الكتاب المقدس

Expositor's Bible Commentary Leviticus 1:1 And the LORD called unto Moses, and spake unto him out of the tabernacle of the congregation, saying, Leviticus 1:2 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, If any man of you bring an offering unto the LORD, ye shall bring your offering of the cattle, even of the herd, and of the flock. SACRIFICE: THE BURNT OFFERING Leviticus 1:2-4 THE voice of Jehovah which had spoken not long before from Sinai, now speaks from out "the tent of meeting." There was a reason for the change. For Israel had since then entered into covenant with God; and Moses, as the mediator of the covenant, had sealed it by sprinkling with blood both the Book of the Covenant and the people. And therewith they had professedly taken Jehovah for their God and He had taken Israel for His people. In infinite grace, He had condescended to appoint for Himself a tabernacle or "tent of meeting," where He might, in a special manner, dwell among them, and manifest to them His will. The tabernacle had been made according to the pattern shown to Moses in the mount; and it had been now set up. And so now, He who had before spoken amid the thunders of flaming, trembling Sinai, speaks from the hushed silence of "the tent of meeting." The first words from Sinai had been the holy law, forbidding sin with threatening of wrath: the first words from the tent of meeting are words of grace, concerning fellowship with the Holy One maintained through sacrifice, and atonement for sin by the shedding of blood. A contrast this which is itself a Gospel! The offerings of which we read in the next seven chapters are of two kinds, namely, bloody and unbloody offerings. In the former class were included the burnt offering, the peace offering, the sin offering, and the guilt, or trespass offering; in the latter, only the meal offering. The book begins with the law of the burnt offering. In any exposition of this law of the offerings, it is imperative that our interpretation shall be determined, not by any fancy of ours as to what the offerings might fitly symbolise, nor yet, on the other hand, be limited by what we may suppose that any Israelite of that day might have thought regarding them; but by the statements concerning them which are contained in the law itself, and in other parts of Holy Scripture, especially in the New Testament. First of all, we may observe that in the book itself the offerings are described by the remarkable expression, "the bread" or "food of God." Thus it is commanded {Lev 21:6} that the priests should not defile themselves, on this ground: "the offerings of the Lord made by fire, the bread of their God, do they offer." It was an ancient heathen notion that in sacrifice, food was provided for the Deity in order thus to show Him honour. And, doubtless, in Israel, ever prone to idolatry, there were many who rose no higher than this gross conception of the meaning of such words. Thus, in Psalm 50:8-15 , God sharply rebukes Israel for so unworthy thoughts of Himself, using language at the same time which teaches the spiritual meaning of the sacrifice. regarded as the "food," or "bread," of God: "I will not reprove thee for thy sacrifices; and thy burnt offerings are continually before Me I will take no bullock out of thy house, nor he-goats out of thy stalls If I were hungry, I would not tell thee; for the world is Mine, and the fulness thereof. Will I eat the flesh of bulls, or drink the blood of goats? Offer unto God the sacrifice of thanksgiving; and pay thy vows unto the Most High; and call upon Me in the day of trouble: I will deliver thee and thou shalt glorify Me." Of which language the plain teaching is this: If the sacrifices are called in the law "the bread of God," God asks not this bread from Israel in any material sense, or for any material need. He asks that which the offerings symbolise; thanksgiving, loyal fulfilment of covenant engagements to Him, and that loving trust which will call on Him in the day of trouble. Even so! Gratitude, loyalty, trust! this is the "food of God," this the "bread" which He desires that we should offer, the bread which those Levitical sacrifices symbolised. For even as man, when hungry, craves food, and cannot be satisfied without it, so God, who is Himself Love, desires our love, and delights in seeing its expression in all those offices of self-forgetting and self-sacrificing service in which love manifests itself. This is to God even as is food to us. Love cannot be satisfied except with love returned; and we may say, with deepest humility and reverence, the God of love cannot be satisfied without love returned. Hence it is that the sacrifices, which in various ways symbolise the self offering of love and the fellowship of love, are called by the Holy Ghost "the food," or "bread of God." And yet we must, on no account, hasten to the conclusion, as many do, that therefore the Levitical sacrifices were only intended to express and symbolise the self offering of the worshipper, and that this exhausts their significance. On the contrary, the need of infinite Love for this "bread of God" cannot be adequately met and satisfied by the self offering of any creature, and, least of all, by the self offering of a sinful creature, whose very sin lies just in this, that he has fallen away from perfect love. The symbolism of the sacrifice as "the food of God," therefore, by this very phrase points toward the self offering in love of the eternal Son to the Father, and in behalf of sinners, for the Father’s sake. It was the sacrifice on Calvary which first became, in innermost reality, that "bread of God," which the ancient sacrifices were only in symbol. It was this, not regarded as satisfying Divine justice (though it did this), but as satisfying the Divine love; because it was the supreme expression of the perfect love of the incarnate Son of God to the Father, in His becoming "obedient unto death, even the death of the cross." And now, keeping all this in view, we may venture to say even more than at first as to the meaning of this phrase, "the bread of God," applied to these offerings by fire. For just as the free activity of man is only sustained in virtue of and by means of the food which he eats, so also the love of the God of love is only sustained in free activity toward man through the self offering to the Father of the Son, in that atoning sacrifice which He offered on the cross, and in the ceaseless service of that exalted life which, risen from the dead, Christ now lives unto God forever. Thus already, this expression, so strange to our ears at first, as descriptive of Jehovah’s offerings made by fire, points to the person and work of the adorable Redeemer as its only sufficient explication. But, again, we find another expression, Leviticus 17:11 , which is of no less fundamental consequence for the interpretation of the bloody offerings of Leviticus. In connection with the prohibition of blood for food, and as a reason for that prohibition, it is said: "The life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that maketh atonement,"-mark the expression; not, as in the received version, "for the soul," which were mere tautology, and gives a sense which the Hebrew cannot have, but, as the Revised Version has it, -"by reason of the life," or "soul" (margin). Hence, wherever in this law we read of a sprinkling of blood upon the altar, this must be held fast as its meaning, whether it be formally mentioned or not; namely, atonement made for sinful man through the life of an innocent victim poured out in the blood. There may be, and often are, other ideas, as we shall see, connected with the offering, but this is always present. To argue, then, with so many in modern times, that because, not the idea of an atonement, but that of a sacrificial meal given by the worshipper to God, is the dominant conception in the sacrifices of the ancient nations, therefore we cannot admit the idea of atonement and expiation to have been intended in these Levitical sacrifices, is simply to deny, not only the New Testament interpretation of them, but the no less express testimony of the record itself. But it is, manifestly, in the nature of the case "impossible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins." Hence, we are again, by this phrase also, constrained to look beyond this Levitical shedding of sacrificial blood, for some antitype of which the innocent victims slain at that altar were types; one who, by the shedding of his blood, should do that in reality, which at the door of the tent of meeting was done in symbol and shadow. What the New Testament teaches on this point is known to everyone. Christ Jesus was