Leviticus 1
1 And Yahweh called to Moses, and spoke to him from the tabernacle of meeting, saying, 2 “Speak to the children of Israel, and say to them: ‘When any one of you brings an offering to the LORD, you shall bring your offering of the livestock—of the herd and of the flock.
“’And Yahweh called unto Moses’ …The connective ‘and’ indicating that Leviticus continues the narrative ‘at the end of Exodus.’[Bamberger]— “’and spoke to him from the tabernacle of meeting,’ As soon as ever the shechinah had taken possession of its new habitation, in token of the acceptance of what was done, God talked with Moses from the mercy-seat.”(Matthw Henry)
“There can and may always be fellowship with God in our personal lives.
But here God speaks of this voluntary fellowship from ‘the tent of meeting’, that is the tabernacle. That is a great difference with God’s speaking from the Sinai. From the Sinai, God gives His demands and conditions. There He speaks ‘from heaven’ (Exo 20:22). Now He speaks from his dwelling place among the people (Exodus 25:8), whereon His glory has descended in a cloud (Exo 40:34). From that cloud the Father later bears witness of His beloved Son (2 Pet 1:17). From the tent of meeting, the place where the LORD will meet with his people, He speaks of offerings. All offerings speak of the Lord Jesus. Here God focuses the hearts of the people on Him. Tabernacle’ literally means ‘the dwelling place’. God dwells there. If that dwelling place is called 'the tent of meeting', it indicates that God desires that His people come to have fellowship with Him, that is, to speak to Him about the Lord Jesus.”” (G. de Koning)
“Speak to the children of Israel, and say to them: ‘When any one of you— literally ‘if any man’— not any Israelite merely. Numbers 15:14.” (Daniel Whedon) — “‘brings an offering to the LORD (Yahweh), you shall bring your offering of the livestock—of the herd and of the flock." (2) In the beginning, the LORD God commanded the man, saying, “Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.” (Gen 2:15-17) But Satan had said, “You will not surely die. For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” (Gen 3:4-5) And as part of the curse on mankind for disobedience, they would return to the ground “for out of it you were taken; for dust you are, and to dust you shall return.” (Gen 3:19)“’Also for Adam and his wife the Lord God made tunics of skin, and clothed them.” (Gen 3:21) "God made coats of skins—taught them to make these for themselves. This implies the institution of animal sacrifice, which was undoubtedly of divine appointment, and instruction in the only acceptable mode of worship for sinful creatures, through faith in a Redeemer (Heb 9:22).” (Jamieson-Fausset-Brown) In "Christianity is Jewish", Edith Schaeffer asks, "Do you think they would have forgotten that powerful illustration? Do you think as their hands smooth the softness of the skin clothing, they would have forgotten their first glimpse of violent death, and something of the understanding that it was because of their sin?" They got a glimpse of the Just dying for the unjust. (1 Pet 3:18)
"We cannot know what went on in the minds and understanding of Adam and Eve, but God has not left to our imagination what came next in the unfolding to the human race the way back to communion with Himself. Cain and Abel, as sons of Adam and Eve, surely had some explanation of what had happened in the past lives of their parents. We know that they knew of God’s existence because they came to make 'an offering unto the LORD.’ It was not a problem to them as to whether God existed or not; they both brought an offering. In some way it had been explained to them what kind of offering to bring... Now we can imagine two altars. Perhaps they were of rough, unpolished stone. Cain brings his fruits and vegetables, a beautiful array—perhaps an artistic arrangement with oranges, polished apples, artichokes, bananas, cabbages, bright carrots, shining purple onions, green grapes trailing their curls and leaves over the edges of the stone. 'How spiritual!' one might exclaim. One might think of a variety of outwardly beautiful offerings one could make, the work of one’s hands, the creativity of one’s imagination which would match the beauty of this offering. Abel brings a little lamb, a perfect one—'a firstling of the flock'—and kills it to place on the altar. How unbeautiful! What a sight to turn away from. What has this to do with worship? But we are told that God accepted Abel’s offering. Abel was really accepted into the presence of God. Why? On the basis of the lamb. God rejected Cain’s offering, making Cain angry indeed. Why rejected? Because Cain came with his good works, the result of his defiance of what God had said. Cain came not believing that he had to come in any special way, refusing to come in any special way. Cain came saying, in essence, 'You can just accept me, God, as I do my own thing. I am not going to believe it is necessary to do anything other than my own thing.’” (Edith Schaeffer)
