were symbolic gestures showing that ultimately they belonged to the Lord.
And while we are talking about sub-categories of the peace offering, chapter 7 shows us three more. First of all in verse 12 we see it could be a thanksgiving peace offering. “If he offers it by way of thanksgiving, then along with the sacrifice of thanksgiving he shall offer unleavened cakes mixed with oil, and unleavened wafers spread with oil, and cakes of well stirred fine flour mixed with oil.” Then down in verse 16, we see two additional choices, the peace offering could be a votive offering, probably better understood as a “vow” peace offering, or it could be a “freewill” peace offering. “But if the sacrifice of his offering is a votive or a freewill offering, it shall be eaten on the day that he offers his sacrifice; and on the next day what is left of it may be eaten.”
So the thing to remember about the peace offering it that it was a broad category of offerings, all of them voluntary offerings, just like the burnt and grain offerings. You offered them at your own initiative, there was no compulsion. And the most striking element of the peace offering is that it involved eating. We‟ll come back to that in a moment, but as we think about eating, I want us to think quickly about the prohibition on fat and blood. In 3:16 we read, “all fat is the LORD's. It is a perpetual statute throughout your generations in all your dwellings: you shall not eat any fat or any blood.” Then it is reiterated in chapter 7. 23“Speak to the sons of Israel, saying, 'You shall not eat any fat from an ox, a sheep, or a goat. [Note that the prohibition extends beyond sacrificial meals] 24 'Also the fat of an animal which dies, and the fat of an animal torn by beasts, may be put to any other use [candles, lubrication, medical], but you must certainly not eat it. 25 'For [and here we see how seriously God took this matter] whoever eats the fat of the animal from which an offering by fire is offered to the LORD, even the person who eats shall be cut off from his people.”
This is an interesting dimension of Israel‟s laws, and it catches our attention for at least four reasons.
1) First of all, it is called a “perpetual statute.” That means it is a long-term, binding, significant stipulation. This calls attention to the gravity of the rule.
2) It is not mentioned in conjunction with any of the other sacrifices – truly unique to this offering.
3) It applied to home life as well, not just the sacrificial meal. This means that the object lesson was to be visible on a daily basis, not just periodically as the sacrifice was made. And finally,
4) It is reiterated in chapter 7. God saw fit to make sure His people heard the rule twice.
So, what is the big deal about fat and blood? Let‟s start with blood. When we think about blood, our minds go back to Gen. 9:3-4. “Every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you; I give all to you, as I gave the green plant. 4 "Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.” Blood is what gives life to our flesh. If you cut off the blood flow to an organ, it will die because blood is what carries life giving nutrients and oxygen. That is in the physical realm. In the non-physical realm, we know that it is God who gives life to our flesh. In Gen. 2:7 we read that “the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living being.” What I want you to see is that blood is the physical representation of the spiritual reality. There is a connection between blood, and God, and life. That is why blood had to be poured out. It was sacred. The pagans would drink blood in hopes that the strength and vitality of the victim would become theirs. And God didn‟t let His people do that. And every time the blood was drained from an animal and poured out, God was reminding His people that He was the source of life for all flesh.
But what about the fat? Many people would look at this prohibition and see in it God‟s concern for the physical health of the nation. They would say that today we know that fat is bad for you – it causes heart disease, clogs your veins, and is linked to cancer and digestive disorders; but 4,000 years ago, people didn‟t know this, so God was protecting His people. They would say this is the thinking behind the prohibition against eating catfish an eels – they are bottom feeders. What is at the bottom of ponds and rivers, in addition to mud? All the feces of all the animals that inhabit that water! So to protect the health of the Israelites, God banned those kinds of fish from being eaten.
I don‟t believe that is the rationale here. Is fat really bad for you? Not necessarily. In the 1980‟s fat was public enemy #1, but now health experts are a little more cautious in their assertions. Now, in certain contexts fat is bad, such as when you eat too much of it, or when it is accompanied by a sedentary lifestyle, but eating fat isn‟t like eating poison. I remember a teacher telling us about his grandmother who collected all the fat on the plates leftover from the Sunday ham, she would sprinkle salt on it, and then eat it! And then he said, “It killed her!” when she was 93. In the Arctic regions where great amounts of energy is consumed keeping your body warm, fat is a vital part of your diet. So I don‟t believe what God is after here is a health provision.
Think with me a little bit about fat. Up until the last couple of hundred years, fat was an incredibly valuable asset. If you were to drive across the Rip Van Winkle bridge and go to Hudson, you could look at the street signs and see that all of them have a little whale on them. What is that all about? Hudson used to be a whaling town. Some historians think that whales used to come up the Hudson River as far as Poughkeepsie (an Indian word for “where the fresh meets the salt), but more likely is that the whaling vessels would bring their loads of whale blubber to Hudson to be rendered into whale oil. And when you think about it, whale oil was similar to the petroleum industry 200 years ago. So remember, fat was valuable.
Secondly, fat used to be a sign of wealth. What do you suppose is the connection between fat and wealth? Only wealthy people could afford enough food to get fat. So if you were fat, that said something about your net worth, especially in the Arabic world! When I was in college, we had an elderly missionary speaking in chapel one time, and I only remember one thing about his message. He had spent many years working in Arabic lands, and he told us that in their culture, fat was a sign of beauty. Again, it was tied to wealth, but more than that, fat was prized as being desirable in a woman. And what was disgusting to us was that some sheiks had harems of women who were so obese, they couldn‟t walk. He compared them to walruses that just rolled around to get to where they wanted to go. So in the Arabic culture, fat was not disgusting – it was a valuable commodity, and it signified health, wealth, and beauty.
And it burns very well! I believe that part of what was going on in burning the fat is that in the practical realm, it helped the fire burn. But this understanding of the prohibition of eating fat fits perfectly into the overarching meaning of the offering in that it was costly! That was a valuable portion of the animal, and to whom did it belong? God. Lev. 3:16 – “The fat belongs to the Lord.” So what we see in this prohibition is more object lessons – God is the one who gives life, whether to man or animal; and the valuable fat was sacrificed to God.
What does this mean for us today? I want to read a paragraph explaining the rationale of our fellowship committee. “It is hard to overstate the importance of social fellowship in the life of the follower of Christ. Jesus and the disciples apparently spent a lot of time eating (they must have been Baptists), and the connection between food and significant spiritual events is startling. Jesus‟ first miracle took place in the context of a wedding and involved the miraculous creation of wine (John 2). Several other miracles involved food as well (Mt. 14, 15). He instituted the Lord‟s Supper at a meal (Mt. 26), and a church-wide fellowship meal was a regular part of the early church (1 Cor. 11). After Peter denied Jesus, he was restored to fellowship during a breakfast shared with the risen Christ (Jn. 21). Profound spiritual truths were taught in the context of meals as well. Mary and Martha learned about what things are really necessary in life at a meal (Lk. 10), and Simon the Pharisee learned a huge lesson about forgiveness during a dinner (Lk. 7). It is not surprising then, that a large meal figures prominently in our entrance into heaven (Rev. 19:9).”
Parties who are estranged from one another cannot eat a meal together – they have to be at peace to be able to do that. And that is the significance of the peace offering.