the Antitype, to whose all-sufficient sacrifice each insufficient sacrifice of every Levitical victim pointed. John the Baptist struck the keynote of all New Testament teaching in this matter, when, beholding Jesus, he cried, {Joh 1:29} "Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world." Jesus Christ declared the same thought again and again, as in His words at the sacramental Supper: "This is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." Paul expressed the same thought, when he said {Eph 5:2} that Christ "gave Himself up for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God, for an odour of a sweet smell"; and that "our redemption, the forgiveness of our trespasses," is "through His blood". {Eph 1:7} And Peter also, speaking in Levitical language, teaches that we "were redeemed with precious blood, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot, even the blood of Christ"; to which he adds the suggestive words, of which this whole Levitical ritual is the most striking illustration, that Christ, although "manifested at the end of the times," "was foreknown" as the Lamb of God "before the foundation of the world". {1Pe 1:18-20} John, in like manner, speaks in the language of Leviticus concerning Christ, when he declares {1Jn 1:7} that "the blood of Jesus cleanseth us from all sin"; and even in the Apocalypse, which is the Gospel of Christ glorified, He is still brought before us as a Lamb that had been slain, and who has thus "purchased with His blood men of every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation," "to be unto our God a kingdom and priests". {Rev 5:6; Rev 5:9-10} In this clear light of the New Testament, one can see how meagre also is the view of some who would see in these Levitical sacrifices nothing more than fines assessed upon the guilty, as theocratic penalties. Leviticus itself should have taught such better than that. For, as we have seen, the virtue of the bloody offerings is made to consist in this, that "the life of the flesh is in the blood"; and we are told that "the blood makes atonement for the soul," not in virtue of the monetary value of the victim, in a commercial way, but "by reason of the life" that is in the blood, and is therewith poured out before Jehovah on the altar, -the life of an innocent victim in the stead of the life of the sinful man. No less inadequate, if we are to let ourselves be guided either by the Levitical or the New Testament teaching, is the view that the offerings only symbolised the self offering of the worshipper. We do not deny, indeed, that the sacrifice-of the burnt offering, for example-may have fitly represented, and often really expressed, the self-consecration of the offerer. But, in the light of the New Testament, this can never be held to have been the sole, or even the chief, reason in the mind of God for directing these outpourings of sacrificial blood upon the altar. We must insist, then, on this, as essential to the right interpretation of this law of the offerings, that every one of these bloody offerings of Leviticus typified, and was intended to typify, our Saviour, Jesus Christ. The burnt offering represented Christ; the peace offering, Christ; the sin offering, Christ; the guilt, or trespass offering, Christ. Moreover, since each of these, as intended especially to shadow forth some particular aspect of Christ’s work, differed in some respects from all the others, while yet in all alike a victim’s blood was shed upon the altar, we are by this reminded that in our Lord’s redemptive work the most central and essential thing is this, that, as He Himself said, {Mat 20:28} He "came to give His life a ransom for many." Keeping this guiding thought steadily before us, it is now our work to discover, if we may, what special aspect of the one great sacrifice of Christ each of these offerings was intended especially to represent. Only, by way of caution, it needs to be added that we are not to imagine that every minute circumstance pertaining to each sacrifice, in all its varieties, must have been intended to point to some correspondent feature of Christ’s person or work. On the contrary, we shall frequently see reason to believe that the whole purpose of one or another direction of the ritual is to be found in the conditions, circumstances, or immediate intention of the offering. Thus, to illustrate, when a profound interpreter suggests that the reason for the command that the victim should be slain on the north side of the altar, is to be found in the fact that the north, as the side of shadow, signifies the gloom and joylessness of the sacrificial act, we are inclined rather to see sufficient reason for the prescription in the fact that the other three sides were already in a manner occupied: the east, as the place of ashes; the. south, as fronting the entrance; and the west, as facing the tent of meeting and the brazen laver. THE RITUAL OF THE BURNT OFFERING In the law of the offerings, that of the burnt offering comes first, though in the order of the ritual it was not first, but second, following the sin offering. In this order of mention we need, however, seek no mystic meaning. The burnt offering was very naturally mentioned first, as being the most ancient, and also in the most constant and familiar use. We read of burnt offerings as offered by Noah and Abraham; and of peace offerings, too, in early times; while the sin offering and the guilt offering, in Leviticus treated last, were now ordered for the first time. So also the burnt offering was still, by Divine ordinance, to be the most common. No day could pass in the tabernacle without the offering of these. Indeed, except on the great day of atonement for the nation, in the ritual for which, the sin offering was the central act, the burnt offering was the most important sacrifice on all the great feast days. The first law, which applies to bloody offerings in general, was this: that the victim shall be "of the cattle, even of the herd and of the flock" ( Leviticus 1:2 ); to which is added, in the latter part of the chapter ( Leviticus 1:14 ), the turtledove or young pigeon. The carnivora are all excluded; for these, which live by the death of others, could never typify Him who should come to give life. And among others, only clean beasts could be taken. Israel must not offer as "the food of God" that which they might not eat for their own food; nor could that which was held unclean he taken as a type of the Holy Victim of the future. And, even among clean animals, a further selection is made. Only domestic animals were allowed; not even a clean animal was permitted, if it were taken in hunting. For it was fitting that one should offer to God that which had become endeared to the owner as having cost the most of care and labour in its bringing up. For this, also, we can easily see another reason in the Antitype. Nothing was to mark Him more than this: that He should be subject and obey, and that not of constraint, as the unwilling captive of the chase, but freely and unresistingly. And now follow the special directions for the burnt offering. The Hebrew word so rendered means, literally, "that which ascends." It thus precisely describes the burnt offering in its most distinctive characteristic. Of the other offerings, a part was burned, but a part was eaten; in some instances, even by the offerer himself. But in the burnt offering all ascends to God in flame and smoke. For the creature is reserved nothing whatever. The first specification in the law of the burnt offering is this: "If his oblation be a burnt offering of the herd, he shall offer it a male without blemish" ( Leviticus 1:3 ). It must be a "male," as the stronger, the type of its kind; and "without blemish," that is, ideally perfect. The reasons for this law are manifest. The Israelite was thereby taught that God claims the best that we have. They needed this lesson, as many among us do still. At a later day, we find God rebuking them by Malachi, {Mal 1:6; Mal 1:13} with indignant severity, for their neglect of this law: "A son honoureth his father: if then I be a Father, where is My honour? Ye have brought that which was taken by violence, and the lame, and the sick; should I accept this of your hand? saith the Lord." And as pointing to our Lord, the command was no less fitting. Thus, as in other sacrifices, it was foreshadowed that the great Burnt Offering of the future would be the one Man without blemish, the absolutely perfect Exemplar of what manhood should be, but is not. And this brings us now to the ritual of the offering. In the ritual of the various bloody offerings we find six parts. These are: (1) the Presentation; (2) the Laying on of the