If his offering is a burnt offering from the herd, 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 He shall lay his hand on the head of the burnt offering, that it may be accepted for him to make atonement on his behalf.
\nLeviticus 1:3\u20134<\/p>\n
INTRODUCTION<\/p>\n
There are five special Levitical offerings and sacrifices outlined in the first seven chapters of the Book of Leviticus. Before studying the individual offerings, it is important to clearly understand the origin and basic purposes of these Levitical sacrifices. By way of introduction, there are six points to be made.<\/p>\n
A. The Distinction Between Biblical and Pagan Sacrifices<\/p>\n
The first point is that one must distinguish the biblical sacrifices from the sacrifices of the pagan world. It is obviously known from the Bible, as well as from archaeological and historical sources outside the Bible, that sacrifices were practiced by pagans throughout the ancient Near East. And, of course, more liberal circles teach that the origin of the mosaic or Levitical sacrifices and offerings originated from these very pagan ideas. They further claim that, as man evolved religiously, he finally gave up those things. However, by examining the details of the pagan system and the details of the biblical system, we find that one did not originate from the other. For example, in different parts of the pagan world, there were four different ideas or reasons or purposes for offering up various sacrifices.<\/p>\n
First, the \u201cfood for the gods idea\u201d meant that these sacrifices were necessary to feed the gods. The God of the Bible needs no food. But, in the pagan theology of polytheism, their gods and goddesses needed to eat, just like humans do; therefore, the offerings were a way of feeding the gods.<\/p>\n
The second pagan idea is the \u201ctotemistic idea.\u201d In totemisism, the worshipper thought that he fed upon the god himself by partaking of the meal. So, after the offering was given and the worshipper partook of the meal, he believed that he had actually fed upon the god himself. This idea is also foreign to the biblical concept of sacrifice.<\/p>\n
The third pagan idea is the \u201clife liberation notion.\u201d In life liberation, it is believed that there is a union between the worshipper and his god or goddess as the animal\u2019s life is taken. The blood is received by the god and the flesh is eaten by the worshipper. But, here again, this is not the biblical concept.<\/p>\n
The fourth idea in paganism is the \u201cmagic idea,\u201d that the sacrifice was a magical rite which acted as a lever to force the god to grant the petition. This was a way of convincing the god or goddess to grant one\u2019s request. This, too, is foreign to the biblical idea. Thus, contrary to some popular notions among unbelievers, the mosaic or Levitical sacrificial system did not originate from paganism.<\/p>\n
B. The Biblical Meaning of the Old Testament Sacrifices<\/p>\n
The second point is to ask the question: What is the exact meaning of the Old Testament sacrifices? There is a basic, foundational meaning, as well as other meanings derived from Scripture.<\/p>\n
1. The Basic Foundational Meaning<\/p>\n
The basic, foundational, and most important biblical meaning is that this was the means of approaching God. The key Hebrew word for these offerings is korban, coming from the Hebrew root karav, which means, \u201cto draw near\u201d (Lev. 1:2). Therefore, by means of the sacrifice, one could draw near to God. The basic meaning is that of approaching God, drawing near to God by means of sacrifice.<\/p>\n
2. The Derived Meanings<\/p>\n
In addition to the basic, foundational, biblical meaning, there are also five derived meanings found in Scripture. The first derived meaning is that of self dedication to God. This is the basic meaning of the Burnt Offering: that one would dedicate himself to God. This is a total gift, and no part of this offering is returned to the worshipper.<\/p>\n
The second derived meaning involves the idea of generosity in giving. This is the basic meaning or idea behind the Meal Offering: that there was a donation of one\u2019s material substance.<\/p>\n
A third derived meaning of the biblical idea of sacrifices includes four concepts: thanksgiving, praise, fellowship, and communion. These are the basic ideas behind the Peace Offering. These offerings of thanksgiving, praise, fellowship, and communion are presented because God may have granted individual deliverance or national deliverance or because God has accepted one\u2019s offering of gratitude due to devotion to a vow.<\/p>\n
The fourth derived meaning in the biblical concept of the Old Testament sacrifices is that of expiation by substitution, which is the concept of the Sin Offering. When someone sinned against Go, any sin that does not require restitution, then there was a Sin Offering by way of expiation.<\/p>\n
The fifth derived meaning is expiation with restitution. This is the point of the Trespass Offering, also called the \u201cguilt offering.\u201d This took place when someone sinned in a way that caused injury, thus having to pay a fine or make restitution.<\/p>\n