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
The Grain Offering
The Sacrificial System – How To Draw Near To God
The Grain Offering - Lev. 2
This morning we are going to be in Lev. 2 and consider the second offering God prescribed for the nation of Israel as a means for them to draw near to their God. It is known by a variety of names – meal, grain, and even meat (Keil and Delitzsch, Edersheim). I‟ll be referring to it as a grain offering because it consists of grain being offered on the altar in a variety of forms.
Memory Project: “Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, „Speak to the sons of Israel and say to them, „I am the LORD your God. You shall not do what is done in the land of Egypt where you lived, nor are you to do what is done in the land of Canaan where I am bringing you; you shall not walk in their statutes. You are to perform My judgments and keep My statutes, to live in accord with them; I am the LORD your God. So you shall keep My statutes and My judgments, by which a man may live if he does them; I am the LORD.‟”
Very quickly, someone remind us of the theme of Leviticus. Right. It is “the holiness of God.” What does holy mean? Holy means separate, set apart, or sacred. God was holy, and the nation of Israel wasn‟t! So if they wanted to be in fellowship with their God, two things had to happen. First of all, they had to be aware of what was separating them from their holy God, and second, they had to have a means of dealing with the things separating them. Everything in the book of Leviticus falls under one of those two general categories. What constitutes separation from God, and how do I deal with it?
Remember too that Leviticus is full of object lessons. God graciously illustrated for His people what holiness looked like, and the first set of object lessons was the five sacrifices, or offerings. What is the root idea of the word “offering?” To draw near. If these people who were separated from their God wanted to get close to God, or to “draw near” to God, there was a specific way they could do it. So last week we looked at the burnt offering in which the one bringing the animal slit its throat, cut it into pieces, and then gave to the priest to throw on the altar. The entire animal was consumed in the fire on the altar – none of it was burned outside of the camp, the priest didn‟t get to keep a part of it, and the one bringing the burnt offering didn‟t get to share a meal from it with the priest, like some of the other offerings.
This morning we are going to look at the grain offering, and this offering is in a category all by itself in that it is the only offering that didn‟t involve the shedding of blood. This fact alerts us to the purpose behind the offering, which we will see at the end of the message, but for now, just keep in mind as we are going through the particulars that this offering has special significance for the one bringing it.
Let‟s start with the word that is translated as “grain” in the phrase “grain offering” in verse one. “When anyone presents a grain offering as an offering to the Lord, his offering shall be of fine flour.” There is a very interesting word used here that really doesn‟t have anything to do with corn or wheat or barley. The word literally means “gift, tribute, offering,” or “present.” We see the concept illustrated in Gen. 32 where Jacob is on his way back home after spending 14 years in exile at his uncle‟s house. If you remember the story, Jacob tricked his older brother into giving up the family inheritance and then fled for his life. But in Gen. 32, he is now a wealthy man and on his way home knowing that he is going to have to face his brother. And he has no idea how Esau is going to respond – but he is clearly fearing for his life! So in Gen. 32 let‟s start reading in verse 13.
"So he spent the night there. Then he selected from what he had with him a present for his brother Esau: 14 two hundred female goats and twenty male goats, two hundred ewes and twenty rams,15 thirty milking camels and their colts, forty cows and ten bulls, twenty female donkeys and ten male donkeys. 16 And he delivered them into the hand of his servants, every drove by itself, and said to his servants, "Pass on before me, and put a space between droves." 17 And he commanded the one in front, saying, "When my brother Esau meets you and asks you, saying, 'To whom do you belong, and where are you going, and to whom do these animals in front of you belong?'18 then you shall say, 'These belong to your servant Jacob; it is a present sent to my lord Esau. And behold, he also is behind us.'" 19 Then he commanded also the second and the third, and all those who followed the droves, saying, "After this manner you shall speak to Esau when you find him; 20 and you shall say, 'Behold, your servant Jacob also is behind us.'" For he said, "I will appease him with the present that goes before me. Then afterward I will see his face; perhaps he will accept me."
That is the idea behind the word translated as “grain” in the phrase “grain offering.” It is a “gift” or “present” used to “draw near” to God. The reason the translators use the word “grain” is because of what we see in verse one – “his offering shall be of fine flour,” and verse 14, “if you bring a grain offering of early ripened things to the Lord, you shall bring fresh heads of grain roasted in the fire.”
Concerning the specifics of this offering, there were four different ways you could bring it – it could be flour baked in an oven as we see in verse 4, or fried on a griddle as we see in verse 5, or something like a dumpling or donut boiled in oil as we see in verse 7. The NAS says, “Now if your offering is a grain offering made in a pan, it shall be made of fine flour with oil.” The Hebrew there indicates something a little different as the New English Translation shows, “If your offering is a grain offering made in a pan [the NKJV calls it a “covered pan”, so it would be similar to a pot], it must be made of choice wheat flour deep fried in olive oil.” The final way this offering could be made was to bring roasted grain, as we see in verse 14.
Of particular interest to us is the kind of flour that was used. It is repeatedly referred to as “fine flour,” to be contrasted with roughly ground flour that would be more like corn meal. Some of the resources I have been using referred to this as “spun” flour to reflect how it was obtained. After the wheat was ground, it was put into a bag that allowed only the finest particles of flour to come out, and it was spun around in a larger container. The centrifugal force of the spinning would force the fine flour through the cloth, where it would be collected and spun again in a finer woven bag. Jewish tradition stipulated that the flour used in these offerings had to be spun 13 times!
So as we think of what this offering entailed, don‟t envision going to the pantry and getting out some flour, making it into a batter, frying it, and then bringing it to the tabernacle to be used as a grain offering. It was much more involved than that, and in keeping with the costly nature of a sacrifice. While the grain offering may not represent the financial sacrifice that a burnt offering represented, it did represent a significant sacrifice of your personal time.
In the grain offering we are introduced to an element not seen in the burnt offering, and we see it in verses two and three. “He shall then bring it [the fine flour] to Aaron's sons, the priests; and shall take from it his handful of its fine flour and of its oil with all of its frankincense. And the priest shall offer it up in smoke as its memorial portion on the altar, an offering by fire of a soothing aroma to the LORD. 3 'And the remainder of the grain offering belongs to Aaron and his sons: a thing most holy, of the offerings to the LORD by fire.” Only a portion of the sacrifice was put on the altar and burned, the rest of the offering went to the priest.
We will deal with this more fully when we look at the priesthood, but for now just understand that this was God‟s way of providing for the priesthood. The overarching principle is that since the “men of God,” or the priests, spent their days caring for the spiritual needs of the people of God, the people of God were to take care of the material needs of the priesthood.
Now, there were three special rules that applied to this sacrifice, found in verses 11 – 13. “No grain offering, which you bring to the LORD, shall be made with leaven, for you shall not offer up in smoke any leaven or any honey as an offering by fire to the LORD. As an offering of first fruits, you shall bring them to the LORD, but they shall not ascend for a soothing aroma on the altar. Every grain offering of yours, moreover, you shall season with salt, so that the salt of the covenant of your God shall not be lacking from your grain offering; with all your offerings you shall offer salt.”
