The trespass offering and Jesus Christ (Leviticus 5:14–6:7)

There is one biblical passage that directly links Jesus and the trespass offering. It is Isaiah 53:10, a verse from that great prophecy of the sufferings and glory of the Messiah: ‘But it was the Lord’s good plan to crush him and cause him grief. Yet when his life is made an offering for sin, he will have many descendants.’

The translation ‘offering for sin’ is literally ‘a trespass offering’. The prophet predicted that the sacrifice of the Trespass Offering would be offered by the Messiah to his heavenly Father who would require him to act as a substitute for sinners. However, his time as the Trespass Offering would be followed by a sequence of great universal blessing and success.

Further, every one of us has failed to live a holy life. For this failure, we have to make both atonement and reparation; we have to pay the penalty for our sins and also provide God with the obedience he requires from us. We can do neither. The good news is that Jesus has provided both. As our substitute he made atonement for us, and by his obedient life he has more than compensated for our disobedience. We come to God depending on our substitute Jesus Christ and also give to God as our reimbursement the incalculable worth of the life of Jesus.

The trespass offering reveals the kinds of sin for which Jesus had to make atonement. Trespass, by definition, means to go beyond what is forbidden. It covers all sorts of rebellious thoughts and actions, each of which were committed against a good God who gave his law not only as guidance for life but as a form of protection against wrong intentions and activities. Jesus, who never committed any trespasses, was willing to pay the penalty due by those who were guilty of such sins.

The trespass offering and Christian worship (Leviticus 5:14–6:7)

It is true to say that every Christian has the potential of sinning in each of the three ways specified in this passage of Leviticus – he can sin in his actions of public worship, he can sin in general by breaking the Lord’s commandments, and he can sin against his brother in one way or another. Each of these sins necessitates fresh forgiveness from God before fellowship with him can be restored.

The reality of this situation means that we should engage in regular self-examination of how we have behaved. For example, when we get home from church on Sunday morning, we should spend some time reviewing our participation in the service. Did we sing from our hearts when God’s praise was sung? Did we add our amen to the petitions that were offered in the prayers? Did we listen with awe and delight to the Word of God as it was read? Did we pay attention to the exposition of God’s Word as it was explained? These features of our services of worship are the New Testament equivalents of the holy things of the Lord found in the tabernacle. All of us are guilty at some time or another of sinning in this way, but we are often not aware of it until we engage in self-examination. We have sinned without realising it, perhaps.

It may also be appropriate in such circumstance to make a private act of compensation to the Lord. Just as the Israelite worshipper would add a fifth of the value of his animal sacrifice, so such an act of compensation would be an expression of repentance for a Christian, in a private personal manner, to give something extra to God. The extra is not an attempt to win God’s favour; instead it is a realisation that the Christian had denied God what he was due and in the process also denied himself of spiritual blessings. He may determine to spend extra time praising God or praying to him or reading his Word or listening to a recording of the message to which he originally paid little attention. Of course, such activities are personal and cannot be demanded – nevertheless they can be appropriate personal responses. We cannot ignore the fact that the Israelite worshipper was expected to make compensation when he had not treated the worship of God with proper respect.

Jesus refers to the practice of the trespass offering when speaking to his disciples in Matthew 5:23-24: ‘So if you are presenting a sacrifice at the altar in the Temple and you suddenly remember that someone has something against you, leave your sacrifice there at the altar. Go and be reconciled to that person. Then come and offer your sacrifice to God.’ The Saviour informs his disciples that it is unacceptable and impossible to offer worship to God if another disciple has a legitimate grievance against us. He depicts a person who has come to the Temple for worship, selected and paid for his animal, and made his way to the priest in order to offer his sacrifice. Perhaps the person is aware of some personal sins and is ready to confess them. As he stands in the queue waiting his turn, he realises that he has not put right a wrong he did against another disciple. Jesus says that worship from that person will not be accepted until he sorts out the problem he has caused. And the appropriate sacrifice then to offer would be a trespass offering with its gift.

The trespass offering also raised the issue of restitution when a disciple, or indeed a person in general, has lost out financially through an action or word of another Christian. Zacchaeus was commended by Jesus for making restitution when he said: ‘Meanwhile, Zacchaeus stood before the Lord and said, “I will give half my wealth to the poor, Lord, and if I have cheated people on their taxes, I will give them back four times as much!” Jesus responded, “Salvation has come to this home today, for this man has shown himself to be a true son of Abraham. For the Son of Man came to seek and save those who are lost’ (Luke 19:8-10). What was the significance of Zacchaeus’ actions? They showed that his repentance was genuine.

Therefore, the trespass offering is a reminder of the importance of Christian relationships. It tells us that a sin against a fellow disciple is also a sin against Christ himself. When an Israelite defrauded his fellow he was also defrauding God; Leviticus 6:2 calls such activities a breach of faith with the Lord himself. Jesus says, in a parable describing the Day of Judgment, that what was done or not done to one of his people was also done or not done to him (Matt. 25:40, 45). Healthy relationships are essential for acceptable worship.

The trespass offering and an Israelite worshipper (Leviticus 5:14–6:7)

Yesterday we thought about four lessons that can be seen in the meaning of the guilt or trespass offering. Today we can think about another three.