These, then, are the biblical ideas of the Jewish sacrifices, and they are quite different from those which are found in pagan religions.<\/p>\n
C. The Method of Grouping the Sacrifices<\/p>\n
The third introductory point has to do with how these sacrifices are grouped. The first seven chapters of Leviticus explain the five primary offerings, however, they are grouped in two sets: a set of three offerings and a set of two offerings.<\/p>\n
There are five reasons why they happen to be grouped in this way. The first reason is their description: the set of three offerings is described as sweet savor, sweet odor offerings and the set of two offerings is non-sweet, non-savor, non-odor offerings. The second reason for the grouping is obligation: the set of three of these sacrifices is purely voluntary, but the set of two offerings is compulsory or mandatory. The third reason is based upon the concept of the Word of God: the set of three sacrifices comes with the first utterance of God in the Book of Leviticus, and the set of two sacrifices comes with God\u2019s second utterance in the same book. The fourth reason for the grouping of the sacrifices is their purpose: the set of three offerings emphasizes fellowship, and set of two offerings emphasizes expiation; once they are offered, it is declared that the sin or guilt shall be forgiven. And the fifth reason has to do with the concept of fellowship: in the set of three offerings, the worshipper was approaching God for the purpose of maintaining an existing fellowship; with the set of two offerings, the worshipper was approaching God for the purpose of restoring fellowship that had been broken.<\/p>\n
D. The Limitations of the Sacrificial System<\/p>\n
A fourth introductory point involves five ways in which Levitical sacrifices were limited.<\/p>\n
First, they were limited in their moral efficacy: if they were used merely as a ritual, then they were not acceptable to God; these sacrifices were accepted only if they were accompanied by obedience to the revealed will of God.<\/p>\n
Secondly, the sacrifices were limited in scope to certain kinds of personal sins. They did not deal with the sin nature or with willful sin, but primarily with sins of ignorance; therefore, they could not be the complete and final scheme by which the sin would be removed, nor were they God\u2019s final Word on dealing with sin. Only the blood of the Messiah would be final.<\/p>\n
Thirdly, they were limited in purpose to covenanted preservation and in favor of a redeemed people, meaning they were limited for the covenanted people, the Jewish people. Gentiles were not obligated to carry out the sacrifices of the Mosaic Covenant, as they were obligated only to the Noahic Covenant.<\/p>\n
Fourthly, except for the Day of Atonement, the sacrifices were limited in scope and duration to one sin per sacrifice; each sacrifice dealt with only one sin. Only on the Day of Atonement was one sacrifice offered for all the sins of that year.<\/p>\n
Fifth, the efficacy was not inherent in the blood of animal sacrifices or any part of the ritual actions. Forgiveness was and is based upon Messiah\u2019s death. God looked upon the sacrifices as a preliminary down payment until Messiah died; sacrifices were validated in the mind of God only on the basis of the Messiah\u2019s death. Sacrifices were efficacious in restoring a covenantal relationship, and they were efficacious for the actual forgiveness of particular, specific sins. However, the efficacy was based upon God\u2019s knowledge that the Messiah would die for the sins of the Old Testament saints, not upon the efficacy of the animal blood or ritual itself.<\/p>\n
E. Two Viewpoints on the Offerings<\/p>\n
The fifth introductory point is that these five special offerings are discussed twice in the first seven chapters of the Book of Leviticus. After going through all five offerings in Leviticus 1:3\u20136:7, the book seems to repeat itself in Leviticus 6:8\u20137:36. However, it is not merely repetition. Rather, it is a division of sacrificial discussion from two different viewpoints. The first section discusses the five Levitical offerings from the viewpoint of the one making the offering, the offerer or petitioner. The second part discusses these same five offerings from the viewpoint of the priests who deal with them.<\/p>\n
F. The Typology<\/p>\n
The sixth introductory point about the sacrificial system concerns typology. There is an extreme form of typology that sees a type of something in every little detail of the whole Levitical system. Often, the conclusions are based more upon guesswork than upon actual knowledge or biblical validation.<\/p>\n
The approach that this study will take is to limit typology to two basic areas: first, that which the New Testament clearly declares to be a type with no area of debate; secondly, that which is very obviously a type, even if it is not mentioned in the New Testament. There is no reason to believe that God intended every little detail to be a type of something.<\/p>\n
With that introduction, this study will now proceed with the five Levitical offerings: the Burnt Offering, the Meal Offering, the Peace Offering, the Sin Offering, and the Trespass Offering. Four of these offerings were blood sacrifices and one was bloodless. There is a chart at the back of this manuscript that will prove helpful in the study of these five offerings.<\/p>\n