Hand; (3) the Killing of the Victim; in which three the ritual was the same for all kinds of Offerings. The remaining three are: (4) the Sprinkling of Blood; (5) the Burning; (6) the Sacrificial Meal. In these, differences appear in the various sacrifices, which give each its distinctive character; and, in the burnt offering, the sacrificial meal is omitted, -the whole is burnt upon the altar. First is given the law concerning THE PRESENTATION OF THE VICTIM "He shall offer it at the door of the tent of meeting, that he may be accepted before the Lord." ( Leviticus 1:3 ) In this it was ordered, first, that the offerer should bring the victim himself. There were parts of the ceremony in which the priest acted for him; but this he must do for himself. Even so, he who will have the saving benefit of Christ’s sacrifice must himself bring this Christ before the Lord. As by so doing, the Israelite signified his acceptance of God’s gracious arrangements concerning sacrifice, so do we, bringing Christ. in our act of faith before the Lord, express our acceptance of God’s arrangement on our behalf; our readiness and sincere desire to make use of Christ, who is appointed for us. And this no man can do for another. And the offering must be presented for a certain purpose; namely that he may be accepted before the Lord; and that, as the context tells us, not because of a present made to God, but through an atoning sacrifice. And so now it is not enough that a man make much of Christ, and mention Him in terms of praise before the Lord, as the One whom He would imitate and seek to serve. He must in his act of faith bring this Christ before the Lord, in such wise as to secure thus his personal acceptance through the blood of the Holy Victim. And, finally, the place of presentation is prescribed. It must be "at the door of the tent of meeting." It is easy to see the original reason for this. For, as we learn from other Scriptures, the Israelites were ever prone to idolatry, and that especially at places other than the appointed temple or tent of meeting, in the fields and on high places. Hence the immediate purpose of this order concerning the place, was to separate the worship of God from the worship of false gods. There is now, indeed, no law concerning the place where we may present the great Sacrifice before God. At home, in the closet, in the church, on the street, wherever we will, we may present this Christ in our behalf and stead as a Holy Victim before God. And yet the principle which underlies this ordinance of place is no less applicable in this age than then. For it is a prohibition of all self-will in worship. It was not enough that an Israelite should have the prescribed victim; it is not enough that we present the Christ of God in faith, or what we think to be faith. But we must make no terms or conditions as to the mode or condition of the presentation, other than God appoints. And the command was also a command of publicity. The Israelite was therein commanded to confess publicly, and thus attest, his faith in Jehovah, even as God will now have us all make our confession of Christ a public thing. The second act of the ceremonial was THE LAYING ON OF THE HAND It was ordered: "He shall lay his hand upon the head of the burnt offering; and it shall be accepted for him, to make atonement for him." ( Leviticus 1:4 ) The laying on of the hand was not, as some have maintained, a mere declaration of the offerer’s property in that which he offered, as showing his right to give it to God. If this were true, we should find the ceremony also in the bloodless offerings; where the cakes of corn were no less the property of the offerer than the bullock or sheep of the burnt offering. But the ceremony was confined to these bloody offerings. It is nearer the truth when others say that this was an act of designation. It is a fact that the ceremony of the laying on of hands in Scripture usage does indicate a designation of a person or thing, as to some office or service. In this book, {Lev 24:14} the witnesses are directed to lay their hands upon the blasphemer, thereby appointing him to death. Moses is said to have laid his hands on Joshua, thus designating him in a formal way as his successor; and, in the New Testament, Paul and Barnabas are set apart to the ministry by the laying on of hands. But, in all these cases, the ceremony symbolised more than mere designation; namely, a transfer or communication of something invisible, in connection with this visible act. Thus, in the New Testament the laying on of hands always denotes the communication of the Holy Ghost, either as an enduement for office, or for bodily healing. The laying of the hands of Moses on Joshua, in like manner, signified the transfer to him of the gifts, office, and authority of Moses. Even in the case of the execution of the blaspheming son of Shelomith, the laying on of the hands of the witnesses had the same significance. They thereby designated him to death, no doubt; but therewith thus symbolically transferred to the criminal the responsibility for his own death. From the analogy of these cases we should expect to find evidence of an ideal transference of somewhat from the offerer to the victim here. And the context does not leave the matter doubtful. It is added ( Leviticus 1:4 ), "It shall be accepted for him, to make atonement for him." Hence it appears that while, indeed, the offerer, by this laying on of his hand, did dedicate the victim to death, the act meant more than this. It symbolised a transfer, according to God’s merciful provision, of an obligation to suffer for sin, from the offerer to the innocent victim. Henceforth, the victim stood in the offerer’s place, and was dealt with accordingly. This is well illustrated by the account which is given {Num 8:1-26} of the formal substitution of the Levites in the place of all the firstborn of Israel, for special service unto God. We read that the Levites were presented before the Lord; and that the children of Israel then laid their hands upon the heads of the Levites. who were thus, we are told. "offered as an offering unto the Lord," and were thenceforth regarded and treated as substitutes for the firstborn of all Israel. Thus the obligation to certain special service was symbolically transferred, as the context tells us, from the firstborn to the Levites; and this transfer of obligation from all the tribes to the single tribe of Levi was visibly represented by the laying on of hands, And just so here: the laying on of the hand designated, certainly, the victim to death; but it did this, in that it was the symbol of a transfer of obligation. This view of the ceremony is decisively confirmed by the ritual of the great day of atonement. In the sin offering of that day, in which the conception of expiation by blood received its fullest symbolic expression, it was ordered {Lev 16:21} that Aaron should lay his hands on the head of one of the goats of the sin offering, and "confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel." Thereupon the iniquity of the nation was regarded as symbolically transferred from Israel to the goat; for it is added, "and the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities unto a solitary land." So, while in this ritual for the burnt offering there is no mention of such confession, we have every reason to believe the uniform Rabbinical tradition, that it was the custom to make also upon the head of the victim for the burnt offering a solemn confession of sin, for which they give the form to be used. Such then was the significance of the laying on of hands. But the ceremony meant even more than this. For the Hebrew verb which is always used for this, as the Rabbis point out, does not merely mean to lay the hand upon, but so to lay the hand as to rest or lean heavily upon the victim. This force of the word is well illustrated from a passage where it occurs, in Psalm 88:7 , "Thy wrath lieth hard upon me." The ceremony, therefore, significantly represented the offerer as resting or relying on the victim to procure that from God for which he presented him, namely, atonement and acceptance. This part of the ceremonial of this and other sacrifices was thus full of spiritual import and typical meaning. By this laying on of the hand to designate the victim as a sacrifice, the offerer implied, and probably expressed, a confession of personal sin and demerit; as done "before Jehovah," it implied also his acceptance of God’s penal judgment against his sin. It implied, moreover, in that the offering was made according to an arrangement ordained by God, that the offerer also thankfully accepted God’s merciful provision for atonement, by which