If his offering be a burnt-offering of the herd, he shall present it a male without blemish at the entrance of the tent of meeting shall he present it, for his acceptance before Jehovah.
Leviticus opens with God giving Israel the law of the offerings, and the burnt offering comes first. This verse settles three things: what the animal must be, where the worshipper must bring it, and why he brings it. Commentators read that last point in two ways.
One writer explains why the animal had to be a male, and how the last words of the verse are best translated:
The burnt offering comes first, because this gives the most important aspect of the sacrifice of Christ. If someone wanted to offer a burnt sacrifice from the herd, it had to be a male without blemish. It had to be a male because the burnt offering is entirely for God: all was to be offered in fire to the Lord. It was in no way about the offerer himself, for he has no part in the offering, as was true in the peace offering, which could be either male or female. The words in verse 3, "of his own free will," are rightly rendered "that he may be accepted."
Other offerings allowed a female. Commentators say that difference tells us about the worshipper, not about the offering:
The unblemished male was a type of the Lord Jesus Christ offering Himself for the perfect accomplishment of the will of God. Nothing about it should suggest weakness or imperfection... When we come to the other offerings, we will see that a female was allowed in some cases. But that only showed the imperfection in the worshipper's grasp of things. It showed no defect in the offering, since it was unblemished in the one case as in the other. Here it was an offering of the very highest order, because it was Christ offering Himself to God. Christ, in the burnt offering, was exclusively for the eye and heart of God.
The worshipper could not sacrifice wherever he liked. The entrance of the tent of meeting was where the altar stood, and where God had promised to meet His people:
"A continual burnt offering... at the entrance of the tent of meeting before the LORD, where I will meet with you, to speak to you there. And there I will meet with the people of Israel." So when a person offered a burnt offering, he offered it at the entrance of the tent of meeting before the LORD. He killed the bull there, and the blood was sprinkled on the altar by that entrance. They came up to the LORD there, instead of offering it where they pleased, away from Him. And the law carefully secured this as a guard against idolatry.
The verse does not say the offering is accepted; it says the man is. What happened at the altar transferred to the person standing beside it:
The man who brought it put his hand on its head. He identified himself with the offering, and he was told, "It shall be accepted for you." In the same way, the one who now comes to God by the one offering of Christ is accepted in all the acceptance of Christ Himself. Precious truth for our souls! But in the burnt offering, notice, no one had a part with God. It is the entire surrender of Jesus to God.
Commentators differ over the older wording "of his own voluntary will." Some say it should read "that he may be accepted." Others keep it, and find in that willingness the heart of what the burnt offering shows:
The use of the word "voluntary" here brings out very clearly the grand idea in the burnt offerings... We are too apt to see the cross only as the place where the great question of sin was faced and settled between eternal Justice and the spotless victim. We see it as the place where our guilt was atoned for and Satan gloriously defeated... The cross was all this. But it was more than this. It was the place where Christ's love to the Father was told out in language which only the Father could hear and understand.
Either way, the order matters. The animal is brought alive to the door before anything is done to it:
For Christ, the act of offering Himself as a sacrifice is His own alone — "through the eternal Spirit He offered Himself without blemish to God." We did not offer Him. He was both the offerer and the victim. But when we have the Spirit of Christ, we enter into the value of the act as though we laid our hands on Him... If we had only seen the fact of Christ's death, we might have thought He needed it for Himself. But He is first shown to us as the willing offering, bringing Himself to the door of the tent of meeting.
- Perfect — the victim is a male without blemish. Nothing weak or flawed could picture Christ offering Himself to God.
- Willing — He is brought alive to the door before He is slain; He is both the offerer and the victim.
- Placed — God accepts the offering only at the entrance He appointed, not at a spot the worshipper picks.
- Accepted — the offering is accepted for the man. He stands accepted in all the acceptance of Christ.
- Godward — all of it goes up in fire. In the burnt offering, Christ is for the eye and heart of God alone.
And he shall lay his hand on the head of the burnt-offering; and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him.
A worshipper brings an animal to the altar, and one small action decides everything that follows: he leans his hand on its head. This verse turns on what that touch means, and on why an offering not brought for any particular sin still makes atonement.
The original word is stronger than a light touch. It ties two parties together as one.
In verse 4 we learn how the perfection of the offering passed to the offerer. The word translated "lay his hand on" means "to lean upon" in the original language. In Scripture, laying on of hands means identification. Here the offerer is fully identified with the offering, so everything true of the offering becomes true of the person who offers it.
The same gesture was used with the sin offering, but it meant something very different there.
In both the burnt offering and the sin offering, laying on of hands showed the close connection between the offerer and the offering. But its meaning in each was very different. With the sin offering, the offering took over, in picture, all the blame and all the sinfulness of the offerer. With the burnt offering, the offerer took over, in picture, all the worth and excellence of the sacrifice.
Once he leans on the offering, God's verdict on the animal becomes His verdict on the man.
That action means the offerer was identified with all the value of the sacrifice. If God accepted the sacrifice, He accepted the man who brought it. If God rejected the sacrifice, He rejected the man too. If God found the sacrifice a sweet aroma and delighted in it, He found the same delight in the man who came with it... As we read, "And it shall be accepted for him" — that is, instead of him... Rather than standing before God with our sins and our hatred of Him, rather than our disobedience and our lack of devotion, we are accepted according to all the value of that work on the cross.
That is more than a clean slate. Having no charge left against you is not the same as being accepted.
Of the burnt offering, and of no other, it is beautifully said, "he shall offer it for his acceptance!" In the sin offering, wrath was spent to the full, and that could put away his sin. He might be free from every charge on that account. As wonderful as that is, it is not all that God has for us in what He calls "acceptance." Acceptance is not a mere negative — nothing against us. It is identification with the glorious perfection of that obedience to death.
Commentators draw a straight line from that leaning hand to where the believer now stands with God.
This speaks of identification: "and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him." We do not have to look far in the New Testament for the answer to this. Ephesians 1:6 says, "He has made us accepted in the Beloved" (older translation). John also writes in his letter, "as He is, so also are we in this world" (1 John 4:17)... everything true of Christ as Man at the right hand of God is true also of all who have laid their hands on Him, identifying themselves with Him by faith.
The burnt offering was not brought to answer a particular wrong. Yet even the freest act of devotion had to pass through blood.
From Leviticus 1 we find that the burnt offering was to make atonement, but only in a general way. It did not carry the special solemnity of the great Day of Atonement. When an Israelite brought an offering out of a full heart, to express how much he depended on the goodness of God, it always had an atoning character. God could not accept an offering without blood to make atonement. Neither the true God nor faith makes light of sin.
The worshipper learned two things at the altar, and left with both settled.
He did not bring it because he had sinned. Even so, he was reminded of his need of atonement. He was a sinner, and he could not come to God's altar without admitting his own need of the atoning death of Christ. On the other hand, he did not leave the altar without the LORD's assurance that the burnt sacrifice was accepted to make atonement for him (v. 4).
- Lean — The hand on the head means leaning, resting the whole weight of one's standing on another.
- Transfer — In the sin offering, guilt moves to the victim. In the burnt offering, the victim's worth moves to the worshipper.
- Instead — "Accepted for him" means accepted in place of him. God's view of the offering becomes His view of the man.