I. THE BURNT OFFERING\u2014LEVITICUS 1:3\u201317<\/p>\n
The first Levitical offering is the Burnt Offering, olah in the Hebrew, literally meaning \u201cto go up.\u201d It means that the whole offering \u201cwent up in smoke.\u201d This is the oldest of the offerings, found as early as the Book of Genesis. This was a voluntary offering, with the worshipper voluntarily devoting his whole offering to God through the fire. As Moses deals with the specific animals allowed, the progression always goes from the most expensive to the least expensive. This study will not go through all of the various details, but it is important to get the gist of their meanings.<\/p>\n
A. The Typology<\/p>\n
As far as its typology is concerned, the basic meaning of the Burnt Offering is that the Messiah offered Himself to God without spot and without blemish; the Messiah offered Himself as His own consecration offering to the Lord.<\/p>\n
B. Observations and Ramifications<\/p>\n
There are seven things to mention by way of observations and ramifications concerning the Burnt Offering.<\/p>\n
1. Divisions of Labor<\/p>\n
The first observation or ramification is that there was a division of labor between the worshipper and the priest.<\/p>\n
The labor for the worshipper involved five things: first, he had to bring the animal; secondly, he had to kill the animal; thirdly, he had to skin it; fourthly, he had to gut it; and fifth, the worshipper had to cut up the animal.<\/p>\n
Meanwhile, the priest had to do three things: first, he had to prepare wood for the fire; secondly, he had to sprinkle blood on the Altar; and thirdly, he had to place the dismembered animal\u2019s body on the fire.<\/p>\n
2. General Aspects<\/p>\n
The second observation is that there are nine general aspects concerning the Burnt Offering.<\/p>\n
The first aspect to note is that it is known in Hebrew as the olah, because the whole thing literally \u201cwent up\u201d to God in smoke; nothing was returned to the offerer.<\/p>\n
The second general aspect is that the total burning made the Burnt Offering distinct from other offerings. Of course, parts of the other sacrifices were also burned on the Altar, but the Burnt Offering was totally consumed on the fire except for the hide of the animal and the crop of the bird. Otherwise, everything was totally burned.<\/p>\n
A third general aspect is that there are other names found in the Scriptures for this offering. It is sometimes referred to merely as \u201can offering made by fire.\u201d In Deuteronomy 33:10, it is called in Hebrew kalil, the whole burnt offering.<\/p>\n
The fourth general aspect is that this is the oldest of known offerings, mentioned for the first time in Genesis 8:20.<\/p>\n
The fifth general aspect to note is that, in actual practice, it was often preceded by a Sin Offering or a Trespass Offering (Lev. 6:8\u20137:38).<\/p>\n
The sixth general aspect is that the kinds of animals for the Burnt Offering and the details as to how they were offered closely parallel the Peace Offering. There will be more on this point in the study of the Peace Offering.<\/p>\n
The seventh general aspect is that the underlying purpose was to secure atonement for sins, to propitiate God\u2019s wrath.<\/p>\n
The eighth general aspect is that the immediate purpose was to express total dedication to God; it was a consecration. So while the underlying purpose was to secure atonement for sins, the immediate purpose was to express total dedication to God.<\/p>\n
The ninth and final general aspect is that the offering was voluntary as far as private practice, but it was mandatory for specific public occasions. It was mandatory as a daily sacrifice every morning and evening; it was mandatory as a weekly sacrifice on the Sabbath; it was mandatory as a monthly sacrifice for the first day of the month or the New Moon Offering; it was mandatory seasonally for the seven Holy Seasons of Israel; it was mandatory annually for special annual offerings. So, while on the individual level it was voluntary, it was mandatory for public situations.<\/p>\n
3. General Characteristics of the Sacrificial Animal<\/p>\n
The third observation or ramification is to note the four general characteristics of the animal. First, the animal had to be ceremonially clean. Secondly, it had to be utilitarian, meaning \u201cusable for food.\u201d Thirdly, it had to be an animal that was domesticated; although some wild game animals were permissible for food, no game animal was permissible for sacrifice. And fourthly, the animal had to be costly; the selection of the animal was based upon the economic status of the individual Jewish member of the commonwealth. If the individual were wealthy, he had to offer an expensive sacrifice; if he were poor, he could offer a less expensive sacrifice, nevertheless, it would have to be costly relative to his economic status.<\/p>\n
4. Individual Characteristics of the Sacrificial Animal<\/p>\n