the obligation to suffer for sin was transferred from himself, the guilty sinner, to the sacrificial victim. And, finally, in that the offerer was directed so to lay his hand as to rest upon the victim, it was most expressively symbolised that he, the sinful Israelite, rested and depended on this sacrifice as the atonement for his sin, his divinely appointed substitute in penal death. What could more perfectly set forth the way in which we are for our salvation to make use of the Lamb of God as slain for us? By faith, we lay the hand upon His head. In this, we do frankly and penitently own the sins for which, as the great Burnt sacrifice, the Christ of God was offered; we also, in humility and self-abasement, thus accept the judgment of God against ourselves, that because of sin we deserve to be cast out from Him eternally; while, at the same time, we most thankfully accept this Christ as "the Lamb of God which taketh away the sins of the world," and therefore our sins also, if we will but thus make use of Him; and so lean and rest with all the burden of our sin on Him. For the Israelite who should thus lay his hand upon the head of the sacrificial victim a promise follows. "It shall be accepted for him, to make atonement for him." In this word "atonement" we are introduced to one of the key words of Leviticus, as indeed of the whole Scripture. The Hebrew radical originally means "to cover," and is used once {Gen 6:14} in this purely physical sense. But, commonly, as here, it means "to cover" in a spiritual sense, that is, to cover the sinful person from the sight of the Holy God, who is "of purer eyes than to behold evil." Hence, it is commonly rendered "to atone," or "to make atonement"; also, "to reconcile," or "to make reconciliation." The thought is this: that between the sinner and the Holy One comes now the guiltless victim; so that the eye of God looks not upon the sinner, but on the offered substitute; and in that the blood of the substituted victim is offered before God for the sinner, atonement is made for sin, and the Most Holy One is satisfied. And when the believing Israelite should lay his hand with confession of sin upon the appointed victim, it was graciously promised: "It shall be accepted for him, to make atonement for him." And just so now, whenever any guilty sinner, fearing the deserved wrath of God because of his sin, especially because of his lack of that full consecration which the burnt sacrifice set forth, lays his hand in faith upon the great Burnt offering of Calvary, the blessing is the same. For in the light of the cross, this Old Testament word becomes now a sweet New Testament promise: "When thou shalt rest with the hand of faith upon this Lamb of God, He shall be accepted for thee, to make atonement for thee." This is most beautifully expressed in an ancient "Order for the Visitation of the Sick," attributed to Anselm of Canterbury, in which it is written: "The minister shall say to the sick man, Dost thou believe that thou canst not be saved but by the death of Christ? The sick man answereth, Yes. Then let it be said unto him: Go to, then, and whilst thy soul abideth in thee, put all thy confidence in this death alone; place thy trust in no other thing; commit thyself wholly to this death; cover thyself wholly, with this alone And if God would judge thee, say: Lord! I place the death of our Lord Jesus Christ between me and Thy judgment; otherwise I will not contend or enter into judgment with Thee." "And if He shall say unto thee that thou art a sinner, say: I place the death of our Lord Jesus Christ between me and my sins. if He shall say unto thee, that thou hast deserved damnation, say: Lord! I put the death of our Lord Jesus Christ between Thee and all my sins; and I offer His merits for my own, which I should have, and have not." And whosoever of us can thus speak, to him the promise speaks from out the shadows of the tent of meeting: "This Christ, the Lamb of God, the true Burnt offering, shall be accepted for thee, to make atonement for thee!" Leviticus 1:5 And he shall kill the bullock before the LORD: and the priests, Aaron's sons, shall bring the blood, and sprinkle the blood round about upon the altar that is by the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. THE BURNT OFFERING (CONCLUDED) Leviticus 1:5-17 ; Leviticus 6:8-13 AFTER the laying on of the hand, the next sacrificial act was- THE KILLING OF THE VICTIM "And he shall kill the bullock before the Lord." ( Leviticus 1:5 ) In the light of what has been already said, the significance of this killing, in a typical way, will be quite clear. For with the first sin, and again and again thereafter, God had denounced death as the penalty of sin. But here is a sinner who, in accord with a Divine command, brings before God a sacrificial victim, on whose head he lays his hand, on which he thus rests as he confesses his sins, and gives over the innocent victim to die instead of himself. Thus each of these sacrificial deaths, whether in the burnt offering, the peace offering, or the sin offering, brings ever before us the death in the sinner’s stead of that one Holy Victim who suffered for us, "the just for the unjust," and thus laid down His life, in accord with His own previously declared intention, "as a ransom for many." In the sacrifices made by and for individuals, the victim was killed, except in the case of the turtledove or pigeon, by the offerer himself; but, very naturally, in the case of the national and public offerings, it was killed by the priest. As, in this latter case, it was impossible that all individual Israelites should unite in killing the victim, it is plain that the priest herein acted as the representative of the nation. Hence we may properly say that the fundamental thought of the ritual was this, that the victim should be killed by the offerer himself. And by this ordinance we may well be reminded, first, how Israel, -for whose sake as a nation the antitypical Sacrifice was offered, -Israel itself became the executioner of the Victim; and, beyond that, how, in a deeper sense, every sinner must regard himself as truly causal of the Saviour’s death, in that, as is often truly said, our sins nailed Christ to His cross. But whether such a reference were intended in this law of the offering or not, the great, significant, outstanding fact remains, that as soon as the offerer, by his laying on of the hand, signified the transfer of the personal obliga

The Lord called unto Moses, and spake. Leviticus 1:1 The origin and authority of Leviticus S. H. Kellogg, D. D. These words evidently contain by necessary implication two affirmations: first, that the legislation which immediately follows is of Mosaic origin — "The Lord spake unto Moses ; and secondly, that it was not the product merely of the mind of Moses, but came to him, in the first instance, as a revelation from Jehovah — Jehovah spake unto Moses." And although it is quite true that the words in this first verse strictly refer only to that section of the book which immediately follows, yet, inasmuch as the same or a like formula is used repeatedly before successive sections — in all, no less than fifty-six times in the twenty-seven chapters — these words may with perfect fairness be regarded as expressing a claim respecting these two points, which covers the entire book. The words say nothing, indeed, as to whether or not Moses wrote every word of this book himself; or whether the Spirit of God directed and inspired other persons, in Moses' time or afterwards, to commit this Mosaic Law to writing. They give us no hint as to when the various sections which make up the book were combined into their present literary form, whether by Moses himself, as is the traditional view, or by men of God in a later day. They simply and only declare the legislation to be of Mosaic origin and of inspired authority. Only, be it observed, so much as this they do affirm in the most direct and uncompromising manner. ( S. H. Kellogg, D. D. ) God speaking Lady Beaujolois Dent. Leviticus is replete with "the gospel of the grace of God." While it paints the blackness of sin, and the depths to which man has fallen, it paints likewise, in glowing colours, the amazing love of God, in the full, rich, and complete provision He has made to meet man's every need in Christ Jesus our Lord. I. "THE LORD... SPAKE." So they are God's words, not man's, to which we are called to listen in this deeply instructive book. Then let us give it attentive hearing ( Matthew 11:15 ). Moses here records the very words of God, and the Holy Spirit alone can bring to our apprehension His own teaching ( John 14:26 ; John 16:13 ). II. THE LORD SPAKE UNTO MOSES. God had before spoken unto him, specially on two memorable occasions. 