The three rules were no leaven, no honey, and salt had to be added. Why the prohibition against leaven and honey? Leaven, or yeast as we know it, and honey were both used in fermentation. If you had some grape juice that you wanted to turn into wine, you added yeast and sugar, in the form of honey. If you had some grape juice you wanted to turn to vinegar, you added honey and let it ferment. But understand that there was nothing intrinsically evil or wrong with either of these ingredients. We know that because leaven could be used in the offering of firstfruits (v. 12), but it could not be used in an offering that was burned on the altar. So why the prohibition?
Remember that one of the unique elements of Leviticus is God‟s use of object lessons. He often took ordinary things to teach eternal truths, and we see this in the rejection of honey and leaven. What both of these substances were know for was their pervasive nature. In other words, a small amount affected the whole batch. One cup of sugar can ferment an entire gallon of kombucha. One tablespoon of yeast can double the size of a lump of dough. Honey and yeast don‟t stay contained – they spread. That is their nature, and it is because of this that leaven is often compared to sin. In both 1 Cor. 5 and Gal. 5, Paul makes the statement that “a little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough,” and he says it in the context of unrepentant sinful people in close proximity to God‟s people. He goes on to say, “clean out the old leaven so that you may be a new lump.” And then just to make sure they understood his point, he ends the chapter by saying, “Remove the wicked man from among yourselves.”
God‟s point with the prohibition is that these two elements, know for their spreading and corrupting influence (fermentation is a corruption of the original liquie), have no part in a holy sacrifice that is going to ascend to Him in smoke on an altar. God wants purity. He wants a perfect animal. He wants flour that has been refined, and refined, and refined to the point that it is pure and without any corrupting influences.
But what about salt though? Salt is so common to us today that it is meaningless, but salt used to be so rare that it was very valuable. Our word “salary” comes from the Latin salarium, which is a form of sal, or Latin for salt, and it is believed that at one time, Roman soldiers were paid in salt because it was so valuable. So in the days of the Old Testament, to add salt to a sacrifice was a costly thing to do, but it didn‟t end there because salt also had symbolic importance, much like leaven and honey. Salt, as we all know, is a preservative. It draws the moisture out of food to enable the food to last for long periods of time. This is why we have things like salt cured ham and salted fish.
I have cabbage in my basement that is salted and preserved. This summer, I‟d lay down a layer of shredded cabbage, salt it, and then pound it flat. Then another layer of cabbage and more salt and pounding. Then another layer of cabbage and salt and pounding. And eventually, the crock was full of the liquid that had been sucked out of the cabbage. You let it sit in that brine for three or four weeks, and you have sauerkraut that doesn‟t need refrigeration. Because of the salting, it is preserved. Salt stops the course of nature as living matter starts to break down and deteriorate.
That is the nature of salt – it is a preservative. Which is why as recently as a hundred years ago, salt was being used symbolically in Arabic cultures to seal deals and invoke a binding nature to an agreement. The two parties would sprinkle a little salt on the ground, and that made the agreement permanent. This helps us understand Num. 18:19 a little better. “All the offerings of the holy gifts, which the sons of Israel offer to the LORD, I have given to you and your sons and your daughters with you, as a perpetual allotment. [Now listen to how God describes these offerings.] [They are] an everlasting covenant of salt before the LORD to you and your descendants with you.” So to add salt to the offering was a symbolic gesture invoking permanence and incorruption.
Finally, the grain offering was another voluntary offering. Or as we described it last week, it was a free will offering. It was something you did at your own initiative, and it was usually offered at the same time of the burnt offering or peace offering, but could be offered all by itself. And in verse 2 we see that it was described as a “sweet savor” to the Lord. What is this “sweet savor” that described these first three offerings: the burnt, the grain, and the peace offering (the other category of offerings was the “non-sweet savor,” which were the sin and trespass offerings)? The best way to understand it is to think of it from the perspective of being “pleasing.” When you walk past a house where they are grilling something outside, you say, “m-m-m-m-m . . . that smells nice.” It is a pleasant smell, and God was pleased when His people would on their own initiative draw near to Him with a sacrifice.
I want to close this morning by pointing out one of the differences between the burnt offering and the grain offering. The burnt offering accomplished atonement, as we saw in 1:4. That means the person‟s sinfulness was covered up and he was acceptable to God. Note that the grain offering did not accomplish atonement! This means that the purpose behind this offering had nothing to do with wanting to be acceptable to God, it was all about appreciation for God. When your heart welled up with gratitude for everything God had done for you, you brought a grain offering. You weren‟t looking for anything from God. You weren‟t after acceptance, like in the burn offering. You weren‟t after peace, like in next week‟s peace offering. You were simply saying to God, “Thank you.”
The Grain Offering - Lev. 2
This morning we are going to be in Lev. 2 and consider the second offering God prescribed for the nation of Israel as a means for them to draw near to their God. It is known by a variety of names – meal, grain, and even meat (Keil and Delitzsch, Edersheim). I‟ll be referring to it as a grain offering because it consists of grain being offered on the altar in a variety of forms.
Memory Project: “Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, „Speak to the sons of Israel and say to them, „I am the LORD your God. You shall not do what is done in the land of Egypt where you lived, nor are you to do what is done in the land of Canaan where I am bringing you; you shall not walk in their statutes. You are to perform My judgments and keep My statutes, to live in accord with them; I am the LORD your God. So you shall keep My statutes and My judgments, by which a man may live if he does them; I am the LORD.‟”
Very quickly, someone remind us of the theme of Leviticus. Right. It is “the holiness of God.” What does holy mean? Holy means separate, set apart, or sacred. God was holy, and the nation of Israel wasn‟t! So if they wanted to be in fellowship with their God, two things had to happen. First of all, they had to be aware of what was separating them from their holy God, and second, they had to have a means of dealing with the things separating them. Everything in the book of Leviticus falls under one of those two general categories. What constitutes separation from God, and how do I deal with it?
Remember too that Leviticus is full of object lessons. God graciously illustrated for His people what holiness looked like, and the first set of object lessons was the five sacrifices, or offerings. What is the root idea of the word “offering?” To draw near. If these people who were separated from their God wanted to get close to God, or to “draw near” to God, there was a specific way they could do it. So last week we looked at the burnt offering in which the one bringing the animal slit its throat, cut it into pieces, and then gave to the priest to throw on the altar. The entire animal was consumed in the fire on the altar – none of it was burned outside of the camp, the priest didn‟t get to keep a part of it, and the one bringing the burnt offering didn‟t get to share a meal from it with the priest, like some of the other offerings.
This morning we are going to look at the grain offering, and this offering is in a category all by itself in that it is the only offering that didn‟t involve the shedding of blood. This fact alerts us to the purpose behind the offering, which we will see at the end of the message, but for now, just keep in mind as we are going through the particulars that this offering has special significance for the one bringing it.
Let‟s start with the word that is translated as “grain” in the phrase “grain offering” in verse one. “When anyone presents a grain offering as an offering to the Lord, his offering shall be of fine flour.” There is a very interesting word used here that really doesn‟t have anything to do with corn or wheat or barley. The word literally means “gift, tribute, offering,” or “present.” We see the concept illustrated in Gen. 32 where Jacob is on his way back home after spending 14 years in exile at his uncle‟s house. If you remember the story, Jacob tricked his older brother into giving up the family inheritance and then fled for his life. But in Gen. 32, he is now a wealthy man and on his way home knowing that he is going to have to face his brother. And he has no idea how Esau is going to respond – but he is clearly fearing for his life! So in Gen. 32 let‟s start reading in verse 13.
