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.
And if any present a sacrifice of peace-offering to Jehovah to accomplish a vow, or a voluntary offering of oxen or small cattle, it shall be without blemish to be accepted there shall be no defect therein.
Leviticus 22 lists what may and may not go on God's altar. This verse sets the standard for the peace offering, a sacrifice that was really a shared feast. The offering could pay a vow or be a free gift. Either way, one rule never moved: the animal had to be flawless.
The English name can mislead. So what is this offering really about?
The real idea of it is a feast, or communion sacrifice. The question is not just about the word, but about the truth behind it. It does not in any way show how a sinner makes peace with God. In the plural form it may cover things that relate to peace, and the chief of these are communion and thanksgiving... Here it does not all go up to God. God does not have the only portion; the priestly family have theirs too. But Christ is both the means and the object of communion.
The verse names two occasions: paying a vow, and a freewill gift. A vow was a deliberate promise to God to carry something through.
A "vow" has to do with some act of devotion. It means a definite commitment to God to do some work for His glory and for the blessing of His people... It may mean giving our time because we long to see God's people blessed. It may mean giving ourselves completely to the will of God, as Romans 12 urges us to do... It is not required. It is a privilege open to anyone who truly wants to commit himself to God and be used by Him.
The verse ties the worshipper's standing to the animal's condition.
To begin with, it must be perfect to be accepted. One spot, one blemish on that bullock, and God could not accept it. And if God could not accept the bullock, He could not accept the offerer either, because the animal was offered for the offerer's acceptance. What does that point to? To the holy, spotless Person of the blessed Lord Jesus... who passed through this world as the holy, sinless One and offered Himself without spot to God.
Another writer spells out what the animal had done for the man who brought it.
Through the excellence of the offering, God accepted the offerer, and atonement was made for him. It was without spot. It had carried his burden. It had been killed in his place. Its blood had been thrown on the altar, and the whole sacrifice rose to God as a sweet smell.
The verse bans any blemish at all. Why so strict?
The peace offering might come from the herd, either male or female, or it might be a lamb. In either case it had to be without blemish. The smallest blemish would make it unfit to be offered. It could not then portray the holy, spotless Son of God.
Yet the verse allows a range: from the herd or from the flock. Commentators find meaning in that choice.
The male bullock, or the female bullock that was weaker, or the lamb that was worth less, all teach us one thing. The measure of our communion depends on how highly we value the perfections and worth of Him who loved us and gave Himself for us. Those with a weaker grasp of the personal qualities and worth of the sacrifice still know communion, but in a smaller measure. This is comforting.
The verses just after allow a small defect in a freewill offering that would rule out an animal brought for a vow.
For a peace offering the animal had to be perfect. Yet the law allowed a bullock or a lamb with a part too long, or a part missing, to be brought as a freewill offering. When we remember whom this sacrifice pictured, we understand these rules. The law was given to an earthly people, so we can see the grace that relaxed the strict rule for anyone moved to come near with a freewill offering... How often we need to remember that communion with Him must be real if it is to be acceptable. It is not to become a form; it is to be a reality.
The same door stood open to outsiders living among Israel.
And from a stranger in Israel, too, the Lord would receive a free-will offering or a sacrifice for a vow, and that whether it was presented as a burnt-offering or as a peace-offering.
- Perfect — one blemish ruled the animal out. Nothing less could picture the spotless Son of God.
- Accepted — God received the worshipper for the offering's sake, not his own. If God refused the animal, He refused the man.
- Shared — this offering was a feast. God had His portion and the priestly family had theirs, and Christ is both the means and the object of that fellowship.
- Measured — the choice between bull and lamb carries a lesson. We enjoy that fellowship as far as we value the One who gave Himself for us.
- Open — a vow met the higher standard, a freewill gift a gentler one. Even the outsider living in Israel could bring either. But the fellowship had to be real, not a form.
Blind, or broken, or maimed, or ulcerous, or with itch, or scabbed -- ye shall not present these to Jehovah, nor make an offering by fire of them on the altar to Jehovah.
This verse lists the faults that shut an animal out of worship: blind, disabled, mutilated, or carrying a discharge, an itch or scabs. Two questions sit behind the ban: what did these sacrifices picture, and what does a damaged gift reveal about the worshipper?
The rule makes sense once you see what the animal stood for:
The smallest blemish would make it unfit to be offered; for then it could not portray the holy, spotless Son of God. The directions about this were very strict. Yet a part too large or too small would not make an animal unfit for a freewill offering.
The verse rules out damage and disease alike. But being unspoiled was not the whole test:
God sees to it that the sacrifices which speak of His Son always stress His perfection. He is not merely free of defilement (spotless), but also "without blemish". No positive trait of character was lacking in Christ, or present in anything other than the right measure.
The offerer brought the animal to be accepted in his place. His own standing hung on it:
If there had been a single spot, a single blemish, on that bull, it could not have been accepted. And if the bull had not been accepted, the offerer would not have been accepted. The animal was offered for his 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.
God did not count such an offering a small thing:
We can easily understand how ready the people were to forget His honour and His all-seeing eye. They brought something damaged or defective for His altar, and the priest would be willing to overlook such tricks. It was really a serious offence, and in effect it denied that He was the living God. Was the God of Israel like His selfish and professing worshippers? This is indeed what sin implies, especially in divine things.
The rule matched God's own character:
Only what was absolutely perfect could suit the altar and answer to the heart of God. To offer Him a blemished thing simply proved that a man had no real 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 horrible blasphemy of saying that anything was good enough for Him. Listen to the indignant pleading of the Spirit of God through the prophet Malachi.
In Malachi's day the offerings had sunk to exactly what this verse forbids. First, see what the altar itself is called:
The altar and the table of the Lord here are one and the same thing. The altar is called this because the sacrifices — and Christ, whom they pictured — were called God's bread.
The charge went further:
They offered the blind, the lame and the sick for sacrifice, knowingly violating one of the strictest commands in 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 better picture of Christ. But that 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. So they truly despised His name, polluted His altar, and made the Lord's table contemptible.
God gave these commands to Israel. The standard rises, not falls, for those who know more:
But let us remember how much more wicked it is in a Christian, whose very profession is to walk in the light as God is in the light... Surely we should be no less careful in our relationship than a Jew was in his. The least that suited either was to be honest before God and man. If not, the less we speak of grace the better; nothing condemns looseness so much as the true grace of God.
- Perfect picture. One flaw ruled the animal out. A damaged victim could not picture the holy, spotless Son of God.
- Perfect means whole. "Without blemish" covers both stains and gaps — nothing defiling present, nothing good missing.
- Perfect victim, accepted worshipper. The offerer stood or fell with his animal. A rejected sacrifice meant a rejected man. So everything rests on Christ, who offered Himself without spot to God.
- Imperfect offering, insulted God. Bringing damaged goods denies that God is living and sees. It says anything is good enough for Him.
- Perfection still claimed. Later worshippers offered the blind and the sick, and so despised God's name and cheapened His table. Anyone who walks in the light must be at least as honest.