- More than pardon — A cleared record is not yet acceptance. Acceptance means being counted with the perfection of Christ's obedience to death.
- Still blood — Even an offering of pure devotion needed atonement. God never makes light of sin, and never sends the worshipper away unsure.
And he shall slaughter the bullock before Jehovah; and Aaron's sons, the priests, shall present the blood and sprinkle the blood round about on the altar that is at the entrance of the tent of meeting.
Two pairs of hands act in this verse. The worshipper kills the animal, and the priests carry the blood to the altar. Why is the work split? And why does the blood go on the altar rather than on the offerer?
(The quotes below use an older translation. It says "sprinkle the blood round about upon the altar." The ESV says "throw the blood against the sides of the altar.")
This chapter aims everything at God. It does not aim at calming a troubled conscience. One writer holds that line at this verse:
When we study the doctrine of the burnt offering, we must keep one thing in mind. The main point set out in it is not the meeting of the sinner's need. It is the presentation to God of what was infinitely acceptable to Him. Christ, as foreshadowed by the burnt offering, is not for the sinner's conscience, but for the heart of God. Further, in the burnt offering the cross does not display how hateful sin is. It displays Christ's unshaken and unshakable devotion to the Father.
The killing happens under God's eye. The blood then lands on the altar. One writer explains both, and contrasts this blood with the blood of the sin offering:
The words "before the LORD" would show that the offerer knew that what he was doing was for the pleasure of the LORD. He knew that God's eyes were on this offering, and that God was finding His delight in this foreshadowing of His well-beloved Son… The altar represents the claims of God. Sprinkling the blood on the altar shows that every claim of God has been met, and that God is satisfied for ever with the work of our Lord Jesus Christ. When we come to the sin offering, we shall see that the blood was also poured out at the bottom of the altar. But there it was on our account. There is no instruction to pour out the blood of the burnt offering at the bottom of the altar.
Commentators differ over what the offerer's killing pictures. One writer weighs a common view, rejects it, and offers another:
Some have thought this: since Christ is both offerer and victim, the offerer killing the victim speaks of Christ laying down His own life for men. It seems, however, as if in that case it should be the priest rather than the offerer. For a man who brings a substitute victim to make atonement for himself can hardly be a picture of Christ at the same time. Rather, it would seem that in this act the offerer confesses that he needs death for atonement. The priest then takes that up and displays it in its relation to God. He is the mediator, the one who can draw near to God for others.
The verse names Aaron's sons. Their place in the offering carries a meaning of its own:
Here we have a picture of the Church. It brings the memorial of a finished sacrifice and presents it in the place where an individual draws near to God. But we must remember, it is the blood of the burnt offering, and not of the sin offering… "Aaron's sons" do not represent convicted sinners, but worshipping saints. It is as "priests" that they have to do with the burnt offering… To be taken up with my guilt in the presence of God is not humility about myself. It is unbelief about the sacrifice.
The priests put this blood on no one. They present it, and God is the one who sees it:
This sprinkling of the blood is a testimony to the finished work, and it is for the eye of God. It is just like the Passover blood, about which He said, "When I see the blood, I will pass over you." If it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul, then that blood must be presented to God, since the atonement was made to Him. It is not here put on the person… but wherever put, the blood is for God.
That has a practical edge for anyone who wants to come near:
God is showing us that from whatever angle we might consider approach to Him, the blood of sprinkling was necessary. God will not have us before Him in communion or as worshippers unless it is on the ground of atonement.
- For God. The burnt offering's first purpose is not to quiet a conscience. It presents to God what is infinitely acceptable to Him.
- Before the LORD. The killing takes place under God's eye, and the blood goes on the altar — the place of His claims, now fully met.
- Two hands. The offerer's death admits his need of death for atonement. The priest then presents its value to God.
- Aaron's sons. Those who handle this blood come as worshipping priests. They do not come as sinners still taken up with their guilt.
- Only ground. You may come to God for communion or for worship. Either way, the blood is the only ground.
And he shall flay the burnt-offering, and cut it up into its pieces.
Leviticus 1 opens the book with the burnt offering, and verse 6 comes after the animal has died: the hide comes off and the body is cut up. Why does God record this much butchery, and why only in this offering?
The first act is stripping off the hide. One writer explains why that mattered for an animal already declared unblemished:
The act of "flaying" said a great deal. It was simply the removal of the outer covering, so that everything inside came into view. It was not enough for the offering to look "without blemish" on the outside. The hidden parts had to be shown too, so that every sinew and every joint could be seen. Only the burnt offering has this action named. That fits, and it shows the depth of Christ's devotedness to the Father. It was no mere surface-work with Him. The secrets of His inner life were opened up. The depths of His being were searched. The more this happened, the more clearly it showed that pure devotion to His Father's will and an earnest desire for His glory were the springs of all He did.
The second act takes the offering apart. The same writer finds the same lesson in incense crushed small:
This action teaches much the same truth as the "sweet incense beaten small" (Lev. 16). The Holy Spirit delights to dwell on the sweetness and fragrance of the sacrifice of Christ, not only as a whole, but also in all its smallest details. Look at the burnt offering as a whole, and you see it without blemish. Look at it in all its parts, and you see the same. Such was Christ.
The pieces were not thrown into a heap. Head, fat, inwards and legs each had their place, and each carried a picture:
The animal is flayed and its outer covering removed. In the same way, our Lord's inmost motives lay open before the holy eye of God at His cross. The pieces were then laid in order on the altar. There was to be no confusion here. The head, the fat, the inwards, the legs, were all distinguished from one another. The sacrifice was divided into its parts. Nothing was to be mutilated — "not one of His bones will be broken" — yet everything was kept distinct. The head stands for the thoughts, which were only thoughts of obedience. The legs stand for the walk. The inwards stand for the affections, desires and secret motives. God saw and knew them all, and in every area of our Lord's life He found only what perfectly glorified His every attribute.
The peace offering leaves out skinning and dividing. One writer reads that gap as deliberate:
Compare the peace offering with the burnt offering. The threefold action of "flaying," "cutting it into its pieces," and "washing the inwards and legs" is left out altogether, and that fits. In the burnt offering, Christ offers Himself to God, and God accepts Him. So two things had to be pictured: how complete His self-surrender was, and the searching process He put Himself through. In the peace offering, the leading thought is the communion of the worshipper, so the whole line of action is less intense. No heart, however great its love, could rise to the height of Christ's devotedness to God, or of God's acceptance of Christ. So a picture was needed to show that one feature of Christ's death — His perfect devotedness in it to God. We have that picture in the burnt offering, and there alone we see this threefold action.
The hide taken off here did not go into the fire. Leviticus 7:8 gives it to the priest who offers the sacrifice, and one writer asks who that priest pictures:
After the blood-sprinkling comes the flaying of the offering, whose skin, as we learn later (Lev. 7:8), belongs to the priest who offers it. Christ is clearly the One pictured by this sacrificing priest. So we learn whose hand gives us the covering that puts away the shame of our nakedness forever. It is the skin of the burnt offering, not the sin offering. It is not true that Christ's death merely puts away our sins: it supplies (though not by itself) the "best robe" for the Father's house.