The fourth ramification is the individual characteristics of the animal, and there were three of these. First, it had to be perfect: without spot, without blemish, without disease, without deformity. Secondly, as to gender: the animal had to be male. Thirdly, as to age: generally, the animal had to be one year old. There were exceptions; sometimes it could be as young as a week old or as old as three years, but the general principle was a one year old animal.<\/p>\n
5. The Sequence of the Ritual<\/p>\n
The fifth ramification is the sequential steps of the ritual. In the first step, the worshipper brought the animal to the entrance of the Tabernacle and stood near the Altar (v. 3). In the second step, the worshipper would lay his hands on the head of the animal; this was done if the animal came from a herd, but not true if the animal came from a flock of birds (v. 4). In the third step, the priest would declare the animal acceptable (v. 4). In the fourth step, the worshipper would kill the animal, except for the bird which was killed by the priest (v. 5). In the fifth step, the priest would sprinkle the blood against the Altar, round about on all four sides (v. 5). In the sixth step, the worshipper would skin and divide the animal (v. 6). In the seventh step, the priest would burn the animal on the Altar. And in the eighth step, the priest would then get to keep the hide.<\/p>\n
6. The Burnt Offering in the Old Testament<\/p>\n
The sixth ramification involves the Burnt Offering in the Old Testament, where there were two primary ideas. The first idea is that of atonement; the Burnt Offering provided some kind of atonement for sin (Gen. 8:20\u201321; Job 1:5; 42:7\u20139); this was already true under the Adamic and Noahic Covenants. The second idea was that of dedication: this was the means of dedicating oneself to God (Ex. 18:11\u201312; Num. 15:3). This was especially its meaning under the Mosaic Covenant.<\/p>\n
7. The Burnt Offering in the New Testament<\/p>\n
The seventh and last ramification concerns the Burnt Offering in the New Testament. Explicitly, it is mentioned in Mark 12:33 and Hebrews 10:6\u20138. But implicitly, it is found in Luke 2:23\u201324, which mentions that a Burnt Offering was required after childbearing. It is also implicit in Luke 17:14, when the healing of a leper apparently required a Burnt Offering.<\/p>\n
II. THE MEAL OFFERING: LEVITICUS 2:1\u201316<\/p>\n
The second Levitical offering is called a Meal Offering, and it is the only one that was not a blood offering. The Meal Offering is referred to in the Hebrew text as korban minchah, and literally means \u201cto give a present.\u201d Therefore, the basic concept is that of a gift (Gen. 32:13, 18). It was often used in the context of giving a gift to gain the favor of a superior. It was a tribute of a faithful worshipper to a divine overlord.<\/p>\n
A. The Basic Content<\/p>\n
The basic content of the Meal Offering was usually either wheat or barley. Often, the Meal Offering is mentioned in conjunction with the Burnt Offering, as it is very closely associated with the Burnt Offering (Josh. 22:23, 29; Judg. 13:19, 23; 1 Kg. 8:64; 2 Kg. 16:13).<\/p>\n
B. Accompanied by Blood<\/p>\n
As mentioned, this is the only offering which was a bloodless offering. However, it was never offered apart from blood, but was normally accompanied by blood (Lev. 23:9\u201314; Num. 15:1\u201316; Ezra 7:17). Before the Meal Offering was placed upon the Altar, the Burnt Offering was given first. The Meal Offering was then placed upon the Burnt Offering, so that the Meal Offering always came in contact with blood.<\/p>\n
C. The Presentation<\/p>\n
The Meal Offering was offered to God in thanksgiving, and then given to the priest for the purpose of ministry. It may have been offered either cooked or uncooked. If it were offered in cooked form, there were four options: first, it might be baked in an oven; secondly, it could be baked on a flat pan; thirdly, it could be fried; and fourthly, in harvest times, it could be roasted.<\/p>\n
D. The Typology<\/p>\n
As far as its typology is concerned, the Meal Offering typifies the perfect humanity of the Messiah.<\/p>\n
E. Observations and Ramifications<\/p>\n
Here again, this study will not give all of the various details about the Meal Offering, but as an overall picture, there are five observations and ramifications. First, there were two types of Meal Offerings, either cooked or uncooked. Secondly, there were four types of cooked Meal Offerings: baked in an oven, baked in a flat pan, fried, and, in the case of the Feast of First-fruits, roasted. Thirdly, if it were offered in an uncooked form, it would be offered as fine flour mixed with two items: oil and frankincense. Fourthly, there were two prohibitions or elements, which were never to be added to the Meal Offering: leaven and honey. And fifth, the ritual of the Meal Offering involved four basic steps. In the first step, the worshipper would bring his Meal Offering to the Tabernacle. In the second step, the worshipper would then take a handful of the Meal Offering. In the third step, the priest would take the handful of fine flour from the worshipper and burn it on the Altar. And in the fourth step, the rest of the Meal Offering would be given to the priest as a means of sustenance.<\/p>\n
III. THE PEACE OFFERING: LEVITICUS 3:1\u201317<\/p>\n
