Speak unto Aaron, and to his sons, and unto all the children of Israel, and say unto them, Whatever man of the house of Israel, or of the sojourners in Israel, that presenteth his offering for any of his vows, and for any of his voluntary offerings, which they present to Jehovah as a burnt-offering,
In Leviticus 22:18 the Lord speaks to Aaron, his sons, and every Israelite about a gift nobody had to bring — a vow or a freewill offering, brought as a burnt offering. It raises two questions: does God lower His standard for a gift He never demanded, and who may bring one?
The verse names two kinds of people: those born in Israel and foreigners living among them. God welcomes both at the altar, and both may bring either kind of voluntary gift.
The Lord would also receive a freewill offering, or a sacrifice for a vow, from a foreigner living in Israel. It made no difference whether the person brought it as a burnt offering or as a peace offering.
That open door came with no lowered bar. God received the outsider on the same terms as the Israelite.
The animal had to be a male without blemish, because it stood for the Holy One of God. And a foreigner was allowed no more freedom here than an Israelite.
A person might reason like this. God's commanded gifts must be flawless. A freely chosen gift can be whatever the giver can spare. The chapter shuts that reasoning down.
The Lord now tells Moses to speak to Aaron, his sons, and all the people of Israel. Even a freewill burnt offering must have no blemish. Some might think the required offerings for sin and trespass must be without defect, but that a voluntary gift need not be. Yet the burnt offering was brought above all for God's glory, and God allowed no defect in it (vv. 18-20).
Bringing a damaged animal was not a small oversight in procedure. It was a statement about the One receiving it.
Only what was perfect could suit the altar and answer to the heart of God. To offer Him a blemished thing proved that a person had no sense of what was fitting for Him, and no real heart for Him. To try to offer an imperfect sacrifice was the same as the dreadful blasphemy of saying that anything was good enough for Him.
Kelly puts it more sharply. He asks what such an offering said about the God of Israel:
It was a shocking sin, and in effect it denied that He is the living God. Was the God of Israel no better than the selfish people who claimed to worship Him?
The worshipper's standing hangs on the state of what he brings. God accepts the animal, and with it the man.
First of all, it had to be perfect. One spot, one blemish on that bull, and God could not accept it. And if God did not accept the bull, He did not accept the man who brought it. The whole point of the offering was the man's acceptance. What does that point to? To the holy, spotless Person of the blessed Lord Jesus... passing through this world as the holy, sinless One and offering Himself without spot to God.
The two words in this verse do not carry the same weight. Later in the chapter God accepts a slightly misshapen animal as a freewill offering, but not for a vow.
Once we remember who this sacrifice pictured, these rules of the law make sense. And once we remember that the law was given to an earthly people, we can see the grace behind the easing of a strict rule for anyone moved to come near with a freewill offering.
Snell draws a different lesson from the range of animals God allowed.
God allowed a male bull, or a female one, which was weaker, or a lamb, which was worth less. These teach us that the measure of our fellowship with God depends on how highly we value the perfection and worth of Him who loved us and gave Himself for us. Those who see less of the personal qualities and worth of the sacrifice still know that fellowship, only in a smaller degree. This is comforting.
God gave this rule to people living under the law of Moses. Kelly presses the point harder on Christians.
But remember how much worse it is in a Christian, who claims to walk in the light as God is in the light... We ought not to be less careful in our relationship with God than a Jew was in his. The least either could do was to be honest before God and other people. If we are not, the less we say about grace the better. Nothing condemns careless living like the true grace of God.
- Invitation. God speaks to Israelites and to foreigners living among them. He will receive a vow or a freewill gift from either.
- Standard. The welcome never softens the demand. God gives the foreigner no more freedom than the Israelite.
- Freedom. God measures a freely chosen gift by His own glory. Even a burnt offering He never commanded must have no defect.
- Insult. A blemished victim says that anything is good enough for God, which denies who He is.
- Acceptance. The spotless animal won the worshipper's acceptance. It points to Christ, who offered Himself without spot to God.
it shall be for your acceptance, without blemish, a male of the oxen, of the sheep, and of the goats.
God set the terms even for gifts no one had to bring — offerings to keep a vow, or gifts a worshipper simply wanted to give. Even here He allowed nothing defective. The reason goes deeper than ritual: the animal's acceptance and the giver's acceptance were one and the same thing.
The weight of the verse falls on two words: for you. One writer ties the worshipper's standing to the condition of the animal he brings.
It must be perfect to be accepted, to begin with. If there had been a single spot, a single blemish, on that bull, God could not have accepted it. And if God had not accepted the bull, He would not have accepted the offerer, because the animal was offered so that the offerer might be accepted.
A worshipper might think a gift nobody demanded could meet a lower standard. The text closes that door before it opens.
Even free will burnt offerings must be free from blemishes. Some might think that the required offerings for sin and trespass must be without defect, while a voluntary gift need not be. But the burnt offering was for God's glory above all, and God allowed no defect.
The verse names three animals. One writer finds a different picture of Christ in each, and in the largest of them a fuller grasp of what the sacrifice is worth.
The bull (larger and stronger) would remind us that some have a more full recognition of the great value of the sacrifice of Christ than others have. It speaks of the strength of the offering. The sheep denotes the submission of Christ, and the goat His substitution.
The verse asks for a male animal with no defect. One writer shows how far that demand reached.
Yet neither in the wilderness nor in the promised land was anything abnormal allowed for acceptance. An unblemished male was required, as representing the Holy One of God. And a stranger had no more licence than an Israelite.
One writer points from the flawless animal to Jesus Himself.