The verse gives this work to the man bringing the offering, not to the priests. One writer draws out what that means for us:
These detailed instructions remind us that we need to work through these things spiritually and to understand something of the deep perfections of Christ. Only God knows them fully. But what a privilege that we can appreciate them a little and share God's pleasure in His beloved Son... The priests carried out all the rest of the instructions. Remember that in Peter's first letter every believer is a priest as well as an offerer.
- Uncovered. The hide came off so that everything inside could be seen. Looking clean on the outside was not enough.
- Divided. Cutting into pieces showed that the offering was perfect not only as a whole but in every separate part.
- Named. Head, legs and inwards picture thoughts, walk and secret motives — all of them found flawless by God.
- Distinctive. Only the burnt offering gets this threefold treatment. It marks how complete Christ's self-surrender to God was.
- Clothed. The one part not burned, the skin, went to the priest — the covering, the "best robe," given by Christ's own hand.
And the sons of Aaron the priest shall put fire on the altar, and lay wood in order on the fire;
The worshipper has killed the animal and cut it in pieces, and now the priests lay fire and wood on the altar. This verse passes the work from him to them, and asks what the fire and the wood mean.
Up to this point the man who brought the animal did everything. Verse 7 marks the change.
The offerer, not the priest, presented the victim at the entrance of the tent of meeting, or at the bronze altar (v. 3). It was he too who laid his hand on the head of the burnt offering (v. 4). This meant identification by grace with the offering. The acceptance of the whole burnt offering passed to the offerer... After the animal was killed, the priests' own work began. They sprinkled the blood all around the altar (v. 5). It was theirs too to put fire on the altar and lay wood to feed it (vv. 7, 8).
The fire is more than a practical detail. Writers read it as God's holiness at work on the sacrifice.
Everything was then burnt with fire on the altar. The fire of divine holiness consumed the sacrifice completely. So our Lord did not merely present Himself to God. In His death the fire of righteous judgment consumed all. All went up in eternal fragrance to God. It declared forever that His beloved Son had in Him nothing at all that did not perfectly glorify infinite holiness, righteousness, wisdom, truth and love.
Commentators differ on how far to press this. One warns against reading the altar fire as the punishment due to sin, and points to the incense.
We must keep this testing by fire separate from what some confuse it with — the judgment due to sin... To be consistent, the burning of the incense would then have to picture judgment too. But who could miss how out of place that is?... In a word, if anything is clear in these types, it is that the altar-fire must have another meaning.
The priests put fire on the altar — but not any fire they chose. There was one lawful source. What older translations call "strange fire," the ESV calls "unauthorized fire."
We learn this from the fire that was always burning on the bronze altar (Lev. 6:12-13). There was special warning about "strange fire." The one fire was the fire on this bronze altar. It is a picture of the divine holiness and righteousness that consumed the perfect Sacrifice, Christ, on the cross. All else is "strange fire" (Lev. 10:1). This fire on the bronze altar came out from before the Lord and consumed the sacrifice (Lev. 9:24). This shows the blasphemy of Nadab and Abihu who, right after that display, despised the holy fire and took fire of their own kindling to offer incense.
Aaron's sons do this work. Who do they stand for?
Their actions are very prominent. They mark out the burnt offering from the sin offering, where Aaron's sons are not mentioned at all. "The sons of Aaron" represent the church, not as "one body," but as a priestly house... Now the church, led and taught by the Holy Spirit, has the privilege of gazing at this side of Christ and delighting in it. It is the side of Him shown in this first picture in Leviticus.
The priests laid the fire and the wood. Then they watched — and that watching is the point.
This was a high position for the priestly family. The burnt offering was wholly offered to God. It was all burnt on the altar, and no one ate any of it. But the sons of Aaron the priest were priests themselves. Here we see them standing around the altar of God, watching the flame of an acceptable sacrifice rise to Him — a sweet-smelling odour... As convicted sinners we stand at the bronze altar and find peace through the blood of atonement. As priests we stand there to see and admire the completeness of that burnt offering.
The instruction to put fire on the altar was not a one-time act. The later law of the burnt offering settles the matter.
Every morning the priest was to burn wood on the fire of the altar and set the burnt offering in order on it. On it he was also to burn the fat of the peace offerings. And the law ends with the fire burning always on the altar; it was never to be put out. Could any picture point more strongly to an acceptance that is kept up, with an unchanging savour of rest before the Lord?
- Handover — The offerer brings the animal, lays his hand on it, and kills it. From verse 7 the priests take over with fire and wood.
- Fire — It stands for God's holiness consuming the sacrifice. Commentators differ over how far it pictures the judgment due to sin.
- Source — Only the fire that came from the Lord and burned on the bronze altar would do. Any other fire is "strange fire."
- Family — Aaron's sons stand here as a priestly house, free to gaze at Christ and delight in Him.
- Continuance — The fire was never to go out, picturing an acceptance that never lapses.
and Aaron's sons, the priests, shall lay the pieces, the head, and the fat, in order on the wood that is on the fire which is on the altar;
Here the work passes from the offerer to the priests. The animal has already been killed and cut up. The priests now lay the pieces on the burning wood, one by one. Every part lies open to God's eye — and writers read that arrangement as a picture of Christ at the cross.
Two parts are named first. The word for "fat" here is a rare one, and the head is paired with it on purpose.
The first two pieces about which instruction is given are "the head, and the fat" (v. 8). It is striking that this word for "fat" is used only of the burnt offering, and the concordance gives it as "suet." It would speak of the excellence of the offering, and so of the energy of our Lord in doing the will of God. The head would speak of intelligence. Who but He could have known what that will involved? And who but He could have carried it out with such devotion and energy? So the head and the fat are placed together; the Lord Jesus knew what that will was, and knowing it, He did it. "I always do the things that are pleasing to him" (John 8:29).
The pieces are laid out one by one because they were meant to be looked at one by one.
"And cut it into its pieces." This action teaches much the same truth as the "sweet incense beaten small" (Lev. 16). The Holy Spirit delights to dwell on the sweetness and fragrance of the sacrifice of Christ, not only as a whole, but also in all its smallest details. Look at the burnt offering as a whole, and you see it without blemish. Look at it in all its parts, and you see it is the same. Such was Christ; and as such He is foreshadowed in this important type.
The parts do not touch the altar itself. They rest on wood, and that wood carries its own meaning.
The wood suggests the Manhood of our Lord — the human nature He entered so that He could die. We read that when Abraham took Isaac to offer him up, he laid the wood "on Isaac his son" (Gen. 22:6). This was a foreshadowing of the Son of God coming into Manhood so that He could die.
Commentators differ here. Some argue from the Hebrew that the burning of this offering is not a picture of wrath at all.
The fire was the fire from heaven. It is not, as is often taken here, the symbol of Divine wrath consuming the sacrifice, but it has another meaning. It is the figure of God's perfect delight in the devotion of His ever blessed Son. God rested in Christ and found His fullest satisfaction in Him. The Hebrew has different words for burning. The one used here is the same as the one used for the burning of incense. This in itself shows that it has no connection with wrath.
Others call the same fire a searching test. It reaches the hidden parts as well as the visible ones.
All were laid on the altar, and subjected to the fire — the searching judgment of God. The offering was clean in ceremony, because it was washed in water. The Lord Jesus was clean in His very nature. The fire of divine judgment searched Him inside and out. It tested His motives and the springs of His actions, as well as His walk and His ways. The result was that all went up to God as a sweet savour.