The third Levitical offering is the Peace Offering. The Hebrew name for the Peace Offering is zebach shlamim; literally, it means \u201csacrifices of peaces.\u201d The second word, shlamim, comes from the well known Hebrew word shalom, which means \u201cpeace\u201d or \u201cto make peace.\u201d This was a voluntary thanksgiving offering. It emphasized complete well being and harmony, not merely the absence of war. The uniqueness of this offering is that certain parts were burned on the Altar, but the rest was given back to the petitioner. The one who offered it got most of it back. This was the believer\u2019s way of participating in the blessings of the fellowship with God.<\/p>\n
A. The Typology<\/p>\n
As far as its typology is concerned, it typifies the value of Messiah\u2019s death in terms of its communion. It typifies the Messiah\u2019s procuring peace with God for the sinner (Rom. 5:1). And it typifies the fellowship of believers with God, once again, the concept of communion.<\/p>\n
B. Observations and Ramifications<\/p>\n
There are six basic observations and ramifications concerning the Peace Offering.<\/p>\n
1. Motivations<\/p>\n
The first observation is that there were three motivations for the Peace Offering. The first motivation was as a thanksgiving offering in Leviticus 7:12\u201314; and 22:29, and it is almost synonymous with the fellowship offerings of 2 Chronicles 29:31; 33:16; and Jeremiah 17:26. It was brought as an acknowledgment of God\u2019s deliverance or blessing bestowed as an answer to prayer (Ps. 56:12\u201313; 107:22; 116:17\u201319; Jer. 33:11).<\/p>\n
The second motivation was as a votive offering, meaning making a vow in Leviticus 7:16. It was a ritual expression of a vow in Leviticus 27:9\u201310. Indeed, when a Nazirite fulfilled his vow, this is the sacrifice he would need to offer according to Numbers 6:17\u201320.<\/p>\n
The third motivation was as a freewill offering to express devotion and thanksgiving to God for some unexpected blessing in Leviticus 7:16 and 22:17\u201320.<\/p>\n
2. The Ritual<\/p>\n
The second observation is the description of the ritual itself, which was performed in eight steps. In the first step, the worshipper brought the animal to the entrance of the tent of meeting. In the second step, the worshipper pressed his hands on the animal\u2019s head. In third step, the worshipper killed the animal. In the fourth step, the priest would splash the blood of the animal over the Altar. In the fifth step, the worshipper would cut up the animal. In the sixth step, parts of the animal were burned on the Altar by the priest. This included the kidneys, which were the symbol of one\u2019s emotions (Job 19:27), and the fat, which symbolized the best of the offering; the best was given to God according to Genesis 45:18. In the seventh step, the priest was entitled to keep certain parts of the animal: the skin, the right thigh or shoulder, and the breast. The right thigh or shoulder could typify the power and strength of the Messiah, though this may be a bit far fetched. And in the eighth step, the worshipper and others ate the remainder of the sacrifice as a festive meal. If it were a thanksgiving or confessional offering, it was eaten the same day. If it were offered for other reasons, it was eaten the following day. All who ate of it had to be ceremonially clean, and all leftovers had to be completely burned.<\/p>\n
3. The Occasions<\/p>\n
The third observation is that the Peace Offering could be either for private or public occasions. If it were a private occasion, it was voluntary in two forms: either as a thanksgiving and confessional offering or as a spontaneous freewill offering. While it was voluntary as a normal principle, it was a required offering for the individual as a fulfillment of a vow (Lev. 7:12, 16). It was regularly preceded by a Burnt Offering (Lev. 3:5). If the occasion were public, then the Peace Offering was mandatory. For example, it was mandatory during the Feast of Weeks (Lev. 23:19), and it was mandatory during the ordination of a priest (Lev. 9:4).<\/p>\n
4. The Animals<\/p>\n
The fourth observation is that birds were not allowed for a Peace Offering, because a bird would not provide sufficient meat for a full, festive meal. Therefore, animals from flocks such as sheep and goats and herds of cattle were used, but not birds.<\/p>\n
5. The Peace Offering in the Old Testament<\/p>\n
The fifth observation concerns the Peace Offering in the Old Testament. It is mentioned as a freewill offering (Ps. 54:6), and as a votive offering (Ps. 56:12\u201313).<\/p>\n
6. The Peace Offering in the New Testament<\/p>\n
The sixth observation is in regard to the Peace Offering in the New Testament. Explicitly, it is not mentioned at all in the New Testament. Implicitly, it is found in Acts 21:23\u201326. That passage deals with offerings at the conclusion of a vow and, of course, the Peace Offering in its votive form would be used for that purpose.<\/p>\n
IV. THE SIN OFFERING\u2014LEVITICUS 4:4\u20135:13<\/p>\n