"So he spent the night there. Then he selected from what he had with him a present for his brother Esau: 14 two hundred female goats and twenty male goats, two hundred ewes and twenty rams,15 thirty milking camels and their colts, forty cows and ten bulls, twenty female donkeys and ten male donkeys. 16 And he delivered them into the hand of his servants, every drove by itself, and said to his servants, "Pass on before me, and put a space between droves." 17 And he commanded the one in front, saying, "When my brother Esau meets you and asks you, saying, 'To whom do you belong, and where are you going, and to whom do these animals in front of you belong?'18 then you shall say, 'These belong to your servant Jacob; it is a present sent to my lord Esau. And behold, he also is behind us.'" 19 Then he commanded also the second and the third, and all those who followed the droves, saying, "After this manner you shall speak to Esau when you find him; 20 and you shall say, 'Behold, your servant Jacob also is behind us.'" For he said, "I will appease him with the present that goes before me. Then afterward I will see his face; perhaps he will accept me."
That is the idea behind the word translated as “grain” in the phrase “grain offering.” It is a “gift” or “present” used to “draw near” to God. The reason the translators use the word “grain” is because of what we see in verse one – “his offering shall be of fine flour,” and verse 14, “if you bring a grain offering of early ripened things to the Lord, you shall bring fresh heads of grain roasted in the fire.”
Concerning the specifics of this offering, there were four different ways you could bring it – it could be flour baked in an oven as we see in verse 4, or fried on a griddle as we see in verse 5, or something like a dumpling or donut boiled in oil as we see in verse 7. The NAS says, “Now if your offering is a grain offering made in a pan, it shall be made of fine flour with oil.” The Hebrew there indicates something a little different as the New English Translation shows, “If your offering is a grain offering made in a pan [the NKJV calls it a “covered pan”, so it would be similar to a pot], it must be made of choice wheat flour deep fried in olive oil.” The final way this offering could be made was to bring roasted grain, as we see in verse 14.
Of particular interest to us is the kind of flour that was used. It is repeatedly referred to as “fine flour,” to be contrasted with roughly ground flour that would be more like corn meal. Some of the resources I have been using referred to this as “spun” flour to reflect how it was obtained. After the wheat was ground, it was put into a bag that allowed only the finest particles of flour to come out, and it was spun around in a larger container. The centrifugal force of the spinning would force the fine flour through the cloth, where it would be collected and spun again in a finer woven bag. Jewish tradition stipulated that the flour used in these offerings had to be spun 13 times!
So as we think of what this offering entailed, don‟t envision going to the pantry and getting out some flour, making it into a batter, frying it, and then bringing it to the tabernacle to be used as a grain offering. It was much more involved than that, and in keeping with the costly nature of a sacrifice. While the grain offering may not represent the financial sacrifice that a burnt offering represented, it did represent a significant sacrifice of your personal time.
In the grain offering we are introduced to an element not seen in the burnt offering, and we see it in verses two and three. “He shall then bring it [the fine flour] to Aaron's sons, the priests; and shall take from it his handful of its fine flour and of its oil with all of its frankincense. And the priest shall offer it up in smoke as its memorial portion on the altar, an offering by fire of a soothing aroma to the LORD. 3 'And the remainder of the grain offering belongs to Aaron and his sons: a thing most holy, of the offerings to the LORD by fire.” Only a portion of the sacrifice was put on the altar and burned, the rest of the offering went to the priest.
We will deal with this more fully when we look at the priesthood, but for now just understand that this was God‟s way of providing for the priesthood. The overarching principle is that since the “men of God,” or the priests, spent their days caring for the spiritual needs of the people of God, the people of God were to take care of the material needs of the priesthood.
Now, there were three special rules that applied to this sacrifice, found in verses 11 – 13. “No grain offering, which you bring to the LORD, shall be made with leaven, for you shall not offer up in smoke any leaven or any honey as an offering by fire to the LORD. As an offering of first fruits, you shall bring them to the LORD, but they shall not ascend for a soothing aroma on the altar. Every grain offering of yours, moreover, you shall season with salt, so that the salt of the covenant of your God shall not be lacking from your grain offering; with all your offerings you shall offer salt.”
The three rules were no leaven, no honey, and salt had to be added. Why the prohibition against leaven and honey? Leaven, or yeast as we know it, and honey were both used in fermentation. If you had some grape juice that you wanted to turn into wine, you added yeast and sugar, in the form of honey. If you had some grape juice you wanted to turn to vinegar, you added honey and let it ferment. But understand that there was nothing intrinsically evil or wrong with either of these ingredients. We know that because leaven could be used in the offering of firstfruits (v. 12), but it could not be used in an offering that was burned on the altar. So why the prohibition?
Remember that one of the unique elements of Leviticus is God‟s use of object lessons. He often took ordinary things to teach eternal truths, and we see this in the rejection of honey and leaven. What both of these substances were know for was their pervasive nature. In other words, a small amount affected the whole batch. One cup of sugar can ferment an entire gallon of kombucha. One tablespoon of yeast can double the size of a lump of dough. Honey and yeast don‟t stay contained – they spread. That is their nature, and it is because of this that leaven is often compared to sin. In both 1 Cor. 5 and Gal. 5, Paul makes the statement that “a little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough,” and he says it in the context of unrepentant sinful people in close proximity to God‟s people. He goes on to say, “clean out the old leaven so that you may be a new lump.” And then just to make sure they understood his point, he ends the chapter by saying, “Remove the wicked man from among yourselves.”
God‟s point with the prohibition is that these two elements, know for their spreading and corrupting influence (fermentation is a corruption of the original liquie), have no part in a holy sacrifice that is going to ascend to Him in smoke on an altar. God wants purity. He wants a perfect animal. He wants flour that has been refined, and refined, and refined to the point that it is pure and without any corrupting influences.
But what about salt though? Salt is so common to us today that it is meaningless, but salt used to be so rare that it was very valuable. Our word “salary” comes from the Latin salarium, which is a form of sal, or Latin for salt, and it is believed that at one time, Roman soldiers were paid in salt because it was so valuable. So in the days of the Old Testament, to add salt to a sacrifice was a costly thing to do, but it didn‟t end there because salt also had symbolic importance, much like leaven and honey. Salt, as we all know, is a preservative. It draws the moisture out of food to enable the food to last for long periods of time. This is why we have things like salt cured ham and salted fish.
I have cabbage in my basement that is salted and preserved. This summer, I‟d lay down a layer of shredded cabbage, salt it, and then pound it flat. Then another layer of cabbage and more salt and pounding. Then another layer of cabbage and salt and pounding. And eventually, the crock was full of the liquid that had been sucked out of the cabbage. You let it sit in that brine for three or four weeks, and you have sauerkraut that doesn‟t need refrigeration. Because of the salting, it is preserved. Salt stops the course of nature as living matter starts to break down and deteriorate.