From antiquity, men and women of faith built altars where life took them. But now, after the Exodus, was the beginning of corporate learning and worship. You shall bring it to the door of the tabernacle of meeting and you shall not bring an offering of the fruit of the ground, as that wicked Cain who rose up against Abel his brother and killed him.” (Gen 4:8)
Leviticus 1: The Burnt Offering (Leviticus 1:3-17)
The burnt offering “made atonement for the offerer (cf. John 1:29). As such, it forms the foundation of the entire sacrificial system of Israel.” (Dr. Thomas B. Constable) "God having taught the first man, after his fall, the necessity of atonement for sin by sacrifice, we find it faithfully transmitted to his posterity.” (Thomas Coke)— in the burnt offering. But there is no detail in the original account in Genesis 3:21. And in His mercy, the LORD God allowed inferior types . “One offerer might bring a bullock(Lev. 1:3-9)— another an offering from the flock (Lev 1:10-13)— another only an offering of fowls. (Lev 1: 14-17) There was evidently much mercy in this provision; for if poverty, or even disinclination, prevented an Israelite from bringing the highest offering, he was permitted to bring a lesser, in order that he might not be deprived entirely of the blessings connected with the burnt-offering." (B. W. Newton)
“If his offering is a burnt sacrifice of the herd,' strictly so called, was such as was to be all burnt.” (Matthew Poole) — “’let him offer a male’— “due to the typical intent of conforming to the fact that the world's Redeemer would be a male.” (Burton Coffman)— and “’without blemish;’ (3a) “The type was to be without blemish, Christ is without blemish.” (Arno Gaebelein) — “’he shall offer it of his own free will.’ “Not the same as a ‘freewill offering.’” (Albert Barnes) The Hebrew here is “for his acceptance.” It is offered that he might be accepted, as was righteous Abel. — “’at the door of the tabernacle of meeting before the LORD.’ (3b) Not any place, as before, but this place—the tabernacle was the place for teaching and worship lead by the priests, suggesting submission to the teachings of God.
“’Then he shall put his hand on the head of the burnt offering.’ Here is “‘the Exchange of Life Principle.’ You, the guilty party, lay your guilty hands on the head of an innocent animal. In so doing your sin is symbolically transferred to that animal, and its innocence symbolically transferred to you.” (Jews for Jesus)— and it will be accepted on his behalf to make atonement (Hebrew. kaphar) for him.’ (4) …"by propitiating God’s wrath.” (John Wenham) “Because of the vital importance of the atonement, and of an understanding of it which reclaims from misrepresentation the great biblical concepts of ‘substitution’, ‘satisfaction’ and ‘propitiation’, two things have greatly surprised me. The first is how unpopular the doctrine remains. Some theologians evince a strange reluctance to subscribe to it, even when its biblical basis becomes clear to them. I think, for example, of that noted Methodist New Testament scholar, Vincent Taylor. His careful and comprehensive scholarship is exemplified in his three books on the cross – Jesus and His Sacrifice (1937), The Atonement in New Testament Teaching (1940) and Forgiveness and Reconciliation (1946). He employs many adjectives to describe the death of Christ, such as ‘vicarious’, ‘redemptive’, ‘reconciling’, ‘expiatory’, ‘sacrificial’ and especially ‘representative’. But he cannot bring himself to call it ‘substitutionary’.” (The Cross of Christ by John R. W. Stott)
First, “He shall kill the bull before the LORD;’ (5a) He was required to slit the throat, under the guidance of the priest. “The animal (now bearing your guilt) is then put to death, suffering in your place.” (Jews for Jesus)— In the killing of and subsequent immolation (Lev 1:9) of the animals—two distinct acts, God’s judgment against human sin is witnessed.