The offerer brought the animal and killed it. From here on the priests do the work, and that matters.
This was a high position for the priestly family. The burnt offering was wholly offered to God. It was all burnt on the altar, and no one ate any of it. But the sons of Aaron the priest were priests themselves. They are here seen standing round the altar of God, watching the flame of an acceptable sacrifice go up to Him — an odour of sweet smell. This was a high position — high communion — a high order of priestly service. It is a striking picture of the Church in fellowship with God over the perfect carrying out of His will in the death of Christ. As convicted sinners, we stand at the bronze altar and find peace through the blood of atonement. But as priests, we stand there to admire the completeness of that burnt offering.
- Opened. Each part of the animal lies open on its own. Christ is perfect as a whole and perfect in every detail.
- Named. Head and fat stand for knowing God's will and the energy that did it. Knowledge and action met in one Person.
- Laid. The parts rest on wood: the manhood the Son took so that He could die. Isaac too carried the wood for his own offering.
- Consumed. The fire takes everything. Writers differ over whether it pictures God's delight or His searching judgment. Both agree the result is a sweet savour.
- Shared. Priests arrange the pieces and watch the flame rise. The sinner comes to the altar for peace; the worshipper stays to admire what the offering was to God.
but its inwards and its legs shall he wash in water; and the priest shall burn all on the altar, a burnt-offering, an offering by fire to Jehovah of a sweet odour.
The burnt offering ends here: the priest washes the animal's inner parts and legs, then burns the whole of it on the altar. Why wash a creature that is about to go up in flames, and why does a death by fire rise to God as something pleasing?
The washing was not hygiene. It made the animal, by ritual, what the One it pictured already was. The two parts washed point to two things that matched perfectly in Christ.
The washing made the sacrifice, in type, what Christ was in Himself — pure inside and pure outside. Christ's inward motives and His outward conduct matched perfectly. His conduct showed exactly what was inside Him. It all pointed to one thing: the glory of God.
The gap between picture and reality is the point. The animal had to be cleaned; the One it pointed to did not.
In Leviticus 1:9 we see that the priest washed the inner parts and the legs of the animal with water. This type must match the reality still to come — the offering of Christ to God in perfect purity. He who offered Himself as a sweet-smelling offering was holiness itself, and He had no need of washing. But the type had to be washed, to show the perfection of the offering of Christ.
The verse calls this a food offering, and the priest burns all of it. Other sacrifices fed people; this one fed no one.
It was all pure in type, and all meant only as food for the altar of God. The priest ate part of some sacrifices, and the offerer ate part of others; but the burnt offering was "all" burned on the altar. It was for God alone. The priests might lay out the wood and the fire, and watch the flame rise, and that was a high and holy privilege. But they did not eat of the sacrifice. God alone was the object of Christ, in the burnt offering aspect of His death.
We expect fire to mean judgment. Here the fire tests, and the testing brings out sweetness.
The burnt offering was "a food offering with a pleasing aroma to the LORD" (Lev. 1:9). The more the fire searched it, the more its sweetness came out before God. So it was with Christ. The fire of God's holiness came down and tested and searched everything inside Him, and it only brought out a "pleasing aroma" to God. This too is our acceptance; it is in this value that we ascend up to God.
Before the fire, the animal is opened up and laid out. Nothing about it stays hidden.
The skin is taken off the burnt offering, and it is cut into its parts. All of it lies open to the light of heaven, and then to the flame of the altar. The word for burning here is not the word for ordinary burning. It means smoking like incense: all of it goes up, not as the smoke of judgment, but as pure sweet fragrance.
The words "a pleasing aroma" are not decoration. Set beside the sin offering, it describes something the sin offering does not give.
The sin offering cleared away the guilt of the one who brought the sacrifice. His sins counted as transferred to the animal, so they were gone. But the man himself stayed as he was before — neither better nor worse — except that the sins he had committed were now gone. When he brought a burnt offering for his acceptance, he stood before God in all its positive value. That value is what these words carry: "a food offering with a pleasing aroma to the LORD." The order was always the same: first the sin offering, by which guilt was taken away; then the burnt offering, by which the offerer was given, before God, all the acceptance of Christ.
The rich man brought a bullock; the poor man could bring only a bird. That difference did not change what God heard.
The poor man's bird spoke to God of the death of His Son as sweetly as the rich man's bullock did. At God's altar the offerer was accepted, not according to his understanding of the death of Christ, but according to God's estimate of it. It would be a poor thing indeed if we were accepted according to our understanding of that death.
- Washed — The washing of inner parts and legs made the animal by ritual what Christ was by nature. His motives and His conduct matched, with no gap between the two.
- Whole — Every other offering fed someone; this one fed no one. All of it burned, because in this aspect of the cross God alone was Christ's object.
- Fire — The flame here is not wrath burning up but incense rising. The more God's holiness searched Him, the more fragrance came out.
- Aroma — The sin offering removes guilt and leaves the man as he was. The burnt offering gives him the offering's own worth before God.
- Same — Bullock, sheep or bird, the closing phrase never changes. Acceptance rests on God's estimate of the sacrifice, not on the size of the worshipper's grasp of it.
And if his offering be of the flock, of the sheep or of the goats, for a burnt-offering, he shall present it a male without blemish.
The burnt offering law starts over here with a different animal. Instead of a bull from the herd, the worshipper brings a sheep or a goat from the flock. That change raises two questions. Why does God allow more than one animal for the same offering? And does the smaller animal mean a smaller acceptance?
Chapter 1 gives the same offering three times, each with a different animal. Verse 10 sits in the middle of that scale.
The three classes of burnt offerings come in a descending scale. The rich man might bring his bullock, the man of medium means his sheep, the poor man his young pigeon. Yet each of the three was a burnt offering, and in each case God accepted the offerer. These variations picture no greater or lesser acceptance, but a greater or lesser grasp on the part of the offerer.
The flock allows two animals, and commentators read that choice as deliberate. Each animal carries its own picture of the death of Christ.
A burnt offering could be a sheep or a goat. The bull was larger and stronger. It reminds us that some recognise the great value of the sacrifice of Christ more fully than others do. It speaks of the strength of the offering. The sheep denotes the submission of Christ, and the goat His substitution.
The goat gets far less attention than the sheep. One writer counts that a loss, and sets out what each animal shows.
No doubt we know the sheep side of our Lord's work well, especially the Lamb of God. But we hear only a few mentions of the goat. Yet in Exodus, chapter 12, we read that the Passover could have been either a sheep or a goat (v. 5). This side of our Lord's work seems to have mostly slipped from our teaching, yet the Scriptures point to it time after time. The sheep would picture the willingness of the Lord Jesus to die. The goat would speak of the Lord as having the ability to die in this way.
The animal could change, but the conditions did not. Each one carried its own meaning.
The offering was to be a male, suggesting headship, responsibility and strength. It was to be in its first year, full of vigour, with no sign of decay or hardness. It was to be "without blemish," because anything that pictures the Son of God must stress His absolute and inherent holiness.
Commentators differ on why someone would bring the smaller animal. Some read it as a matter of means.
The highest grade was the ox. The grades that followed were the sheep and the goat. This was for when the offerer was poor and could not bring the costlier ox. It also represents the faith of the offerer. Yet a lower faith and estimate of Christ, one that falls short of the highest view, does not change whether God accepts the offerer.