1. From the burning bush ( Exodus 3 .), when He came down in grace to deliver His people Israel from bondage in Egypt — as now He delivers from the bondage of sin and Satan — revealing Himself as Jehovah, the self-existent "I AM," able to destroy their enemies, and rescue them ( Exodus 6 ). 2. From Mount Sinai, after the deliverance from Egypt, when the people had rashly undertaken (apparently in their own strength) to do all that the Lord had spoken ( Exodus 19:8 ), God spake the words of His "Holy Law," the "fiery law" ( Hebrews 12:18-21 ; Exodus 19:18-20 ; Romans 7:12 ; Deuteronomy 33:2 ). That law showed the exceeding sinfulness of sin, but provided no way of salvation for those who disobeyed it, therefore could only condemn ( Romans 7:13, 10, 11 ), as "all have sinned" ( Romans 3:23 ), and "sin is the transgression of the law" ( 1 John 3:4 ), or "lawlessness" (R.V.); but in the passage before us — III. THE LORD SPAKE "OUT OF THE TABERNACLE OF THE CONGREGATION"; and this tells, not only of deliverance from bondage, but of the Lord's dwelling in the midst of His people, as their Leader and Guide ( Exodus 13:21 ; Exodus 40:38 ), meeting and communing with His servant Moses from the mercy-seat ( Exodus 25:22 ; Exodus 30:6 ; Numbers 7:89 ), and establishing a medium for worship and access. IV. "GOD HATH SPOKEN UNTO US BY HIS SON," who is the Revealer of the Father ( John 1:18 ). But even now, as we listen to the words of God out of the Tabernacle, it is God speaking to us by His Son; for the Tabernacle is a type of Jesus. "The glory of the Lord filled the Tabernacle" ( Exodus 40:34 ); Jesus is the "Brightness," or outshining of God's glory ( Hebrews 1:3 ). He is the true Tabernacle, "For in Him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily" ( Colossians 2:9 ). "God was in Christ reconciling," &c. ( 2 Corinthians 5:19 ). Christ is the manifestation of the Father's love ( 1 John 4:9, 10 ). He brings untold glory to God in the salvation of sinners ( John 17:4 ); and the saved ones He will take to share His glory hereafter ( Luke 9:30, 31 ), as the blessed result of "His decease." V. THE LORD WOULD SPEAK BY THE CHURCH, also typified by the Tabernacle. It was "sprinkled... with blood" ( Hebrews 9:21 ); "the Church of God "was "purchased with His own blood" ( Acts 20:28 ). The Tabernacle was anointed with holy oil ( Exodus 30:25, 26 ; Exodus 40:9 ); the Church has "an unction from the Holy One" ( 1 John 2:20 ). The Lord dwelt in the Tabernacle ( 2 Samuel 7:6 ); the Church is "builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit" ( Ephesians 2:21, 22 ). The Spirit reveals "the deep things of God," the things of Christ ( 1 Corinthians 2:10-12 ; John 16:14, 15 ); the Church is "the fulness of Him that filleth all in all" ( Ephesians 1:23 ); hence it is God's purpose that "unto the... might be made known through the Church the manifold wisdom of God" ( Ephesians 3:10 , R.V.). VI. GOD WOULD SPEAK THROUGH EACH MEMBER of the Church. First He speaks to, and then by them. He spake to Moses, that he might "speak unto the children of Israel." In like manner He acts now: Have we received blessing to our soul? If so, God would have us help others ( Mark 5:19 ). ( Lady Beaujolois Dent. ) The Tabernacle of the congregation. — The way of access to God W. H. Jellie. I. IN OUR APPROACH TO GOD NOTHING IS LEFT TO HUMAN INVENTION. 1. There are conditions to our acceptable approach. 2. There are minutely revealed conditions for our approach. II. FOR OUR RIGHTFUL APPROACH TO HIM, GOD HAS MADE FULL AND GRACIOUS PROVISION. 1. A place for meeting God. 2. A sacrificial basis of acceptance. 3. A mediatorial ministry. III. BY SUCH ARRANGEMENTS FOR OUR ACCEPTABLE APPROACH, GOD HAS LAID US UNDER MOST SOLEMN OBLIGATIONS TO SEEK HIM. 1. Shall God wait in vain within the Holy Place, and none draw near? 2. Can sinful man despise the sacrifice of Jesus offered for his propitiation? 3. With such a Priest within the Holy Place, have we no mediation to ask, no sins to confess, no offerings to bring? ( W. H. Jellie. ) The essential significance of the Tabernacle A. Cave, D. D. The essential significance of the Tabernacle may be inferred from the names customarily given to it. These names may be divided into three classes: 1. Those which, like "house," "tent," "dwelling," "dwelling of the testimony," convey the general idea of a place of Divine residence ( Exodus 23:19 ; Exodus 25:9 ; Exodus 26:36 ; Exodus 38:21 ). 2. Those which, like "tent of meeting," or "tent-house of meeting," express the idea of a meeting-place for God and man ( Exodus 27:21 ; Exodus 39:32 ). 3. Those which, like "sanctuary," draw attention to holiness as an attribute of the place itself ( Exodus 25:8 ). Now a house where God was, or was supposed to be, must be a place for worship, and a place for Divine worship must of necessity be holy ground; thus one fundamental idea lay at the root of all these appellations, viz., that the Tabernacle was a meeting-place between Jehovah and His covenant people. There Jehovah was to be thought peculiarly present, and therefore peculiarly approachable. By the Jew the Lord God Almighty was not to be sought in woods or fountains or valleys, but in this house which He had appointed.... It must be remembered, however, that approach to Jehovah was conditioned by the terms of the Sinaitic revelation. Whilst, therefore, the Tabernacle as the dwelling-place of the Most High, was by the Divine condescension a place where God and the Jew might come together, that contact was arranged in accordance with the characteristics of the Mosaic dispensation. The whole structure was a place of meeting where man and God could congregate; but it was in the court only that the common Israelite could approach Jehovah, and that by mediation in the person of the appointed priestly representatives; in the Holy Place, to which the priests alone had access, the worshippers also approached the throne of Deity by mediation, being admitted, so to speak, to the anteroom of the Divine audience-chamber by the adoration of their chief; whilst to the high priest alone, and that after solemn preparation, was it permitted on one day in the year to pass within the veil, and gaze unhindered upon that mercy-seat, aglow with gold, where rested the shadowy cloud of the Shechinah. Further, if the Tabernacle was the appointed sanctuary where man might meet with God on the fulfilment of certain conditions, be it noted that the several altars were, so to speak, the points at which those conditions could be best fulfilled. Every square inch of the sacred enclosure was a place of meeting between Jehovah and His people, according to the terms of the Divine revelation: but it was at the altar of burnt-offering in the court that the non-priestly worshippers approached most nearly to their God; it was at the golden altar in the Holy Place that the priests were admitted to closest access; and it was as he approached most directly the space beneath the outstretched wings of the cherubim that the high priest drew nearest to the throne of intercession. The several altars were the shrines, so to speak, of the several sanctuaries, in which their essence was concentrated, and from which their power radiated. The essential significance of the peculiar sanctuary of Judaism lay, then, in the fact that, being the visible dwelling-place of Jehovah, it testified to the possibility of human approach to God so long as the conditions of the related laws were observed — these conditions being, so far at least as the theocratic status of the worshippers was concerned, that the Israelite might come near to God in the person of His priests in the court, and especially at the altar of burnt-offering; that in the Holy Place, and especially at the altar of incense, the priesthood might do homage to Jehovah as enshrined behind the veil; and that in the Holy of Holies, and especially at the high altar of the mercy-seat, the high priest might, by careful obedience to the prescribed conditions, occasionally regard that cloud by which the Almighty condescended to reveal and at the same time to conceal His presence. ( A. Cave, D. D. ) God known in the Tabernacle; or, redemptive relations B. W. Newton. The redeemed people of God only know God in the Tabernacle; and none, who belong not to that Tabernacle on earth, can belong to God in heaven. All who are "of faith" — all who have fed on the Passover Lamb, belong to the Tabernacle; but Egypt is the type of the position of all besides. How important to remember this, when so many efforts are being made to destroy the distinctions which redemption has constituted, and