The fourth Levitical offering is the Sin Offering. The basic purpose of the Sin Offering was to deal with the issue of mandatory offerings for sins done unwittingly. In Leviticus 4:1, we have God\u2019s second utterance. The first three offerings, which were based upon God\u2019s first utterance, were largely voluntary offerings, but the last two offerings are based upon the second utterance and concern mandatory sacrifices. These last two, then, are mandatory and expiatory. While the first three offerings were already known from previous revelation, these last two are totally new and revealed for the first time by the Mosaic Law.<\/p>\n
A. The Nature of the Sin<\/p>\n
Stating the nature of the sin, God says in Leviticus 4:2: Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If any one shall sin unwittingly.<\/p>\n
That is the issue-unwitting sin. Literally, the Hebrew means unwittingly in the sense of \u201cunintentionally.\u201d It is a sin that was committed through ignorance, error, or oversight.<\/p>\n
The Hebrew word has for its root meaning \u201cto wander,\u201d \u201cto go wrong,\u201d \u201cto make a mistake,\u201d \u201cto commit error.\u201d It is a sin which arises from human infirmity or from the weakness of the flesh; it is a sin of weakness of flesh and blood; it is a sin of waywardness. This is unintentional sin, sin of ignorance or inadvertent sin, such as the sin of manslaughter (Num. 35:11\u201323). It is a sin that was committed without premeditation (Num. 15:22\u201329). In other words, it is not a sin done in a spirit of rebellion; it is not a sin of presumption. This is in contrast with a sin committed with a high hand, a calculated sin of defiance against God, for which there is no sacrifice. The penalty for those kinds of sins was merely to be cut off or executed (Num. 15:30\u201331).<\/p>\n
The Hebrew word for sin here is chata, which literally means \u201cto miss the mark.\u201d When you miss the mark, of course, you also hit the wrong mark. Thus, this passage deals with sins that were not premeditated, but sins done out of ignorance, sins that a person just happened to fall into. Verse 2 goes on to say: in any of the things which Jehovah has commanded not to be done.<\/p>\n
In other words, we are dealing with sins, which were committed against a negative commandment, a violation of a negative commandment.<\/p>\n
The Hebrew word for Sin Offering is chataat. Literally, a Sin Offering is a purification offering. It is not the only one to deal with sin, as the fifth offering will also deal with sin, but the emphasis of the Sin Offering is on the purification from sin. It emphasizes the principle of sin and expiation for the guilt of sin.<\/p>\n
B. The Unique Features<\/p>\n
This particular offering has four unique features. First, the scriptural discussion on the Sin Offering is twice as long as on all previous offerings. Secondly, the first time that the Sin Offering is mentioned is in this passage. Thirdly, at this point it becomes the most important of the five offerings. It was not mentioned heretofore and it was not practiced heretofore. But with this commandment of Moses, it becomes the most important sacrifice, needing to be offered up even during the festivals. And fourthly, it was killed and offered in the same place as the Burnt Offering.<\/p>\n
C. The Result<\/p>\n
The key result of the offering is forgiveness; one was forgiven because of this offering.<\/p>\n
D. The Animals<\/p>\n
Various types of Burnt Offerings were allowed, based upon the economic status of the offerer. In the case of the Sin Offering, the different types of Sin Offerings mentioned in this passage in decreasing order were based upon the social status of the sinner. The higher a person stood on the social ladder, the more expensive an offering he had to make.<\/p>\n
E. Observations and Ramifications<\/p>\n
There are four specific observations and ramifications concerning the Sin Offering: its purpose, ritual, the manipulations of the blood, and its typology.<\/p>\n
1. The Purpose<\/p>\n
The first observation is the distinctive purpose of the Sin Offering: to atone for sin and provide forgiveness for specific unintentional or non defiant sins, where no restitution was required. God accepted the blood of the animal as a ransom payment for the particular sin which occasioned it and, by so doing, diverted His wrath from the sinner and, ultimately, to the Messiah on the cross.<\/p>\n
2. The Ritual<\/p>\n
The second observation is that the ritual involved eight specific steps. The first step was the presentation of the sacrifice at the door of the Tabernacle by the Altar (Lev. 4:4, 15, 23, 28). The second step was an identification of the sinner with the offering. This was when the sinner laid his hands upon the head of the offering; the laying on of hands upon the head of the animal was a means of identification with the sinner (Lev. 4:4, 15, 24, 29). The third step was the confession of the sin that occasioned the sacrifice (Lev. 5:5). The fourth step was the killing of the sacrifice, which was done by the petitioner himself (Lev. 4:4, 15, 24, 29). The fifth step was the sprinkling of the blood. This procedure differed according to the social status of the petitioner. If the petitioner were the high priest, and the offering was for the high priest himself and the congregation of Israel as mentioned in Leviticus 4:6\u20137, and 17\u201318, the priest took the blood into the Holy Place and sprinkled the blood seven times toward the veil and then applied the blood on the horns of the Altar of Incense. But if the offering was for a tribal ruler or a common person, the blood was merely applied to the horns of the Altar of Sacrifice (Lev. 4:25, 30). In the six step, the remainder of the blood was poured out at the base of the Altar of Sacrifice (Lev. 4:7, 18, 25, 30). In the seventh step, the fat and the kidneys were burned on the Altar (Lev. 4:8\u201310, 19, 26, 31). And in the eighth step, the body of the bullock was burned outside the camp (Lev. 4:11, 12, 21).<\/p>\n