Others answer that the text says nothing here about cost.
Bringing a sheep or a goat does not seem to point to poverty; we get no suggestion of that here. It speaks instead of the different ways believers grasp the many glories of the One whose every action pleased the Father, even on the cross. Would it not be well for us if we had a fuller grasp of all that came to light in Him for the glory of God?
Both readings land in the same place. Whatever the grade, one death stood behind the offering.
Each of these burnt offerings spoke of that surrender to death of the Lord Jesus Christ, which is so precious to God (John 10:17). In a matter like this the wealthy Israelite had no advantage before God over a poorer neighbour. The poor man's bird spoke to God of the death of His Son as sweetly as the rich man's bullock did. At the altar God accepted the offerer, not according to the offerer's grasp of the death of Christ, but according to His own estimate of it. It would be a poor thing indeed if God accepted us according to our own grasp of that death.
That leaves the varying grades doing their real work — not on our standing, but on our faith.
But faith, however real, is not equally simple or strong in those who believe. And our estimate of Christ is as our faith. It varies in the saints, as their faith does. Happy are those who rest on God's estimate of Him and His work.
- Same offering. Verse 10 is not a lesser offering but the same burnt offering, brought from the flock instead of the herd.
- Same requirements. Male, and without blemish: strength and responsibility on one side, holiness on the other.
- Different picture. The sheep speaks of His willingness to die, the goat of His ability and substitution — and the goat is the side we most often overlook.
- Different grasp. Does the smaller animal mean poverty, or a smaller grasp of Christ's death? Commentators differ. All agree the difference lies in the offerer, not in the offering.
- Same acceptance. God receives the worshipper on His own estimate of the sacrifice, not on how much of it the worshipper understands.
And he shall slaughter it on the side of the altar northward before Jehovah; and Aaron's sons, the priests, shall sprinkle its blood on the altar round about.
This verse gives the rules for a burnt offering from the flock: where the worshipper kills the animal, and what the priests do with its blood. Why would God name one side of the altar?
The chapter offers a bull, then a sheep or goat, then a bird. One writer reads this falling scale as a measure of the worshipper, not of God's welcome.
The rich man might bring his bullock, the man of medium means his sheep, the poor man his young pigeon. Yet each of the three was a burnt offering, and in each case the offerer was accepted before God. What we see pictured in these variations is not a greater or lesser acceptance but a greater or lesser understanding on the part of the offerer. To put it another way: every believer stands accepted before God in the perfection and fragrance of the sacrifice of Christ. That sacrifice never varies. It is the same for all. What does vary is the measure in which we appreciate the value of His work.
The verse allows either animal, and each says something different about Christ.
The sheep is the type of Christ in His devoted self-surrender, unresisting and silent (Isaiah 53:7). The goat offering clearly pictures the substitutionary character of the work of the Lamb of God on the cross. The goat is more linked with the sin offering side of the death of Christ. Here too we read that the lamb and goat offering is to be brought on the north side of the altar before the LORD (verse 11). As a type it stands for distance: it does not show the same nearness as the offering of the first grade.
Another writer adds what the goat says beyond willingness: the Lord was able to die for others, where Israel's greatest men were not.
The sheep pictures the willingness of the Lord Jesus to die. We see this in that touching account in Isaiah 53:7... The goat would speak of the Lord as having the ability to die in this way. When Moses pleaded with God for the people, he asked God to blot him out of His book as a substitute for Israel (Exodus 32:32). Again in the New Testament, Paul had similar thoughts. He writes, "I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers" (Romans 9:3). These men were willing to give their lives for the salvation of the nation, but were completely unable to do so. The Lord Jesus was not only willing to die in order to accomplish the will of God; He was also able to accomplish all that was involved in that death, and has glorified God in it all.
Commentators differ on the north. Gaebelein reads it as distance. Another writer takes the word itself as the clue.
Every detail should have a voice for us. The offering from the flock had to be killed on the north side of the altar, "before the LORD." The north means "the hidden." It is the part of the sky where the sun is not directly visible, unlike the south, which always lies under the full rays of the sun. It suggests the withdrawal of the light which we find at the cross. Here it is not marked by total darkness. But it shows the judgment side of our Lord's death, which could not be missing even in the burnt offering.
Davison ties the same direction to what the Lord went through:
The north speaks of the place of testing, the place of suffering. See the skill with which the Spirit has linked this northward detail to both the sheep and the goat. Who can tell what suffering the Lord endured in those hours of darkness? There He glorified the Father as He drank the cup the Father had given Him. In the bullock we learn something of the greatness of what our Lord accomplished. In the sheep and in the goat we learn something of the suffering He endured in doing it.
The priests treat this blood just as they treated the bull's. Nothing is scaled down.
In the burnt offering, the blood was sprinkled on the altar round about (Lev. 1:5, 11), God showing us that from whatever view we might consider approach to Him, the blood of sprinkling was necessary. God will not have us before Him in communion or as worshippers unless it is on the ground of atonement.
The verse divides the work: the worshipper kills, the priests handle the blood.
The offerer had to provide the offering, bring it, and prepare its body for the sacrifice. The priest's part was to deal with the blood and to burn the body on the altar. So with a four-footed animal the priest had no part at all until the moment came to sprinkle the blood on the altar all around.
- Grade. The flock is a step below the bull. What changes is the worshipper's grasp of Christ, never God's acceptance of him.
- Sheep and goat. The sheep is Christ willing to die, silent in Isaiah 53. The goat is Christ able to die for others, where Moses and Paul were willing but powerless.
- North. "The hidden" side, away from the sun. Even in this offering the light withdraws, and the judgment side of the cross shows.
- Blood. Treated just as the bull's was, on every side of the altar. However we come near God, it is only on the ground of atonement.
- Order. The worshipper kills the animal; only then do the priests act at the altar.
And he shall cut it into its pieces, and its head, and its fat; and the priest shall lay them in order on the wood that is on the fire which is on the altar;
Leviticus 1 gives three grades of burnt offering, and verse 12 belongs to the middle one: a sheep or goat handled just as the bull was. Why cut the animal up at all, why name the head and the fat, and does a smaller animal mean a smaller acceptance?
The animal does not go on the altar whole. The worshipper cuts it into pieces first, so you can look at it part by part as well as whole.
"And he shall cut it into pieces." This action presents a somewhat similar truth to "sweet incense beaten small" (Lev. 16). The Holy Spirit delights to dwell on the sweetness and fragrance of the sacrifice of Christ. He dwells on it as a whole, and also in all its smallest details. Look at the burnt offering as a whole, and you see it without blemish. Look at it in all its parts, and you see it is the same.
The pieces are not heaped up. The priest lays them out in order, and each keeps its own identity.
The pieces were then laid in order upon the altar. There was to be no confusion here. The head, the fat, the inwards, the legs, were all distinguished from one another. The sacrifice was divided into its parts. No mutilation was to take place — "a bone of Him shall not be broken" — but everything was distinguished. Its head stands for the thoughts, which were only those of obedience; the legs, the walk; the inwards, the affections, desires and secret motives. God discerned and recognised them all. In every department of our Lord's life He found only what perfectly glorified His every attribute.
The verse names two pieces in particular. The Hebrew word for fat here belongs to this offering alone, and its pairing with the head carries a lesson.