to speak of man's natural condition as having in it the elements of saving relation to God! Men wish to sweep, as it were, from the earth the Tabernacle and its lessons, and to sanctify Egypt in the name of God. Israel themselves knew nothing of the Tabernacle whilst in Egypt: it was a gift reserved for them after they had entered the wilderness. They were led into the wilderness not merely to learn its solitude and its sorrows, but to become acquainted with God — His service and His ways. The holy vessels of the Tabernacle, the inner curtains of blue, and purple, and scarlet, the priest robed in garments of glory and beauty, stood in strange contrast with the waste and howling scene around them; yet faith has still to know the same contrast, whilst learning here respecting Christ and the various relations in which we stand to God and to Him. The heart that lingers in Egypt, and refuses, as it were, to enter the wilderness, will little learn the lessons of the Tabernacle; hut all who recognise how truly redemption has separated them for ever from that land of nature and of curse, will find, in the knowledge of the Tabernacle, their daily solace, till the hour comes for them to enter into the abiding rest. In the Tabernacle we typically learn the relations of God to His redeemed people. We are there taught respecting the sacrifice provided for us in Christ — its fulness, its various relations to God and to ourselves. There we learn the ground on which we worship and serve Him, meeting Him in the blessings of peace through redemption. ( B. W. Newton. ) God found in His sanctuary H. C. Trumbull. But when the Lord had arranged a tent of meeting with His people, He spoke to Moses out of the tent of meeting. It is all very well for the man who is in the wilderness or on the mountain-top, in the line of duty, to listen for the sound of the Lord's voice there; but when a man can find his way into the sanctuary there is where he may expect to be spoken to by the Lord. If he leaves the sanctuary to wander among the thorn-bushes, or to clamber the mountain peaks, with the idea that it is in Nature's temples that he is to find the God of nature, he will miss a meeting with the covenant-making and covenant-keeping God in the place of meeting. There is no more likely place to find God than where God says He may be found; no more hopeful place for meeting God than in God's meeting-place. "Thy way, O God, is in the sanctuary!" Help us to find Thee there! ( H. C. Trumbull. ) The pardoning presence of Jesus Richard Newton, D. D. — The Tabernacle was a figure of Christ, and was intended to teach us some important lessons respecting Him. We have in the Tabernacle a beautiful illustration of one of the precious names of Jesus our Saviour. Just before He came into our world, the angel Gabriel was sent to Joseph, His reputed father, to tell him about that wonderful Child that was to be born unto Mary his wife. And this is what the angel said: "They shall call HIS name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us" ( Matthew 1:23 ). This name is wonderful. It is full of meaning. But many find it difficult to understand its meaning. And so God ordered the Tabernacle to be built in the wilderness, that in it He might dwell among the people, and thus be a figure, or illustration to them of the way in which Jesus now dwells in the hearts of His people by faith. The Tabernacle was a definition of this name — Emmanuel. As God was present with the Israelites in the wilderness, in the Tabernacle, so Jesus is present with His people in this world. And as we study the different parts of this Tabernacle we are taught much that is interesting and profitable concerning the presence of Jesus with His people. The Tabernacle taught that there was to be pardon connected with His presence. The brazen altar, or the altar of burnt sacrifice, was the part of the Tabernacle that taught this lesson. That was the first thing one would see on entering the court of the Tabernacle. Here the daily sacrifice was offered. Here the blood of the slain animals was shed, that it might be sprinkled both on the priests and on the people. No one was allowed to enter the Tabernacle or to worship God there till he had first been to this brazen altar, and had the blood of the sacrifice sprinkled upon him. And the great blessing represented by the shedding and sprinkling of the blood was the pardon of sin. There was no power in the blood of those animals to put away sin, or to procure pardon. But it pointed to the blood of Christ, through which alone all pardon comes. And this is what the Apostle Paul teaches us, when he says that, "without the shedding of blood there is no remission" ( Hebrews 9:22 ), or no pardon. If Jesus had not shed His precious blood there never would have been any pardon for sin. But that blood was shed. And now there is pardon for all who repent and believe in Him. His presence with His people is a pardoning presence. "He has power on earth to forgive sins" ( Matthew 9:6 ). There is nothing that we need more than pardon. We are born in sin. We sin every day, and we are always needing pardon. And it is a blessed thing to know that we can have this pardon at any time by seeking it in the right way. Jesus is — "ready to forgive" ( Psalm 86:5 ). His promise is that — "He will abundantly pardon" ( Isaiah 55:7 ). Here is an illustration of the pardoning power of Jesus. It was told by a sailor who witnessed it, who was made a Christian by it, and afterwards became a chaplain. "Our vessel lay at anchor," said he, "off the coast of Africa. The yellow fever had broken out on board, and several of the men had died. It was my duty every morning to go through that part of the vessel used as a hospital, and see if any of the men had died during the night. One morning as I was passing through this sick ward, a poor fellow lying there took hold of me with his cold, clammy hand. I knew him very well. He was an old shipmate, and one of the wickedest men on board. I saw in a moment that he had not long to live. 'Oh, Jim,' he said, 'for God's sake, let some one come and read the Bible to me before I die! 'None of the sailors had a Bible; but at last I found that there was one on board belonging to the cabin-boy. I told him to get his Bible, and bring it into the sick ward, and went back there myself. Presently the boy came with a small Bible in his hand. In the meantime a number of the Kroomen, or native Africans, who were working on board, gathered round the sick man, not to see him die, but, as one of them said, 'to see what de good book do for poor Master Richie.' I told the boy to read a chapter. He sat down by the sick man, and, opening at the third chapter of St. John, he began to read. The poor fellow fixed his eyes on the reader, and listened most earnestly to every word he spoke. Presently the boy came to the beautiful words in the sixteenth verse, 'God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life I 'I watched the face of the dying man as these words were read. I never saw such earnestness and anxiety in any face as were in his. The boy was going on with the next verse, when the sick man exclaimed, 'Stop my boy, stop! Bead that verse again, and read it slowly.' The boy repeated the verse, and was going on again. But he was interrupted a second and a third time with the earnest cry, 'Stop, my boy, stop! Read that verse again.' And when he had done so a number of times, the dying man said, 'Don't read any more. That's enough.' And then, as he grew fainter and fainter, we heard him, in a low voice, repeating to himself those wonderful words, and making his own remarks on them, ' Whosoever — that means anybody. That means me. Whosoever believeth. I do believe this. Well, what then? Whosoever believeth shall not perish. No, not perish, but have everlasting life. Not perish — not perish — but have everlasting life.' These were his last words. With these upon his lips, he passed away, and entered into heaven — 'one pardoned sinner more,' saved through the precious Mood of Christ." The presence of Jesus which the Tabernacle illustrates is — a pardoning presence. ( Richard Newton, D. D. ) Bring an offering unto the Lord. Leviticus 1:2 The Levitical sacrifices W. Roberts, M. A. I. THE SACRIFICES ARISING FROM BREACH OF THE COVENANT — COMPULSORY. Sin and trespass-offerings (chaps. 4-5). Presumptuous — literally high-handed — sins incurred that forfeiture( Numbers 15:30 ; Deuteronomy 17:12 ). In contrast to these sins of presumption 1. The sin-offering was for sins of ignorance (chaps. 4., 5.). 