The Lord Jesus came into this world as the "Seed of the woman" and His manhood was absolutely perfect. There was no blemish in Him caused by sin. If there had been, then His offering would not have been accepted by God.
Slipping a defective animal onto the altar was cheap and easy. Both the worshipper and the priest had reason to look the other way. One writer treats it as a statement about God Himself.
We can easily understand how quick the people were to forget His honour and His all-seeing eye. They brought something damaged or defective to His altar. And the priest would be glad to overlook such tricks. It was a deeply wicked sin, and it denied in effect that He was the living God. Was the God of Israel like the selfish people who claimed to worship Him? That is what sin implies, and above all in the things of God.
Later, Israel broke this very rule, and one writer names the thinking behind it.
They offered the blind, the lame, and the sick as sacrifices. They knew they were breaking one of the strictest commands of Scripture. In every case the animal offered on the altar was to be "without blemish" (see Lev. 22:17-25), so that it might be a fitting picture of Christ. But this meant giving God their best. These men looked over their herds and flocks with no sense left of God's claims, or of the meaning of the sacrifices He required. They were willing to give Him what was of no use to themselves — their worthless animals, and nothing more.
The same writer presses the point on Christians.
But let us remember how much more wicked this is in a Christian. A Christian's very profession is to walk in the light, as God is in the light. The true light already shines. We are not under law as Israel was. Yet God has made us, who were once darkness, light in the Lord, and He calls us to shine as lights in a filthy world, holding out the word of life. Surely we ought not to be less careful in our relationship than a Jew was in his.
- Accepted for you — God did not weigh the animal for its own sake. If He turned away the offering, He turned away the man holding it.
- Accepted freely — nobody had to bring a vow or freewill gift, but that never lowered the standard. The offering was for God's glory.
- Accepted as pictured — bull, sheep and goat each show a different side of Christ: His strength, His submission, His substitution.
- Accepted without blemish — the male without defect stood for the Holy One of God. The same rule bound the foreigner and the Israelite alike.
- Accepted or despised — giving God what costs you nothing denies who He is. Writers press that warning harder on Christians, not softer.
Nothing that hath a defect shall ye present; for it shall not be acceptable for you.
This verse is one short rule: no animal with a defect may come to God's altar. It sounds like a regulation about livestock. It is really about who God is, and about how He receives the person who worships Him.
The words "it will not be acceptable for you" put the worshipper's own standing at stake, not just the animal's fitness. One writer traces the chain, using a bullock as his example:
It must be perfect to be accepted, to begin with. If there had been a single spot, a single blemish, on that bullock, it could not have been accepted. And if the bullock had not been accepted, the offerer would not have been accepted, for the animal was offered for his acceptance.
Every sacrifice pointed forward to one Person, and the standard for the shadow tells us what the reality had to be:
If God could not accept a blemished sacrifice as a picture of the sacrifice of Christ, how appalling is the thought that He who was the Substance of all the shadows and the Fulfiller of all the types had a blemish or the taint of sin in Him! So that such a thought might have no place in our minds, Scripture tells us what happened when the time came to offer the sacrifice. He "through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God" (Hebrews 9:14).
The same test falls on the priest at the altar, not only on the animal. One writer traces what a blemish cost a son of Aaron, and what it did not:
If one of the sons of Aaron happened to have a broken foot or a broken hand, did he lose his sonship? Certainly not. Did he lose his priestly position? By no means. He still ate the bread of his God, both the most holy and the holy. What, then, did he lose by his physical blemish? He was shut out of some of the higher walks of priestly service and worship. These were very serious privations. Someone may object that a man could not help many of these physical defects. That did not alter the matter. The Lord could not have a blemished priest at His altar, or a blemished sacrifice on it. Both the priest and the sacrifice should be perfect.
One writer describes men who kept up the sacrifices while picking out the animals they would not miss:
In every case the animal offered on the altar was to be "without blemish" (see Leviticus 22:17-25), so that it might be a more fitting picture of Christ. But this meant giving God of their best. These men looked over their herds and flocks, lost to all sense of God's claims and of the meaning of the sacrifices He required. They were willing to give Him what was of no use to themselves — their worthless animals, but nothing more. So they truly despised His name, polluted His altar, and made the Lord's table contemptible.
The law does allow one relaxation, and only for a freewill offering. One writer reads it as grace, not carelessness:
For a burnt offering it had to be a male without blemish. For a peace offering the animal had to be perfect. But the law did allow a bullock or a lamb with anything overgrown or stunted to be offered as a freewill offering... the law was given to an earthly people. Bearing that in mind, we can grasp the grace that provided this relaxation of the strict rule, if they were moved to draw near with a sacrifice for a freewill offering.
The test does not stop with livestock. One writer turns it on the reader:
Is there not, in our private and public worship, a terrible lack of heart, of real devotedness, deep earnestness, holy energy, and integrity of purpose? Is there not much that matches the offering of the lame and the sick, the blemished and the ugly?... How often are our bodies at the table, while our wandering hearts and restless minds are at the ends of the earth!
- Blemish bars the gift. A defect in the animal was not a small flaw to overlook. It disqualified the gift and closed the altar.
- Blemish bars the giver. The animal was offered for the worshipper's acceptance. So a rejected sacrifice meant a rejected man. The two stood or fell together.
- The bar reaches the priest. God would have neither a blemished priest at His altar nor a blemished sacrifice on it. Both had to be perfect.
- Christ clears the bar. The spotless sacrifice pointed to Christ, who offered Himself to God without spot. God accepted Him, and His acceptance becomes the believer's.
- The bar still stands. Giving God what costs us nothing despises His name. Half-hearted worship offers the lame and the sick just as truly as a cheap animal did.