The word for fat here is only used in connection with the burnt offering, and means "the suet" as we would call it today. It speaks of the very excellence of that offering, the energy, while the head speaks of intelligence. The two are coupled together. Nobody knew the will of God and what was due to the will of God more than our Lord Jesus Christ (this is the head). And nobody carried out that will with the energy He did (this is the fat). We may know the will of God, but carrying it out is another matter.
The fat was never the worshipper's to eat.
The fat of the offering was God's own part; no one could touch it and go unpunished... He alone could feed on the inward excellency and matchless perfections of Jesus. It is like the unmeasured ointment in Exodus 30. There we see that the infinite mind of God alone could appreciate the infinite value of Christ.
The pieces rest on wood, and the wood rests on fire. Commentators read both as pictures, and the Hebrew word for burning here matters too.
The wood tells of His humanity which He took on for the suffering of death. The fire was the fire from heaven. It is not, as is often assumed here, the symbol of divine wrath consuming the sacrifice, but it has another meaning. It is the figure of God's perfect delight in the devotion of His ever blessed Son. God rested in Christ and found His fullest satisfaction in Him. The Hebrew has different words for burning. The one used here is the same as the word used for the burning of incense. This in itself shows it has no connection with wrath.
Commentators differ over the fire. Others call the same flame a searching judgment, though they reach the same result:
All were laid upon the altar, and subjected to the fire — the searching judgment of God... The fire of divine judgment searched Him inside and out — the motives and springs as well as the walk and ways. In the end all went up to God as a sweet savour.
A sheep is less than a bull. Commentators take that drop in scale to describe the worshipper, not the value of what God receives.
The different forms of the offering may represent the differing degrees of faith in those who brought them. If so, the Lord accepted the smallest measure of the burnt offering as truly as the greatest. His eye beheld the same perfect sacrifice in all. The acceptance of the offerer did not vary, because the offering that typified Christ did not vary.
- Divided. The animal is cut apart, so the offering proves perfect in its parts as well as in the whole.
- Distinguished. Nothing is jumbled and no bone is broken. Head, fat, inwards and legs each keep their place — separate areas of one life God found faultless.
- Devoted. Head and fat go up together: He knew the will of God, and He carried it out with full energy.
- Delighted in. The fat is God's own portion, because only the infinite mind of God can measure the infinite worth of Christ.
- Accepted. A sheep instead of a bull may mark a smaller faith. God still sees the same perfect sacrifice — your acceptance rests on the offering, not on the size of your faith.
but the inwards and the legs shall he wash with water; and the priest shall present [it] all, and burn [it] on the altar it is a burnt-offering, an offering by fire to Jehovah of a sweet odour.
The words that close the sheep's burnt offering repeat what God said of the far costlier bull. Wash the parts, put all of it on the altar, and the whole animal rises to God as a pleasing aroma. So why wash an animal that is about to be burned? Why burn all of it instead of sharing it? And why does a smaller gift earn the same words as a greater one?
The two parts singled out for washing are not chosen at random. One is hidden, the other is what everyone sees, and the order between them matters.
"But the entrails and the legs he shall wash with water." The entrails speak of inward desire, and the legs of outward movement. The Lord had the desire to move here for God, and having that desire, He did move for God. So the entrails underlie the legs. Just as the head and the fat go together, so the entrails and the legs go together. Having the desire to please God, He pleased God in every movement He made in this world.
Why wash the victim at all? One writer reads the water as testing rather than cleansing:
The washing of the entrails and legs with water suggests the perfect testing of everything by the word of God that our Lord went through. At His death, all had to be done "that the Scriptures might be fulfilled." Nothing suggests that these parts needed cleansing, and certainly nothing in Christ Himself needed it, for all in Him was pure. But our Lord always submitted Himself to the fullest tests of God's holy word, and so proved that "in Him there is no sin."
One word in the verse marks this sacrifice off from the rest: all. Nobody eats from it.
This action made the sacrifice, in picture, what Christ was in His very being — pure, inside and out. Everything in Him pointed to one thing: the glory of God... So the priest could rightly "offer all of it and burn it on the altar." In the picture it was all pure, and all meant only as food for God's altar. The priest ate from some sacrifices and the offerer from others, but the burnt offering was all consumed on the altar. It was for God alone.
Burning suggests judgment. The word chosen here points elsewhere.
The burnt offering is skinned and cut into its parts. All of it lies open to the light of heaven, and then goes to the altar flame. Even the word for burning is not the word for ordinary burning, but for rising like incense: all goes up, not as the smoke of judgment, but as pure sweet fragrance.
That has a direct result for anyone who trusts this sacrifice. The searching holiness of God now produces one outcome only.
Christ has now offered Himself. So the judgment of the holy majesty of God — the fire of the Lord — has only one effect for us. It causes the sweet smell of this precious sacrifice to rise up to God.
The name of the sacrifice and the purpose behind it point the same way.
The very name of it speaks of rising: it is literally the "offering that ascends" — it goes up to God... of all the offerings consumed on the altar this is the only one that is entirely burnt, the "whole burnt-offering."... Yet, on the other hand, it was the offering "for acceptance"... Our acceptance is not measured simply by the fact that sin is put away. It is measured by everything that perfect "obedience unto death" is worth to God — the obedience that put sin away.
The same closing sentence ends the offering of the bull, the sheep and the bird.
Whether of the herd, of the flock, or of birds, each was an offering made by fire, with a pleasing aroma to the LORD. Each of these burnt offerings spoke of the Lord Jesus Christ giving Himself up to death, which is so precious to God. Here the rich Israelite had no advantage before God over a poorer neighbour... at God's altar God accepted the offerer, not according to the offerer's understanding of the death of Christ, but according to His own estimate of it.
- Washed — the entrails stand for inward desire, the legs for outward movement. What He wanted to do for God, He did at every step.
- Whole — priest and offerer ate from other sacrifices; from this one, nothing. It was for God alone.
- Fragrance — the word is not for ordinary burning but for rising like incense. The altar sends up sweetness, not the smoke of judgment.
- Ascends — the name means "that which goes up." It was brought so the offerer would be accepted, on the worth of Christ's obedience to God.
- Equal — the same closing words cover bull, sheep and bird. Acceptance rests on God's estimate of the sacrifice, not on how much the worshipper grasps.
And if his offering to Jehovah be a burnt-offering of fowls, then he shall present his offering of turtle-doves, or of young pigeons.
The burnt offering starts with a bull from the herd, then allows a sheep or goat from the flock. Here it comes down to two small birds. Why does God allow a cheaper gift? What do the birds picture, and is the poor man's acceptance any smaller?
One writer sets the rich man's gift beside the poor man's.
If anyone in Israel felt moved in his heart to bring a burnt offering to God, it might be from the herd, from the flock, or of birds. No other offering gave such a choice. The wealthiest and the poorest could meet on common ground at the altar of burnt offering. The rich man could bring his bull, and that took more than one priest to sprinkle the blood and lay the parts of the animal on the altar. The poor man needed only one priest for his bird. Yet he could go home from the altar with his God's assurance that his turtledove or young pigeon was, just like the bull, "a food offering with a pleasing aroma to the LORD" (Lev. 1:17). How gracious this was! The Lord accepted the offering, not by the price a man would have set on it. He accepted it by His own estimate of what each one pictured: the self-surrender to death of His well-beloved Son, the Lord Jesus Christ.