2. The trespass-offering ( Leviticus 5:14 , &c.) differed from the sin-offering mainly in the character of the sin to be atoned for. It was a sin calling for "amends" or compensation. II. THE SACRIFICES FROM WITHIN THE COVENANT — VOLUNTARY. Omitting the meat-offering (chap. Leviticus 2.), which was an adjunct of the other sacrifices, and involved no shedding of blood, we notice — 1. The burnt-offering. The stated and congregational burnt-offerings of the day, and week, and year, &c., were compulsory. The occasional offering, of which we speak here, was voluntary (chap. Leviticus 1). The burnt-offering pointed to the entire surrender of a man's being and life to God. Its characteristic was its entire consumption arid up-going in a flame to God. It was equivalent to a prayer, recognising God's sovereignty, and His claim of service in all our relations. He who asks, "How can I best serve God?" will commit his way to God, and be at peace. 2. The offering vowed: i . e. , made as the result of a preceding vow ( Genesis 35:1 ; 1 Samuel 1:11, 28 ). 3. The thank-offering, the greatest of the three. The occasions for the thank-offering were innumerable. Joy as well as sorrow calls to religious exercise. "In everything give thanks." This sacrifice of praise is the one sacrifice of heaven. ( W. Roberts, M. A. ) The giving of the sacrificial laws F. D. Maurice, M. A. I. The very same voice which proclaimed the commandments on Sinai Is HERE SAID TO ANNOUNCE THE NATURE OF THE SACRIFICES, AND HOW, WHEN, AND BY WHOM THEY ARE TO BE PRESENTED. The unseen King and Lawgiver is here, as everywhere, making known His will. Those sacrifices which it was supposed were to bend and determine His will themselves proceeded from it. II. These words were spoken to the children of Israel OUT OF THE TABERNACLE. The Tabernacle was the witness of God's abiding presence with His people, the pledge that they were to trust Him, and that He sought intercourse with them. III. The Tabernacle is represented as the Tabernacle of the CONGREGATION. There, where God dwells, is the proper home of the whole people; there they may know that they are one. IV. "Say to the children of Israel, If any of you bring an offering to the Lord." THE DESIRE FOR SUCH SACRIFICE IS PRESUMED. Everything in the position of the Jew is awakening in him the sense of gratitude, of obligation, of dependence. He is to take of the herd and the flock for his offering. The lesson is a double one. The common things, the most ordinary part of his possessions, are those which he is to bring; that is one part of his teaching. The animals are the subjects of man; he is to rule them and make use of them for his own higher objects; that is another. V. THE VICTIM WAS TAKEN TO THE DOOR OF THE PLACE AT WHICH ALL ISRAELITES HAD AN EQUAL RIGHT TO APPEAR; BUT THE MAN WHO BROUGHT IT LAID HIS OWN HAND UPON THE HEAD OF IT. He signified that the act was his, that it expressed thoughts in his mind which no one else could know of. VI. THE RECONCILIATION WHICH HE SEEKS HE SHALL FIND. God will meet him there. God accepts this sign of his submission. He restores him to his rights in the Divine society. VII. NOW IT IS THAT WE FIRST HEAR OF THE PRIESTS, AARON'S SONS. If there was to be a congregation, if the individual Israelites were not to have their separate sacrifices and their separate gods, then there must be a representative of this unity. The priest was consecrated as a witness to the people of the actual relation which existed between them and God. ( F. D. Maurice, M. A. ) Communion with God by a redeemed people through altar-offerings A. Jukes. I. ALTAR-OFFERINGS AND TABERNACLE MINISTRIES ALL REACH THEIR COMPLETION IN CHRIST. 1. In each offering three distinct objects are present: the offering, the priest, the offerer. Christ is each of and all these: Substitute, Mediator, Innocent Victim. 2. The difference in the several offerings. Different aspects of Christ's offering. 3. The offerer himself also reflects Christ in His diverse aspects. 4. The different grades in the various offerings: bullock, lamb, dove. Denoting the different estimates and apprehensions formed of Christ by His people. Some never go beyond the conception of Christ as their Paschal offering, securing their redemption from Egyptian bondage and death. Others, however, see Him as their Burnt-offering, wholly devoted to God for them; while to others He is the passive Lamb, silent and submissive in affliction; and to others the mourning Dove, gentle and sorrowful in His innocency. II. ALTAR-OFFERINGS AND TABERNACLE MINISTRIES WERE DESIGNED FOR ISRAEL'S ACCEPTABLE COMMUNION WITH GOD. The types of Leviticus, in distinction from the types of redemption or deliverance from doom, give us the work of Christ in its bearing on worship and communion. 1. They meet the needs of a ransomed people in providing for their access to God. If they come for consecration they bring the burnt-offerings; if for grateful acknowledgment of Divine bounty and graciousness, they bring the food offerings; if for reconciliation, after ignorant misadventure or neglect of duty or temporary transgression, they bring their peace or trespass-offering. But they all provide a basis for access to and acceptance with God. 2. Christ's work, as connected with the communion of His people, must be viewed under manifold representations. ( A. Jukes. ) Of the differences between the giving of the moral law A. Willet, D. D. 1. The moral law contained in the Decalogue was delivered immediately by God Himself, because it concerned all people; the ceremonial law by Moses, because it specially concerned the Jews. 2. They differed in the manner; for the Decalogue was written in tables of stone, but these only in a book; to show that they were perpetual, these not to endure always. 3. The place was different. The moral law was delivered in Mount Sinai; the ceremonial out of the Tabernacle, to show that it served only for the Tabernacle, and was to continue no longer. 4. They differ in the time of delivery. The moral law was delivered at once; the ceremonies were given at divers times, for Moses had not been able at once to have received them all. 5. There was some difference in respect of the people, in whose hearing these laws were delivered. The Decalogue was delivered in Mount Sinai by a loud, thundering voice, that all might hear; but here at the giving of the ceremonial law only the heads, princes, and elders came together, particularly the Levites whom the observations of these ceremonies more nearly concerned. ( A. Willet, D. D. ) Essential significance of the Mosaic injunctions A. Cave, D. D. 1. At the root of the essential significance of the Mosaic sacrifices two ideas lie — viz., the Mosaic idea of presentation, and that of atonement.(1) Upon the idea of presentation (or "giving to God," as it has been otherwise termed), the fundamental idea of all sacrifice, little need here be said. The Mosaic system of worship, like the patriarchal, was based upon the fact that man might approach God so long as his hands were not empty. As Adam worshipped in Eden by the surrender of time and strength in obedient performance of the Divine will, and possibly by the presentation of some of the fruits of his labour, as Abel brought of the firstlings of his flock, the acceptance of his gift opening a way to God which the patriarchs were not slow to follow; so, in the law given upon Sinai, the Jew was bidden to come near his Maker and Preserver, gifts in hand. Offerings of toil became means of grace; things eloquent of cost were channels for what was priceless; pledges of human sincerity in appeal were transmuted into pledges of Divine earnestness in reply; gifts from men to God brought gifts from God to men.(2) Unlike the preceding idea, which belonged to every sacrifice of whatever name, in some measure or other, the idea of atonement belonged simply to sacrifices of blood. "To make an atonement," if we probe the Hebrew figure to the bottom, was to throw, so to speak, a veil over sin so dazzling that the veil and not the sin was visible, or to place side by side with sin something so attractive as to completely engross the eye. The figure which the New Testament uses when it speaks of the "new robe," the Old Testament uses when it speaks of "atonement." When an atonement was made under the Law, it was as though the Divine eye, which had been kindled at the sight of sin and foulness, was quieted by the garment thrown around it; or, to use a figure much too modern, yet equally appropriate, it was as if the sinner who had been exposed to the lightning of the Divine wrath had been suddenly wrapped round and insulated. The idea of atonement was the so covering the sinner that his sin was invisible or non-existent in the sense that it could no longer come between him and his Maker. 