That is the nature of salt – it is a preservative. Which is why as recently as a hundred years ago, salt was being used symbolically in Arabic cultures to seal deals and invoke a binding nature to an agreement. The two parties would sprinkle a little salt on the ground, and that made the agreement permanent. This helps us understand Num. 18:19 a little better. “All the offerings of the holy gifts, which the sons of Israel offer to the LORD, I have given to you and your sons and your daughters with you, as a perpetual allotment. [Now listen to how God describes these offerings.] [They are] an everlasting covenant of salt before the LORD to you and your descendants with you.” So to add salt to the offering was a symbolic gesture invoking permanence and incorruption.
Finally, the grain offering was another voluntary offering. Or as we described it last week, it was a free will offering. It was something you did at your own initiative, and it was usually offered at the same time of the burnt offering or peace offering, but could be offered all by itself. And in verse 2 we see that it was described as a “sweet savor” to the Lord. What is this “sweet savor” that described these first three offerings: the burnt, the grain, and the peace offering (the other category of offerings was the “non-sweet savor,” which were the sin and trespass offerings)? The best way to understand it is to think of it from the perspective of being “pleasing.” When you walk past a house where they are grilling something outside, you say, “m-m-m-m-m . . . that smells nice.” It is a pleasant smell, and God was pleased when His people would on their own initiative draw near to Him with a sacrifice.
I want to close this morning by pointing out one of the differences between the burnt offering and the grain offering. The burnt offering accomplished atonement, as we saw in 1:4. That means the person‟s sinfulness was covered up and he was acceptable to God. Note that the grain offering did not accomplish atonement! This means that the purpose behind this offering had nothing to do with wanting to be acceptable to God, it was all about appreciation for God. When your heart welled up with gratitude for everything God had done for you, you brought a grain offering. You weren‟t looking for anything from God. You weren‟t after acceptance, like in the burn offering. You weren‟t after peace, like in next week‟s peace offering. You were simply saying to God, “Thank you.”
Friday, January 21, 2011
The Burnt Offering
Studies in Leviticus
The Sacrificial System – How To Draw Near To God
The Burnt Offering -Lev. 1
I‟d like you to turn in your Bibles to Leviticus chapter 1, and this morning we are going to start our study of the Old Testament sacrificial system. As I explained to you last week, this is not only a legitimate use of our time since all of God‟s Word is “profitable” according to 1 Tim. 3:16, it is valuable because of how it will enhance our appreciation of not only Jesus (especially as we study the sacrificial system and the priesthood) and what He has done for us but also of the New Covenant and life under the stipulations of grace.
Quick review: The theme of Leviticus is “the holiness of God.” Holy means “separate, set apart, or sacred.” The opposite of holy is common. Paper plates and plastic utensils are common. They are mass produced, used once, and then thrown out. But fine china and silver are sacred. We set them apart in special cabinets with glass doors and soft lighting. Since God is holy, only holy people can be in fellowship with Him. It doesn‟t matter if you lived 4,000 years ago in Israel, 2,000 years ago in Jerusalem, or if you are alive today – only holy people can be in fellowship with a holy God. But because holiness is somewhat abstract, in the book of Leviticus, God gives the nation of Israel a way to visualize holiness (remember the concept of object lessons). In the Old Testament system, holiness could actually be measured and viewed. The sacrifices, the offerings, the priesthood, and the laws concerning clean and unclean all served to quantify holiness. If you did all the “stuff,” you could be in communion and fellowship with a holy God.
Finally, let‟s say our memory project together. “Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, „Speak to the sons of Israel and say to them, „I am the LORD your God. You shall not do what is done in the land of Egypt where you lived, nor are you to do what is done in the land of Canaan where I am bringing you; you shall not walk in their statutes. You are to perform My judgments and keep My statutes, to live in accord with them; I am the LORD your God. So you shall keep My statutes and My judgments, by which a man may live if he does them; I am the LORD.‟”
So if you aren‟t in Lev. 1, let‟s go there now and look at the first object lesson God lays out for His people - the sacrificial system. This consisted of five different types of offerings – a burnt offering, a grain offering, a peace offering, a sin offering, and a guilt (trespass) offering. As we go through these offerings, be aware that I will be using the terms “sacrifice” and “offering” interchangeably. The offerings, for the most part, were costly; so whether you view it from the perspective of an offering or a sacrifice, it is the same concept.
What is this first offering we see mentioned in verse 2 when God says, “ . . . when any man of you brings an offering to the Lord, you shall bring your offering of the animals from the herd or the flock?” Offerings and sacrifices weren‟t a new concept to God‟s people, they go back to the early days of God‟s interaction with man, as far back as Cain and Abel in Gen. 4. But in Leviticus we see for the first time a systematic, comprehensive set of guidelines for the offerings / sacrifices. The word that is translated as “offering” has the basic idea of “drawing near.” So if the people wanted to “draw near” to their God, the sacrifices / offerings enabled them to do it. But to really appreciate what it meant to the Children of Israel to have a means of drawing near to God, we have to contrast it with Ex. 19. Let‟s turn there and see what the relationship between God and Israel was like when God gave the 10 Commandments.
10 And the LORD said to Moses, "Go to the people and consecrate them today and tomorrow. Have them wash their clothes
11 and be ready by the third day, because on that day the LORD will come down on Mount Sinai in the sight of all the people.
12 Put limits for the people around the mountain and tell them, 'Be careful that you do not go up the mountain or touch the foot of it. Whoever touches the mountain shall surely be put to death.
13 He shall surely be stoned or shot with arrows; not a hand is to be laid on him. Whether man or animal, he shall not be permitted to live.' Only when the ram's horn sounds a long blast may they go up to the mountain."
16 On the morning of the third day there was thunder and lightning, with a thick cloud over the mountain, and a very loud trumpet blast. Everyone in the camp trembled.
17 Then Moses led the people out of the camp to meet with God, and they stood at the foot of the mountain.
18 Mount Sinai was covered with smoke, because the LORD descended on it in fire. The smoke billowed up from it like smoke from a furnace, the whole mountain trembled violently,
19 and the sound of the trumpet grew louder and louder. Then Moses spoke and the voice of God answered him.
20 The LORD descended to the top of Mount Sinai and called Moses to the top of the mountain. So Moses went up
21 and the LORD said to him, "Go down and warn the people so they do not force their way through to see the LORD and many of them perish.
22 Even the priests, who approach the LORD, must consecrate themselves, or the LORD will break out against them."
23 Moses said to the LORD, "The people cannot come up Mount Sinai, because you yourself warned us, 'Put limits around the mountain and set it apart as holy.' "
How accessible was God in this chapter? Not very! In fact, if they got too close, they paid for it with their lives! What we need to appreciate is that that dynamic changed drastically in Leviticus when God laid out a program for them to utilize so they could get near to God without dying – and it started with the sacrifices. So that is the idea behind the word “offering,” it was a means by which people could “draw near” to God.
Now the first of these five offerings is referred to as a “burnt” offering. Read verse three again with me. “If his offering is a burnt offering from the heard, he shall offer it, a male without defect; he shall offer it at the doorway of the tent of meeting; that he may be accepted before the Lord.” Then in verse 10 we read, “If his offering is of the flocks – of the sheep or of the goats – as a burnt sacrifice . . .” and in verse 13, “And if the burnt sacrifice of his offering to the Lord is of birds . . .” Let me give you six particulars about this offering, some of them are unique to the burnt offering, some of them are held in common by others.