Compare this with the peace offering.
God allowed birds for a burnt offering, as a perfection of grace, if a man was poor. The peace offering was different. If he could not bring an animal, he might stay at home and take it quietly. No matter how poor my thoughts are, I cannot do without a burnt offering.
Why these two birds, and what does the bird from heaven show?
The dove, or pigeon — and the two were almost one — was in fact the only bird explicitly named for sacrifice. As the "bird of heaven" it has, without doubt, its first meaning. Heaven itself provides the offering by which heaven is to be appeased and opened over man. "The second man is from heaven" (1 Cor. 15:47). A man who has sinned, as all mere men have, cannot for that very reason provide the unblemished offering that alone will do. So God Himself provides it. In this way He shows Himself in unspeakable goodness, to win man's heart… The bird of heaven shows us God become man for our restoration — not a temporary stooping down, but eternal love made known for ever, to be enjoyed for ever.
The killing and the refuse each carry meaning.
These birds speak of Christ as do the ox and the lamb. The dove is the bird of peace, love and sorrow. The dove pictures Him as holy and undefiled, filled with tenderness and love. The bird was put to death by "wringing off its head," a picture of the violence done to Him who was so tender and loving. The crop and the feathers (the correct meaning is "filth") were cast away. As these were unclean they had to be thrown out, so that the picture would match Him who is undefiled and holy.
The gift measured the man's means, not God's welcome.
An offerer might be poor. The bull, or even the sheep or goat, might be beyond his means. So God let him bring turtledoves or young pigeons instead. Grace would meet and appreciate the feeblest grasp of the death of Christ. This did not reduce by one bit the acceptance in which the offerer stood. That acceptance depended not on his grasp of it, but on the value God sets on that wonderful sacrifice.
The ritual for the bird is also shorter. One writer finds meaning in that.
As we go down the list, the offering comes a little closer to what would suit a sin offering… The whole animal does not go up to God in the same marked way as in the first case. That is, the lower the faith — and I take that to be what the sinking value of the offering means — the closer the offering comes to the idea of one for our sins. We see what is unworthy and cast away, as well as what goes up to God.
Commentators differ here. Does the lowest grade of offering mean a low view of Christ?
The lowest grade here is that of the birds — surely not the lowest thought of Christ's person, rather the opposite. The reason is easy to understand. Does not the very glory of His Godhead keep many from realising the perfection of His manhood?… Thank God that this is still an offering of pleasing aroma to Him! What He finds in Christ is not measured by what we find. Nor is our acceptance measured by how much we grasp of it… Still we lose by their poverty.
- Choice. Only the burnt offering let a worshipper bring herd, flock, or birds. Rich and poor met at one altar.
- Necessity. A poor man could skip a peace offering and stay home; he could never do without a burnt offering.
- Heaven. The dove and pigeon point to the second man from heaven — the offering God Himself provides.
- Estimate. God accepted the bird on the same terms as the bull. He goes by the value of Christ, not by our grasp of Him.
- Loss. The shorter ritual marks a real poverty. Our thoughts of Christ shrink; God's do not.
And the priest shall bring it near to the altar and pinch off its head and burn it on the altar; and its blood shall be pressed out at the side of the altar.
A worshipper who could not afford a bullock could bring a bird instead. With the bird the priest does the killing, and the blood has to be squeezed out rather than poured — small differences that each carry meaning.
A bird cost almost nothing next to a bullock. Did the poorer worshipper's offering count for less?
A bullock was an animal of some value; a dove was a living creature worth very little in money. Some could afford a bird who could not afford a bullock. The Lord would receive it at their hands... In a matter of this kind the wealthy Israelite had no advantage before God over one of his poorer brothers. The poor man's bird spoke to God of the death of His Son as sweetly as the rich man's bullock did. At God's altar the offerer was accepted, not according to his grasp of the death of Christ, but according to God's estimate of it.
With the herd and the flock the worshipper killed the animal himself. One writer finds a plain reason why the bird is different:
The offerer had to provide the offering, bring it, and prepare its body for the sacrifice. The priest's part was to deal with the blood and burn the carcass on the altar... The priest's place was at the altar. He ministered there, but until death had taken place he usually had nothing to do. The death of the sacrifice had to be a fact, and owned as a fact, before the priest's work could begin. The exception in the case of the bird probably arose from the physical difference between it and the beast. From the beast the blood poured out readily; from the bird it had to be squeezed out... So the Lord offered Himself, and only after His death entered on His priesthood, as Hebrews 8:4 states.
Commentators differ on whether the cross itself was priestly work. One writer answers from this verse:
It is not even strictly true that the priest never killed the victim except when it was for himself. He did kill the burnt offering of birds (Lev. 1:15). And on the day of atonement he also killed the sin offering for the people — the very day the letter to the Hebrews especially points to.
One writer reads meaning in the kind of bird, and then in the way it dies:
The dove is the bird of peace, love and sorrow. The dove pictures Him as holy and undefiled, filled with tenderness and love. The bird was put to death by "wringing off its head" — the picture of the violence done to Him who was so tender and loving.
A bird holds little blood, and the priest had to force it out:
Its blood was pressed out against the side of the altar. How wonderful to think of Him! Every drop of His blood ran through His veins for His Father's glory, and at the cross all of it was wrung from Him. Yet He was still infinitely acceptable — never more so — to the One who had laid this great work on Him to do.
Commentators differ on whether the side of the altar carries its own meaning. One offers a suggestion and marks it as a suggestion:
Perhaps the side of the altar speaks of the death of our Lord — not exactly as meeting the claims of God, or as bearing our sins. Rather it speaks of Him put to death by wicked hands and so cast out of this world. Not everyone may agree with this application. Yet it remains true that two things met at the cross: the Lord's submission to the will of God, and His suffering and rejection at the hands of men.
Does the lowest grade of offering mean a lower thought of Christ?
The lowest grade here is that of the birds — surely not the lowest thought of Christ's person, rather the opposite... The bird is not divided as much as the bullock or the sheep, and its inward perfection is not seen in the same way. There is little blood, too, for the altar... Thank God that this is still a sweet-savour offering to Him! What He finds in Christ is not measured by what we find...
- Provision. Anyone could bring a bird, so no Israelite was too poor for the altar.
- Priest. With the bird, the priest kills as well as burns — one of the few places where the offerer's hand is not the one that slays.
- Pressed. The blood had to be squeezed out — a picture of a death that gave everything, down to the last drop.
- Price. God set the value, not the market: He received the bird for what it pointed to, the death of His Son.
- Proof. The bird is a sweet savour to God, just as the bullock is. Acceptance rests on Christ's worth, not on how much of it we have grasped.
And he shall remove its crop with its feathers, and cast it beside the altar on the east, into the place of the ashes;
The bird was the smallest burnt offering, and it has one feature the larger ones lack. Part of it never burns. The worshipper pulls it out and throws it down beside the altar. Why is anything discarded from the poorest offering, and why on the east side, where the ashes lie?
Older translations read "his crop with his feathers." Commentators say that misses the Hebrew:
The crop was removed with its filth (not its feathers, as in the older version; the word in question refers to the crop, not to the bird). Both were cast on the east side of the altar, by the place of the ashes, facing the door of the court of the tabernacle. The ash heap was put in a handy spot, so it could be taken away easily whenever it needed removing.