2. Carrying in mind these two conceptions of presentation and atonement which the language of the law associates with every animal sacrifice, the names and express statements concerning each variety of such sacrifice will enable us to add their distinguishing to their general characteristics.(1) The burnt-offering was at once a sacrifice and an atonement; but it was the element of presentation which was brought by it into especial prominence. It was pre-eminently the sacrifice of worship.(2) The peace-offering resembled the burnt-offering in the relative insignificance which it attached to the fact of atonement; it differed in laying stress upon quite another affinity which might exist between God and man. As the burnt-offering provided a means of individual worship, the peace-offering provided a worship that was social. The peace-offerings were the sacrifices of friendship, and were presented by those who either desired, or lived and rejoiced in, the sense of an established friendship between themselves and their Maker and Preserver.(3) In the sin and trespass-offerings the fact of atonement is emphasised.(a) The sin-offerings, as their name implies, were offerings for sin. They may be divided into three classes: those which were presented in processes of purification; those which had to do with the expiation of precise sins, whether committed in church or state, by priest or ruler or common Israelite; and those which had to do with the expiation of undefined sins.(b) The trespass-offerings were presented in atonement for sins against God or against man which admitted of compensation. There was in every trespass-offering the idea of retribution.(4) Of the several species of bloodless sacrifices, nothing further need be said as regards their essential significance than that they are gifts pure and simple, without any element of atonement, and that they have for their aim to carry this fundamental conception of worship by presentation into all the ramifying relations of life. By the aid of the meat-offerings and drink-offerings and their priestly analogues, the shew-bread and oil and incense, God might be approached by the produce of labour; by the ransoms and firstfruits, He might be approached in recognition of the gifts of child and beast and produce of the earth; even battle might be consecrated by the presentation of spoils. By gifts God could be approached, and the sources of these gifts being various, the Divine hallowing might be as various. 3. Without minutely investigating the essential significance of the various holy days of the Jewish calendar, it is sufficient to call to mind that, amongst other uses, these holy days were days for "holy convocation." They were opportunities specially arranged for a more regular and continuous attendance upon the means of grace provided by the Tabernacle and its services. ( A. Cave, D. D. ) The Jewish calendar of sacrifice A. Caves, D. D. How laborious, protracted, and intricate a system was this Mosaic worship by presentation! Yet how imposing! No religious ritual of ancient or modern times has appealed more forcibly to the eye or the imagination. It was a stirring and suggestive sight, beyond all question, which greeted such an one as a Levite, as he stood in early morning within the court of the Tabernacle ready to perform those more menial offices to which he had been appointed. Around him ran the white curtains of the sacred enclosure, relieved at regular intervals by the dull gold of the copper uprights and the gleam of the silver capitals. A few paces from where he watches, the more favoured members of his tribe, bearded, clad in their priestly robes of white and their parti-coloured girdles, are standing barefoot near the altar of burnt-offering, on the hearth of which the remnants of last night's sacrifice are still burning, or possibly purifying themselves at the laver in preparation for their sacred duties. The lamb for the morning sacrifice is slain and burnt before his eyes; and a few moments afterwards, the high priest, in his official robes of white and blue, "Holiness to the Lord" glistening in gold upon his fair mitre, the jewelled breastplate flashing in the sun, is passing to the Hol

1:1,2 The offering of sacrifices was an ordinance of true religion, from the fall of man unto the coming of Christ. But till the Israelites were in the wilderness, no very particular regulations seem to have been appointed. The general design of these laws is plain. The sacrifices typified Christ; they also shadowed out the believer's duty, character, privilege, and communion with God. There is scarcely any thing spoken of the Lord Jesus in Scripture which has not also a reference to his people. This book begins with the laws concerning sacrifices; the most ancient were the burnt-offerings, about which God here gives Moses directions. It is taken for granted that the people would be willing to bring offerings to the Lord. The very light of nature directs man, some way or other, to do honour to his Maker, as his Lord. Immediately after the fall, sacrifices were ordained. 1:3-9 In the due performance of the Levitical ordinances, the mysteries of the spiritual world are represented by corresponding natural objects; and future events are exhibited in these rites. Without this, the whole will seem unmeaning ceremonies. There is in these things a type of the sufferings of the Son of God, who was to be a sacrifice for the sins of the whole world? The burning body of an animal was but a faint representation of that everlasting misery, which we all have deserved; and which our blessed Lord bore in his body and in his soul, when he died under the load of our iniquities. Observe, 1. The beast to be offered must be without blemish. This signified the strength and purity that were in Christ, and the holy life that should be in his people. 2. The owner must offer it of his own free will. What is done in religion, so as to please God, must be done by love. Christ willingly offered himself for us. 3. It must be offered at the door of the tabernacle, where the brazen altar of burnt-offerings stood, which sanctified the gift: he must offer it at the door, as one unworthy to enter, and acknowledging that a sinner can have no communion with God, but by sacrifice. 4. The offerer must put his hand upon the head of his offering, signifying thereby, his desire and hope that it might be accepted from him, to make atonement for him. 5. The sacrifice was to be killed before the Lord, in an orderly manner, and to honour God. It signified also, that in Christians the flesh must be crucified with its corrupt affections and lust. 6. The priests were to sprinkle the blood upon the altar; for the blood being the life, that was it which made atonement. This signified the pacifying and purifying of our consciences, by the sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ upon them by faith. 7. The beast was to be divided into several pieces, and then to be burned upon the altar. The burning of the sacrifice signified the sharp sufferings of Christ, and the devout affections with which, as a holy fire, Christians must offer up themselves, their whole spirit, soul, and body, unto God. 8. This is said to be an offering of a sweet savour. As an act of obedience to a Divine command, and a type of Christ, this was well-pleasing to God; and the spiritual sacrifices of Christians are acceptable to God, through Christ, 1Pe 2:5. 1:10-17 Those who could not offer a bullock, were to bring a sheep or a goat; and those who were not able to do that, were accepted of God, if they brought a turtle-dove, or a pigeon. Those creatures were chosen for sacrifice which were mild, and gentle, and harmless; to show the innocence and meekness that were in Christ, and that should be in Christians. The offering of the poor was as typical of Christ's atonement as the more costly sacrifices, and expressed as fully repentance, faith, and devotedness to God. We have no excuse, if we refuse the pleasant and reasonable service now required. But we can no more offer the sacrifice of a broken heart, or of praise and thanksgiving, than an Israelite could offer a bullock or a goat, except as God hath first given to us. The more we do in the Lord's service, the greater are our obligations to him, for the will, for the ability, and opportunity. In many things God leaves us to fix what shall be spent in his service, whether of our time or our substance; yet where God's providence has put much into a man's power, scanty offerings will not be accepted, for they are not proper expressions of a willing mind. Let us be devoted in body and soul to his service, whatever he may call us to give, venture, do, or suffer for his sake.