3. The Manipulations of the Blood<\/p>\n
The third observation or ramification concerns the four distinctive manipulations of the blood of the Sin Offering. First, if it were a poor man\u2019s offering, the blood was sprinkled around the Altar. Secondly, if the offering were that of a tribal ruler or a common person, the blood was applied upon the horns of the Altar of Sacrifice. Thirdly, if the offering were for the high priest and the congregation of Israel, the blood was applied to the horns of the Altar of Incense. And fourthly, on the Day of Atonement, on this one and only occasion, the blood was sprinkled upon the Mercy Seat. This sprinkling of the blood upon the Mercy Seat would provide the blood for the very poor, who, when they offered a Sin Offering, were allowed to bring a bloodless offering. Nevertheless, the poor man\u2019s sins were covered by blood, because his Meal Offering that was used as a Sin Offering was placed upon the Burnt Offering, thereby coming in contact with blood. But on the Day of Atonement, one goat was offered up for the whole nation, with the animal\u2019s blood sprinkled upon the Mercy Seat; on that occasion, then, the sins of the very, very poor were taken care of as well.<\/p>\n
4. The Typology<\/p>\n
The fourth ramification had to do with its typology. The key typological meaning is the death of the Messiah as a satisfactory, substitutionary sacrifice to provide forgiveness of sins. The basic typological meaning is: the Messiah as our sin bearer. It typifies redemption for the sinner; it typifies the Messiah as our expiation; and it typifies forgiveness of sin through His blood.<\/p>\n
V. THE TRESPASS OFFERING\u2014LEVITICUS 5:14\u20136:7<\/p>\n
The fifth and last Levitical offering is called the Trespass Offering. Two basic Hebrew words are used for this offering: first, the word asham, which carries the concept of guilt; thus, this offering is referred to as a Trespass Offering, a reparation offering or guilt offering. Secondly, the Hebrew word is maal, which basically means \u201ca violation.\u201d It has to do with an act of misappropriation or denial of that which is rightfully due to another, with the word \u201canother\u201d being God or man.<\/p>\n
A. The Emphasis<\/p>\n
The emphasis of this offering is on the practice of sin rather than the sin itself. The Sin Offering focused on the sin itself, but the Trespass Offering focused attention on the practice of sin. The emphasis here was on the harmful effects of sin. It emphasized the harm done by transgressing the Law of Moses. Therefore, this offering requires confession, compensation, and restitution for the wrong done. It was an expiation of trespass claims of both God and man. Therefore, when the Book of Leviticus discussed this offering, it discussed it in two parts: first, sins or trespasses against God (Lev. 5:14\u201319); and secondly, trespasses against man (Lev. 6:1\u20137).<\/p>\n
B. The Typology<\/p>\n
As to its basic typological meaning, it typifies the Messiah\u2019s payment for the penalty of sin. It typifies redemption from sin. It typifies the atonement from the harmful effects of sin. It typifies the death of the Messiah in terms of victory over sin. In fact, it states in the famous messianic prophecy of Isaiah 53:10, speaking about the death of the Messiah, that God will make Him an offering for sin. The word for sin is asham, which has to do with the Trespass Offering. It means that Jesus removed the harmful effects of sin.<\/p>\n
C. Observations and Ramifications<\/p>\n
There are eight specific observations and ramifications concerning the Trespass Offering.<\/p>\n
1. Required with Acts of Misappropriation<\/p>\n
The first observation is that this offering was required when one committed a violation, a maal. This was an act of misappropriation, a denial to either God or man of his rightful due. It was an offense that caused damage or loss. It may have been either unintentional or deliberate.<\/p>\n
2. Distinctive Features<\/p>\n
The second observation concerns the three distinctive features of the Trespass Offering, which would not necessarily be true of the other offerings.<\/p>\n
The first distinctive feature is that it required restitution; the payment of a fine to the wronged party. The Trespass Offering required restitution, but the Sin Offering did not. If the sin could be assessed for a monetary compensation, if a value could be put on the sin, the guilty party had to bring a ram for the guilt offering, as well as pay compensation in property or in silver of the actual value plus a twenty percent fine. The ram itself was not part of the restitution, but it was for the expiation for the sin before God.<\/p>\n