The crop is the pouch where a bird's food collects. One writer links these birds to the poorest worshippers, and explains why their unclean part was never burned:
Turtle-doves and pigeons are the lowest grade of burnt offerings. These were for the poorest of the people, and they picture the weakest faith in Christ and the lowest estimate of His work... The crop and the feathers (correct meaning, "filth") were cast away. As these were unclean they had to be thrown away, so that the picture would match Him who is undefiled and holy.
With a bull or a sheep, everything went up on the altar. Only here is anything held back, and commentators find that striking:
The offering of turtle-doves or of young pigeons brought the effective death of His Son before the eyes of the Lord as truly as the bull or the sheep did. If so, it is all the more remarkable that a part was thrown away — a part not of the larger burnt offering, but of the smallest.
Writers read the discarded part as a picture of what the worshipper himself brings to the altar:
The crop and feathers of the birds were cast away. This shows that the worshipper may mix unworthy and unacceptable thoughts of Christ's death in with what is worthy and acceptable... It shows that unworthy thoughts of Christ must perish.
Kelly asks what weak faith actually costs a believer:
How does weakness of faith work, then? It fails to give adequate glory to God. It takes away from the soul's full enjoyment of Christ and His work. Part of the birds was "cast away," and "into the place of the ashes." Weak faith does not undo the perfecting of the saints before God. The acceptance which Christ's work confers on the believer stays untouched. God sees all who are His according to Christ, His standard. But the weaker the faith, the more the believer mixes a sense of drawback over his own failures into the blessedness the Holy Spirit testifies to.
One writer applies this sorting to the praise believers bring now:
What an unspeakable mercy that we have such a Priest! He knows how to separate the precious from the vile. So He only lets that come up before God which is acceptable to Him... Christ as our High Priest acts in regard to our sacrifices of praise... He knows how to apply the priestly knife, and to cast aside everything that God cannot receive.
The refuse lands where the ashes lie, and the ashes carry their own message:
Here, also, the word for "ashes" is a special one. It is different from the ordinary word, which suggests barrenness. In connection with the sacrifice the word is really "fat ashes" — suggesting the richness of what they speak of. Looking at the ashes, one could say, "The fire has fully done its work." So in looking at the death of our blessed Lord we can say, All is finished, divine justice can ask no more. Fittingly, then, this witness of a perfect work is placed on the east side of the altar, toward the sunrise. It suggests that nothing remains now after the cross but our Lord's resurrection. That resurrection is also the dawning of a new eternal day for all who take hold of the infinite value of His finished work.
- Crop, not feathers — the word means the bird's crop and its contents, the unclean part. It came out before anything went on the fire.
- Clean picture — the defiled part could not picture Christ. It had to go, so the offering would match One who is undefiled and holy.
- Only the smallest — the bull and the sheep went up whole; only in the poorest offering is a portion thrown away.
- Weak faith — writers read the discarded part as the unworthy thoughts a worshipper mixes in with true ones. Those thoughts must perish. His acceptance in Christ stays untouched.
- East, toward sunrise — the refuse lands at the ash heap. Those ashes prove the fire has done its work, on the side where the new day dawns.
and he shall split it open at its wings, [but] shall not divide [it] asunder; and the priest shall burn it on the altar on the wood that is on the fire it is a burnt-offering, an offering by fire to Jehovah of a sweet odour.
Leviticus 1 ends with the smallest offering of all: a bird, brought by someone too poor for a bull or a sheep. Its ritual looks odd, yet God's verdict over it matches His verdict over the rich man's bullock.
Leviticus 1 works down a scale of offerings. The lowest step is there so that no one is left out.
Jehovah would give the poorest of His people a way to bring Him a shadow of what was most precious: Christ's offering of Himself to God. For among the ordinary sacrifices the burnt offering had an unequalled place. Man shared in all the others, more or less... But no man ever ate of the burnt offering, not even the high priest. It was offered to God — truly on behalf of His people, for their acceptance — but to God alone.
A poor Israelite could skip other offerings. He could not skip this one.
God allowed birds for a burnt offering, as a perfection of grace, if a man was poor. With a peace offering it was different. If he could not bring an animal, he might stay at home and take it calmly. No matter how poor my thoughts are, I cannot do without a burnt offering.
The bird is torn open at the wings, but it stays in one piece. Why does the smallest offering rank lowest?
The lowest grade here is that of the birds — surely not the lowest thought of Christ's Person, but rather the opposite. Does not the very glory of His Godhead keep many from realizing the perfection of His manhood? The bird is not divided to the same extent as the bullock or the sheep: the internal perfection is not in the same way seen. There is little blood, too, for the altar; and there is no skin for the priest. Is that not the necessary result when a soul only faintly grasps the Lord's manhood? Thank God that this is still a sweet-savour offering to Him! What He finds in Christ is not measured by what we find, nor our acceptance by our grasp of it.
The wording of the verse is exact: split open, but not severed in two.
The birds were to be split open, but not divided in two. This suggests that the offerer had some small grasp of Christ's death. But he could not enter into the precious details of that wonderful sacrifice.
One part of the bird is thrown away. That loss pictures something about the worshipper.
Part of the fowls was "cast away," and "into the place of the ashes." Weak faith does not undo the perfecting of the saints before God. The acceptance which Christ's work confers on the believer stays untouched. God sees all who are His according to Christ, His standard. But the weaker the faith, the more the believer mixes his sense of shortcoming from his own failures into the blessedness that the Holy Spirit testifies to. So the distinct meaning of the burnt offering grows blurred. In his soul's grasp it drifts toward an offering for sin.
The ritual needs three parties, and each has its own part.
The priest had to handle all that went on at the altar. But his work began only after the victim died. The type was accurate in this respect, yet it fell short, as every type must, of the full picture of what it stood for. Here we read of the offerer, of the offering, and of the priest, all three distinct. The offerer, on whose behalf the sacrifice was brought, killed the animal himself. But the reality behind the type, the true sacrifice, offered up Himself. In reality the offerer, the offering, and the priest are one and the same Person seen in three different characters. Everything that had to be done about sacrifice He has done, and done once for all. He leaves man the only part man can take: identifying himself with the sacrifice, so as to share in the rich results that flow from it, owning it as the offering brought on his behalf, and standing accepted before God according to its value.
The verse closes with the same verdict God gave over the rich man's bullock.
The poor man's bird spoke to God of the death of His Son as sweetly as the rich man's bullock did. At God's altar the offerer was accepted, not according to his grasp of the death of Christ, but according to God's estimate of it.
- Provision — The bird is the lowest step of the burnt offering, so the poorest Israelite could still bring one. Other offerings he could miss. This one he could not.
- Poverty — The smaller offering pictures a smaller grasp of Christ, not a smaller Christ. What God finds in Him is not measured by what we find.
- Loss — Only here is part thrown on the ash heap. Weak faith mixes the sense of failure into worship and blurs what the burnt offering was meant to show.
- Person — The ritual keeps offerer, offering and priest apart. In Christ they are one Person in three characters.
- Verdict — God's closing words over the bird match His words over the bullock. Acceptance rests on His estimate of the sacrifice, never on ours.