“And the priests, Aaron’s sons, shall bring the blood and sprinkle the blood all around on the altar ,that is by the door of the tabernacle of meeting.”(5b) “Blood is the symbol of life. This understanding that ‘blood is life’… goes back at least to Noah, whom God forbade to eat meat which had its ‘lifeblood’ still in it (Gen. 9:4), and was later repeated in the formula ‘the blood is the life’ (Deut. 12:23). The emphasis, however, was not on blood flowing in the veins, the symbol of life being lived, but on blood shed, the symbol of life ended, usually by violent means…. Blood makes atonement… One life is forfeit; another life is sacrificed instead. What makes atonement ‘on the altar’ is the shedding of substitutionary lifeblood. T. J. Crawford expressed it well: ‘The text, then, according to its plain and obvious import, teaches the vicarious nature of the rite of sacrifice. Life was given for life, the life of the victim for the life of the offerer’, indeed ‘the life of the innocent victim for the life of the sinful offerer’.” (Stott)
Secondly, —“‘And he shall skin the burnt offering and cut it into its pieces. The sons of Aaron the priest shall put fire on the altar, and lay the wood in order on the fire. Then the priests, Aaron’s sons, shall lay the parts, the head, and the fat in order on the wood that is on the fire upon the altar; but he shall wash its entrails and its legs with water.’ (6-8) Each part of the animal’s body can be seen as a similitude for various aspects of a person’s life. The head is the emblem of the thoughts; the legs are the emblem of the walk; and the inwards symbolize the feelings and affections of the heart. The fat represents the general health and vigor of the whole animal (see Andrew Jukes, The Law of the Offerings, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Kregel Pubs., 1976, p. 63). The washing of the inwards and legs suggests the need for one to be spiritually pure not only in what he does but also in what he desires (see Eph. 5:26; see also Jukes, The Law of the Offerings, p. 71). Taken together, these things reveal the quality of the life which the Lord lived. The Lord’s feelings, thoughts, activities—his total life—were placed in submission to God.”(Sacrifices and Offerings t By Richard D. Draper)
"'And the priest shall burn all on the altar as a burnt sacrifice,’ (9a) It was devoted to destruction in place of the offerer. “In addition to animals, the term [burn up) is applied to the plunder of towns which were to be destroyed for worshipping false gods, and is also the term used for Isaac in the story of the testing of Abraham (Gen. 22).” (Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible) “Meyrick informs us that the Hebrew here carries the meaning of: ‘the whole substance is made to ascend unto the Lord’; and Orlinsky rendered the passage as ‘turn ... into smoke.’ This, of course, is scientifically accurate. Smoke is actually the substance in another form of that which is burned. Thus, the offering literally ascended.” (Burton Coffman)— “’an offering made by fire, a sweet aroma to the LORD.” (9b) — except the skin, which “belonged to the priest.” (Arno Gaebelein)—When this ordinance was begun, the LORD made the coats of skin to cover them. Here, in the corporate life of Israel, we are left with a memorial of that blessed event. Compare Leviticus 1:13;17. “The sacrifice of the poor was just as acceptable to the Lord as the more costly sacrifice of the rich. The sacrificial worship was a shadow of things to come, in the person of the Messiah…. Such sacrifice is a sweet savor to the Lord, a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God [when offered by faith].” (Kretzmann's Commentary)
In refuting eternal conscience torment, E. Petavel says: “In the Levitical sacrifices the victim represented the sinner; yet those who offered it were not required to inflict upon it a long series of tortures. Death pure and simple was all that the law of sacrifice demanded. In the rite it was not the suffering, but the suppression of the life, that was accentuated…. The burning of the victim, too, was not a symbol of suffering , since it took place only after the immolation; but was rather an emblem of the utter destruction which menaces the incorrigible sinner."
Christ is our Substitute! So we shall live! Let us devote ourselves to God. In the book of Romans, in chapter 12, Paul exhorts Christians to good works and holiness, “I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your reasonable service.”(Rom 12:1) “How is the body to become a sacrifice? Let thine eye look upon no evil thing…; let thy tongue speak nothing filthy…. ; let thy hand do no lawless deed…. But this is not enough, we must do good works also; let the hand do alms, the mouth bless them that despitefully use us, and the ear find leisure evermore for the hearing of Scripture. For sacrifice can be made only of that which is clean.” (Chrysostom) “The idea contained in sacrifice is that of dedication. We are to dedicate our bodies to God. But there is to be this distinction between the old Jewish sacrifices and the Christian sacrifice: the one was of dead animals, the other of the living man.” (C. J. Ellicott) In the consummation, all men who bring the proper sacrifice are part of God's redemption.