The second distinctive feature is that it may have been for unintentional sins committed against man, but offenses that were not defiant sins against God.<\/p>\n
Furthermore, there may have even been intentional sins against man. In other words, the sinner may have premeditated the sin against man, but he did not intend to act defiantly against God (Num. 15:30). So, in summarizing this distinctive, the offering was for unintentional sins; that is, they may have been intentional against man, but they were unintentionally defiant sins against God.<\/p>\n
3. The Main Idea<\/p>\n
The third observation is that the main idea of the Sin Offering was expiation for sin, but the main idea of the Trespass Offering was satisfaction for restoration of rights that had been violated.<\/p>\n
4. The Lessons<\/p>\n
The fourth observation is that there are four specific lessons of the Trespass Offering. The first lesson is that, in cases of sin that caused harm to others, amends must be made first; restitution had to be made before making the offering. This same principle is taught in Matthew 5:23\u201324; 6:12. The second lesson is that the sinner must give complete satisfaction. The third lesson is that sin defiles, and this defilement has both spiritual and social dimensions. And the fourth lesson is that the concept of satisfaction and compensation was included here; both satisfaction and compensation were essential.<\/p>\n
5. The Ritual<\/p>\n
The fifth observation is the six basic steps of the ritual. In the first step, the offerer had to present the sacrifice and, in this presentation, had to estimate the proper value of the crime, while also estimating the value of the ram (Lev. 5:15; 6:2\u20136). In the second step, he would then need to make restitution, which had to be made before the actual atonement (Lev. 5:16; 6:5). As part of this restitution, he had to pay full value of the deed plus a twenty percent fine. If the sin were against God, the twenty percent fine was paid to the priest; if it were against another man, it was paid to the victim. In the third step, he would then carry out the atonement itself, in which the ram was offered up; the blood of the ram was shed (Lev. 5:15, 18). In the fourth step, the blood was sprinkled on the sides of the Altar of Sacrifice (Lev. 7:2). In the fifth step, the fat was burned (Lev. 7:5). And in the sixth step, the remainder of the sacrifice was eaten by the priest (Lev. 7:6).<\/p>\n
6. The Occasions<\/p>\n
The sixth observation concerns the five occasions of the Trespass Offering. First, if any of the sins listed in Leviticus 5:14\u20136:7 were trespass sins, then the Trespass Offering was required. Secondly, it was part of the cleansing of a Jewish leper as he was healed of his leprosy (Lev. 14:10\u201314). Thirdly, this offering was required when fornication was committed with a female slave, who was betrothed to another (Lev. 19:20\u201322). Fourthly, it was required for any of the basic trespass sins mentioned in Numbers 5:5\u201310. And fifth, it was needed for the cleansing of a Nazirite who was defiled by touching a dead body during his vow (Num. 6:9\u201312).<\/p>\n
7. An Apparent Contradiction<\/p>\n
The seventh observation deals with a seeming contradiction; the Leviticus passage required a twenty percent restitution, but Exodus 22:4\u201314 required a one hundred percent restitution. So is there a contradiction between Leviticus and Exodus? The answer is \u201cno,\u201d and the solution is in examining the context. In the Book of Exodus, the offender is convicted by the evidence, and if so, then the restitution must be one hundred percent. But in the Leviticus passage, the offender voluntarily surrenders and confesses his sin, so the restitution is only twenty percent.<\/p>\n
8. The Trespass Offering in the New Testament<\/p>\n
The eighth observation concerns the Trespass Offering in the New Testament. Explicitly, there is no mention of the Trespass Offering in the New Testament, but it is found implicitly. Again, Isaiah 53:10 states that the Messiah was to be a Trespass Offering, and this chapter is quoted in the New Testament: Isaiah 53:1 is quoted in John 12:38 and Romans 10:16; Isaiah 53:4 is quoted in Matthew 8:17; Isaiah 53:5\u20136 is quoted in 1 Peter 2:24 and 25; Isaiah 53:9 is quoted in 1 Peter 2:23; and Isaiah 53:12 is quoted in Luke 22:37. So implicitly, it is to be found in the death of the Messiah.<\/p>\n
CONCLUSION<\/p>\n
These are the five offerings of Leviticus and, in drawing a conclusion, these are the basic symbolic meanings of the offerings. The Burnt Offering is the sanctification of the whole man in self surrender to the Lord. The Meal Offering is the fruit of that sanctification. The Peace Offering is the blossoming of the possession and enjoyment of saving grace. The expiation offerings, the Sin Offering and Trespass Offering, furnished the means of removing the barriers, which sins and trespasses set up between man and God, and they produced forgiveness of sin and guilt, though only for inadvertent sin.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
If his offering is a burnt offering from the herd, 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 He shall lay his hand on the head of the burnt offering, that it may be accepted for … <\/p>\n