First of all, the burnt offering was a voluntary offering. If you are using a King James version of the Bible this comes out a little more clearly because it uses the phrase in verse three, “he shall offer it of his own free will.” This presents a little bit of a problem when you compare it to the NAS and the NIV which say the offering is so that “he may be accepted before the Lord.” Is it a “freewill offering,” or is it an “acceptable” offering? This difference in translation illustrates the complexity of translating Hebrew. The literal translation of this verse is, “If burnt offering gift from the herd, male, perfect, bring near toward the entrance of the tent of meeting to offer _____________________ before the Lord.”
There is no question about the word itself, it is the word ratzone, and it‟s translated in a variety of ways - “goodwill, favor, acceptance, desire, pleasure” and “to do as you please” or “to do as you desire.” So, which idea do you go with? Is the author‟s emphasis on the person bringing the sacrifice (“freewill”), or is it on the nature of the sacrifice (“acceptable”)? Both translations are legitimate as well as defensible, but I lean toward the idea of “freewill” – “He shall offer it of his own free will.”
The reason I believe this is because as you study the burnt offerings, there was no external compulsion requiring a person to do this. It was a voluntary offering. There are no rules specifying how often a person had to do this (though there were regulations mandating how often the nation had to do it), or what circumstances would require a burnt offering. The burnt offering was not like the sin offering of chapter four and the trespass offering of chapter five which covered known sins or even potential sins. In those cases, when you knew you had broken the rules, you made the sacrifice. But the burnt offering was done at the discretion of the one doing it. It was simply an expression of his desire to draw near to the Lord and be pleasing to God.
Second, it was costly. Think about what sacrificing a bull did to your net worth! There is a reason why the burnt offering was a “sacrifice.” Kind David expressed this truth when he offered a burnt offering that was offered to him for free. He said, “No, but I will surely buy it from you for a price, for I will not offer burnt offerings to the Lord my God which cost me nothing.” So David bought the threshing floor and the oxen for fifty shekels of silver.” The burnt offering was a costly, voluntary offering.
But you didn‟t have to be wealthy to bring this offering. If you weren’t wealthy, according to verse 10 you could bring a sheep or a goat, or if you were even poorer still, according to verse 14 you could bring a dove or a pigeon. The principle here is that your offering was according to your ability.
Third, it was narrow. What I mean by this is that not only were the guidelines very precise about the condition of the animal (male and without blemish), there was a limited number of animals you could choose from for the offering. The guidelines were very narrow. If you had a valuable horse you wanted to sacrifice, you couldn‟t give it! If you really wanted to make a sacrificial burnt offering to the Lord and wanted to sacrifice one of your valuable camels, you couldn‟t do it. You also couldn‟t sacrifice donkeys. Why were these valuable animals off the list of acceptable sacrifices, especially in light of how nicely they fit the bill of being costly to the giver? Because horses, donkeys, and camels were not only unclean, but also they were used by the pagans in their sacrificial systems! That is significant.
In this act, God is establishing a very clear division between His people and the pagan culture they were surrounded by. Let that phrase sink in. This is a timeless principle I want you to keep in the back of your mind because we are going to see it over and over in this book, and at some point we‟ll stop and look at how it plays out in our daily lives.
But for now, just remember the theme of Leviticus – God is holy, and He can be approached only in the way He prescribes. Just because you think you have something of value you can offer to God doesn‟t mean a thing. You can only give to God what He prescribes. And just to make sure we get the point, in Lev. 10, right after God lays out all the stipulations for fellowship with Him through the offerings and the priesthood, two priests got it in their mind to approach God in their own way and they paid for it with their lives! It is a very narrow path God had for His people.
Fourth, it was comprehensive. This particular offering is referred to as a “burnt” offering. The word “burnt” means “ascent,” and refers to the smoke that ascended toward heaven, but more than that, the entire animal was consumed by the fire. None of the animal being sacrificed was kept back for the priest, like some of the other offerings - the entire animal was consumed. This was different from the sin and guilt offerings because some of the animal in those offerings was carted out of the camp and burned outside the camp, but not in the case of this burnt offering. The one bringing it could stand there and watch the entire animal go up in smoke. There was nothing left.
In addition to this, you couldn‟t bring part of the animal and sacrifice it. Again, in contrast to the next two offerings, you could bring a portion and sacrifice it – but not with the burnt offering. You couldn‟t just throw a hindquarter up there and let that be your offering – it was the whole animal. And again, hold on to this thought because there is an important principle being illustrated here and we will be revisiting it.
Fifth, it was a substitutionary offering. Before we look at verse four where we see this matter of substitution, we need to go back to the Garden of Eden and recall God‟s actions when Adam and Eve sinned. What did God do in response to their sin? He killed an innocent animal and made clothing for them. In that act was established an eternal principle – sin is absolved only by the shedding of blood. The way the NT puts it is that “the wages of sin is death.” Any time you have sin, death follows. It doesn‟t matter if it was in the garden of Eden, or in the desert of Sinai, or in the days of Jesus, or this morning – there is an eternal principle that death always follows sin.
With that understanding, in verse 4 we read that the person bringing the sacrifice put his hand on the animal‟s head when he brought it to the door of the tabernacle. What was he doing? This was a symbolic gesture that transferred his sinfulness to the innocent animal. Why did he do this? Because blood had to be spilled! The offending, guilty party who could not draw near to God because of his sinfulness passed that guilt on to an innocent party, and then the innocent animal died instead of the one who deserved to die. And in that act, because of the blood being spilled, the person was brought into fellowship with his God. The bull or the goat was a substitutionary sacrifice.
Sixth, it was bloody. As we go through these sacrifices, you see blood everywhere. The blood was caught in a basin, and the, depending on the sacrifice, it was either sprinkled around the door, or poured out at the side of the altar, or poured on the four corners of the altar. We don‟t really appreciate how bloody this area was until we think about the size of the nation and realize that these offerings were taking place multiple times every day. God was making a very graphic point to His people, and that was that sin has serious consequences.
And seventh, it atoned for the sins of the one bringing the sacrifice as we see in verse 4. The word “atone” means “to cover.” In the Old Testament sense of the word, it doesn‟t mean to remove, only to cover. If I had a vase up here on the podium with me and threw a blanket over it, you would no longer be able to see it because it would be covered. Would the vase still be there? Sure. But it is only covered up. That is how we need to understand the idea of “atone” in these sacrifices. The sin was no longer visible to God because it was covered by the sacrifice, hence it no longer stood between the sinful person and the holy God. The holy God could be drawn near to.
I want us to close by looking at a short phrase in verse five. “And he shall slay the young bull before the Lord.” One of the dimensions of this sacrifice that we tend to overlook is that the person bringing the offering had to kill the animal himself. It didn‟t matter if you were squeamish about blood or not – you put the animal to death. Not only did you transfer your sinfulness to the animal through laying your hands on it, you were the means of its death. Let that sink in a moment - you were both the cause and the instrument of an innocent animal‟s death.
Several years ago Mel Gibson produced the very graphic movie The Passion of the Christ, and it is my understanding that when the part was being shot of the nails being pounded through Jesus‟ hands, it was a close-up and all you could see in the frame was Jesus‟ hand and the hands of a Roman soldier holding the hammer and spike. Guess which actor on the set was holding the hammer and spikes? Mel Gibson‟s!
That illustrates to me the reality of the burnt offering. That animal died at the hands of the sinner bringing it to the altar. He couldn‟t pass that off to the priest standing by. If it was a bird you were sacrificing, you ripped it in half with your own hands. There was nothing delicate about this offering – it was brutal and bloody! As we close in prayer, would you take a moment to reflect on the truth that Jesus was a burnt offering? Not that He burned, but when you think about the seven dimensions of the burnt offering, every one of them applies to Jesus.
It was voluntary
It was costly
It was narrow
It was comprehensive
It was substitutionary
It was bloody
It was atoning
And whose hands put Him to death?
The Sacrificial System – How To Draw Near To God
The Burnt Offering -Lev. 1
I‟d like you to turn in your Bibles to Leviticus chapter 1, and this morning we are going to start our study of the Old Testament sacrificial system. As I explained to you last week, this is not only a legitimate use of our time since all of God‟s Word is “profitable” according to 1 Tim. 3:16, it is valuable because of how it will enhance our appreciation of not only Jesus (especially as we study the sacrificial system and the priesthood) and what He has done for us but also of the New Covenant and life under the stipulations of grace.
Quick review: The theme of Leviticus is “the holiness of God.” Holy means “separate, set apart, or sacred.” The opposite of holy is common. Paper plates and plastic utensils are common. They are mass produced, used once, and then thrown out. But fine china and silver are sacred. We set them apart in special cabinets with glass doors and soft lighting. Since God is holy, only holy people can be in fellowship with Him. It doesn‟t matter if you lived 4,000 years ago in Israel, 2,000 years ago in Jerusalem, or if you are alive today – only holy people can be in fellowship with a holy God. But because holiness is somewhat abstract, in the book of Leviticus, God gives the nation of Israel a way to visualize holiness (remember the concept of object lessons). In the Old Testament system, holiness could actually be measured and viewed. The sacrifices, the offerings, the priesthood, and the laws concerning clean and unclean all served to quantify holiness. If you did all the “stuff,” you could be in communion and fellowship with a holy God.
Finally, let‟s say our memory project together. “Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, „Speak to the sons of Israel and say to them, „I am the LORD your God. You shall not do what is done in the land of Egypt where you lived, nor are you to do what is done in the land of Canaan where I am bringing you; you shall not walk in their statutes. You are to perform My judgments and keep My statutes, to live in accord with them; I am the LORD your God. So you shall keep My statutes and My judgments, by which a man may live if he does them; I am the LORD.‟”
So if you aren‟t in Lev. 1, let‟s go there now and look at the first object lesson God lays out for His people - the sacrificial system. This consisted of five different types of offerings – a burnt offering, a grain offering, a peace offering, a sin offering, and a guilt (trespass) offering. As we go through these offerings, be aware that I will be using the terms “sacrifice” and “offering” interchangeably. The offerings, for the most part, were costly; so whether you view it from the perspective of an offering or a sacrifice, it is the same concept.
What is this first offering we see mentioned in verse 2 when God says, “ . . . when any man of you brings an offering to the Lord, you shall bring your offering of the animals from the herd or the flock?” Offerings and sacrifices weren‟t a new concept to God‟s people, they go back to the early days of God‟s interaction with man, as far back as Cain and Abel in Gen. 4. But in Leviticus we see for the first time a systematic, comprehensive set of guidelines for the offerings / sacrifices. The word that is translated as “offering” has the basic idea of “drawing near.” So if the people wanted to “draw near” to their God, the sacrifices / offerings enabled them to do it. But to really appreciate what it meant to the Children of Israel to have a means of drawing near to God, we have to contrast it with Ex. 19. Let‟s turn there and see what the relationship between God and Israel was like when God gave the 10 Commandments.
10 And the LORD said to Moses, "Go to the people and consecrate them today and tomorrow. Have them wash their clothes
11 and be ready by the third day, because on that day the LORD will come down on Mount Sinai in the sight of all the people.
12 Put limits for the people around the mountain and tell them, 'Be careful that you do not go up the mountain or touch the foot of it. Whoever touches the mountain shall surely be put to death.
13 He shall surely be stoned or shot with arrows; not a hand is to be laid on him. Whether man or animal, he shall not be permitted to live.' Only when the ram's horn sounds a long blast may they go up to the mountain."
16 On the morning of the third day there was thunder and lightning, with a thick cloud over the mountain, and a very loud trumpet blast. Everyone in the camp trembled.
17 Then Moses led the people out of the camp to meet with God, and they stood at the foot of the mountain.
18 Mount Sinai was covered with smoke, because the LORD descended on it in fire. The smoke billowed up from it like smoke from a furnace, the whole mountain trembled violently,
19 and the sound of the trumpet grew louder and louder. Then Moses spoke and the voice of God answered him.
20 The LORD descended to the top of Mount Sinai and called Moses to the top of the mountain. So Moses went up
21 and the LORD said to him, "Go down and warn the people so they do not force their way through to see the LORD and many of them perish.
22 Even the priests, who approach the LORD, must consecrate themselves, or the LORD will break out against them."
23 Moses said to the LORD, "The people cannot come up Mount Sinai, because you yourself warned us, 'Put limits around the mountain and set it apart as holy.' "
How accessible was God in this chapter? Not very! In fact, if they got too close, they paid for it with their lives! What we need to appreciate is that that dynamic changed drastically in Leviticus when God laid out a program for them to utilize so they could get near to God without dying – and it started with the sacrifices. So that is the idea behind the word “offering,” it was a means by which people could “draw near” to God.
Now the first of these five offerings is referred to as a “burnt” offering. Read verse three again with me. “If his offering is a burnt offering from the heard, he shall offer it, a male without defect; he shall offer it at the doorway of the tent of meeting; that he may be accepted before the Lord.” Then in verse 10 we read, “If his offering is of the flocks – of the sheep or of the goats – as a burnt sacrifice . . .” and in verse 13, “And if the burnt sacrifice of his offering to the Lord is of birds . . .” Let me give you six particulars about this offering, some of them are unique to the burnt offering, some of them are held in common by others.
First of all, the burnt offering was a voluntary offering. If you are using a King James version of the Bible this comes out a little more clearly because it uses the phrase in verse three, “he shall offer it of his own free will.” This presents a little bit of a problem when you compare it to the NAS and the NIV which say the offering is so that “he may be accepted before the Lord.” Is it a “freewill offering,” or is it an “acceptable” offering? This difference in translation illustrates the complexity of translating Hebrew. The literal translation of this verse is, “If burnt offering gift from the herd, male, perfect, bring near toward the entrance of the tent of meeting to offer _____________________ before the Lord.”
There is no question about the word itself, it is the word ratzone, and it‟s translated in a variety of ways - “goodwill, favor, acceptance, desire, pleasure” and “to do as you please” or “to do as you desire.” So, which idea do you go with? Is the author‟s emphasis on the person bringing the sacrifice (“freewill”), or is it on the nature of the sacrifice (“acceptable”)? Both translations are legitimate as well as defensible, but I lean toward the idea of “freewill” – “He shall offer it of his own free will.”
The reason I believe this is because as you study the burnt offerings, there was no external compulsion requiring a person to do this. It was a voluntary offering. There are no rules specifying how often a person had to do this (though there were regulations mandating how often the nation had to do it), or what circumstances would require a burnt offering. The burnt offering was not like the sin offering of chapter four and the trespass offering of chapter five which covered known sins or even potential sins. In those cases, when you knew you had broken the rules, you made the sacrifice. But the burnt offering was done at the discretion of the one doing it. It was simply an expression of his desire to draw near to the Lord and be pleasing to God.
Second, it was costly. Think about what sacrificing a bull did to your net worth! There is a reason why the burnt offering was a “sacrifice.” Kind David expressed this truth when he offered a burnt offering that was offered to him for free. He said, “No, but I will surely buy it from you for a price, for I will not offer burnt offerings to the Lord my God which cost me nothing.” So David bought the threshing floor and the oxen for fifty shekels of silver.” The burnt offering was a costly, voluntary offering.
But you didn‟t have to be wealthy to bring this offering. If you weren’t wealthy, according to verse 10 you could bring a sheep or a goat, or if you were even poorer still, according to verse 14 you could bring a dove or a pigeon. The principle here is that your offering was according to your ability.
Third, it was narrow. What I mean by this is that not only were the guidelines very precise about the condition of the animal (male and without blemish), there was a limited number of animals you could choose from for the offering. The guidelines were very narrow. If you had a valuable horse you wanted to sacrifice, you couldn‟t give it! If you really wanted to make a sacrificial burnt offering to the Lord and wanted to sacrifice one of your valuable camels, you couldn‟t do it. You also couldn‟t sacrifice donkeys. Why were these valuable animals off the list of acceptable sacrifices, especially in light of how nicely they fit the bill of being costly to the giver? Because horses, donkeys, and camels were not only unclean, but also they were used by the pagans in their sacrificial systems! That is significant.
In this act, God is establishing a very clear division between His people and the pagan culture they were surrounded by. Let that phrase sink in. This is a timeless principle I want you to keep in the back of your mind because we are going to see it over and over in this book, and at some point we‟ll stop and look at how it plays out in our daily lives.
But for now, just remember the theme of Leviticus – God is holy, and He can be approached only in the way He prescribes. Just because you think you have something of value you can offer to God doesn‟t mean a thing. You can only give to God what He prescribes. And just to make sure we get the point, in Lev. 10, right after God lays out all the stipulations for fellowship with Him through the offerings and the priesthood, two priests got it in their mind to approach God in their own way and they paid for it with their lives! It is a very narrow path God had for His people.
Fourth, it was comprehensive. This particular offering is referred to as a “burnt” offering. The word “burnt” means “ascent,” and refers to the smoke that ascended toward heaven, but more than that, the entire animal was consumed by the fire. None of the animal being sacrificed was kept back for the priest, like some of the other offerings - the entire animal was consumed. This was different from the sin and guilt offerings because some of the animal in those offerings was carted out of the camp and burned outside the camp, but not in the case of this burnt offering. The one bringing it could stand there and watch the entire animal go up in smoke. There was nothing left.
In addition to this, you couldn‟t bring part of the animal and sacrifice it. Again, in contrast to the next two offerings, you could bring a portion and sacrifice it – but not with the burnt offering. You couldn‟t just throw a hindquarter up there and let that be your offering – it was the whole animal. And again, hold on to this thought because there is an important principle being illustrated here and we will be revisiting it.
Fifth, it was a substitutionary offering. Before we look at verse four where we see this matter of substitution, we need to go back to the Garden of Eden and recall God‟s actions when Adam and Eve sinned. What did God do in response to their sin? He killed an innocent animal and made clothing for them. In that act was established an eternal principle – sin is absolved only by the shedding of blood. The way the NT puts it is that “the wages of sin is death.” Any time you have sin, death follows. It doesn‟t matter if it was in the garden of Eden, or in the desert of Sinai, or in the days of Jesus, or this morning – there is an eternal principle that death always follows sin.
With that understanding, in verse 4 we read that the person bringing the sacrifice put his hand on the animal‟s head when he brought it to the door of the tabernacle. What was he doing? This was a symbolic gesture that transferred his sinfulness to the innocent animal. Why did he do this? Because blood had to be spilled! The offending, guilty party who could not draw near to God because of his sinfulness passed that guilt on to an innocent party, and then the innocent animal died instead of the one who deserved to die. And in that act, because of the blood being spilled, the person was brought into fellowship with his God. The bull or the goat was a substitutionary sacrifice.
Sixth, it was bloody. As we go through these sacrifices, you see blood everywhere. The blood was caught in a basin, and the, depending on the sacrifice, it was either sprinkled around the door, or poured out at the side of the altar, or poured on the four corners of the altar. We don‟t really appreciate how bloody this area was until we think about the size of the nation and realize that these offerings were taking place multiple times every day. God was making a very graphic point to His people, and that was that sin has serious consequences.
And seventh, it atoned for the sins of the one bringing the sacrifice as we see in verse 4. The word “atone” means “to cover.” In the Old Testament sense of the word, it doesn‟t mean to remove, only to cover. If I had a vase up here on the podium with me and threw a blanket over it, you would no longer be able to see it because it would be covered. Would the vase still be there? Sure. But it is only covered up. That is how we need to understand the idea of “atone” in these sacrifices. The sin was no longer visible to God because it was covered by the sacrifice, hence it no longer stood between the sinful person and the holy God. The holy God could be drawn near to.
I want us to close by looking at a short phrase in verse five. “And he shall slay the young bull before the Lord.” One of the dimensions of this sacrifice that we tend to overlook is that the person bringing the offering had to kill the animal himself. It didn‟t matter if you were squeamish about blood or not – you put the animal to death. Not only did you transfer your sinfulness to the animal through laying your hands on it, you were the means of its death. Let that sink in a moment - you were both the cause and the instrument of an innocent animal‟s death.
Several years ago Mel Gibson produced the very graphic movie The Passion of the Christ, and it is my understanding that when the part was being shot of the nails being pounded through Jesus‟ hands, it was a close-up and all you could see in the frame was Jesus‟ hand and the hands of a Roman soldier holding the hammer and spike. Guess which actor on the set was holding the hammer and spikes? Mel Gibson‟s!
That illustrates to me the reality of the burnt offering. That animal died at the hands of the sinner bringing it to the altar. He couldn‟t pass that off to the priest standing by. If it was a bird you were sacrificing, you ripped it in half with your own hands. There was nothing delicate about this offering – it was brutal and bloody! As we close in prayer, would you take a moment to reflect on the truth that Jesus was a burnt offering? Not that He burned, but when you think about the seven dimensions of the burnt offering, every one of them applies to Jesus.
It was voluntary
It was costly
It was narrow
It was comprehensive
It was substitutionary
It was bloody
It was atoning
And whose hands put Him to death?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)