First, the Israelite worshipper had to engage in regular self-examination. This spiritual activity is the origin of the guilt he felt, and which is described in 5:17-19. Initially he had not realised that his action was wrong, but after some thought he became aware that he had broken one of the commandments of the Lord. Perhaps he used the words of Psalm 139:23-24 as he engaged in self-examination: ‘Search me, O God, and know my heart! Try me and know my thoughts! And see if there be any grievous way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting.’ Once he realised his sin he would also have had a sense of guilt, and it could not be removed until he had followed the prescribed procedure of presenting a trespass offering to the priest at the tabernacle. 

Second, the possibility of sinning inadvertently and thus incurring guilt would stimulate the Israelite worshipper to ensure that he knew as much of the Old Testament requirements as possible. He would practice the determination of the psalmist who wrote in Psalm 119:11: ‘I have stored up your word in my heart, that I might not sin against you.’ Therefore he would endeavour to know what God required and become a lifelong learner of God’s instructions.

It is worth stressing that ignorance did not excuse an Israelite when he was guilty of an unintended sin. There are various reasons for ignorance, but one of the most common is laziness. If God’s Word contains a prohibition or a requirement, then the information is there, and the worshipper could have located it.

Third, the assessment that inadvertent sins made the Israelite guilty before God would cause the worshipper to realise how heinous his deliberate sins were in God’s sight. After all, the most important aspect of a person’s sins is what God thinks of them. Since atonement was needed for unintended sins, the Israelite worshipper would wonder what was needed in order for wilful sins to be forgiven. The answer to this question is given by David in Psalm 51.

We can see from the requirements connected to the trespass offering that sin is serious, but that God was gracious in sending his Son to make atonement for our sins.

The trespass offering and an Israelite worshipper (Leviticus 5:14–6:7)

There are several matters that can be seen from the necessity of the trespass or guilt offering. We will think of four today and another three tomorrow.

The first detail to note is that every Israelite was required to offer a guilt offering. It is possible that a person would not have sinned against the tabernacle or have sinned deliberately against his neighbour, but it was not possible for any Israelite not to have sinned deliberately, in one way or another, against the Lord’s commandments.

A second detail to observe is that members of the covenant community in Israel needed forgiveness for their sins. Whether the offence was against the tabernacle, against the Lord in general, or against one’s neighbour, it was essential that the offender obtain verbal assurance of his forgiveness. The normal way by which divine forgiveness could be obtained was by presenting a trespass offering to the priest, the Lord’s representative (5:16, 18; 6:17).

Thirdly, the Israelite worshipper would have realised that horizontal actions prevented fellowship with God as much as acts of irreverence or disrespect at the tabernacle. If a worshipper had offered a pigeon when he could have offered an animal, then he was guilty of disrespect of the God he professed to worship. Others then would not be surprised at the cessation of fellowship between him and God. Yet a wrong action towards another Israelite, such as those mentioned in 6:1-7, also resulted in cessation of fellowship between the worshipper and God.

Fourthly, the Israelite worshipper learned that sin carries a price with it. A sin against the tabernacle and its activities required that the worshipper to pay in addition one fifth of the value of the animal offered for his atonement; a sin against another Israelite required restitution of the item plus one fifth of its value. In a way, this requirement was like the payment of a fine. It had to be paid personally, with an admission that wrong had been committed.

The Trespass Offering (Leviticus 5:14–6:7)

There are similarities between the situations when a sin offering and a trespass offering was the necessary response from an Israelite. On occasions, both were offered in connection with unintentional sins and such sins are detailed in Leviticus 5:14-19. Yet there are differences because the trespass offering was required of individuals who had sinned on purpose and some examples are given in Leviticus 6:1-7. Further, the trespass offering was always an individual action whereas the whole congregation could offer a sin offering through its representatives (such as the elders of the community described in Leviticus 4:15).

The trespass offering is also described in Numbers 5:5-8: ‘And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, “Speak to the people of Israel, When a man or woman commits any of the sins that people commit by breaking faith with the Lord, and that person realizes his guilt, he shall confess his sin that he has committed. And he shall make full restitution for his wrong, adding a fifth to it and giving it to him to whom he did the wrong. But if the man has no next of kin to whom restitution may be made for the wrong, the restitution for wrong shall go to the Lord for the priest, in addition to the ram of atonement with which atonement is made for him.’

A variety of sins required a trespass offering. In Leviticus 5:14-16, the sin is connected to an unintentional breach of the activities at the tabernacle (‘the holy things of the Lord’); in 5:17-19, the sin involves breaking unintentionally a commandment of the Lord in daily life; in 6:1-7, the sin involves a deliberate sin against one’s neighbour and several possibilities are mentioned – financial deceit, theft and false witness.

Different responses were required as a trespass offering. The response demanded for a breach of the tabernacle activities was an animal sacrifice plus a financial payment. The offender had to locate a suitable animal (a male lamb or ram), discover what it was worth according to the value system of the tabernacle, add a fifth (a double tithe) of the amount as restitution payment, and give the animal and the shekels to the priest. The animal was used for his atonement and the money helped the finances of the temple (5:14-16).

The response for a general disobedience of the law involved discovering that it had been broken, with an accompanying sense of guilt for the disobedience. The remedy was to bring a ram without blemish as a guilt offering (5:17-19). The response for deliberate sins against one’s neighbour involved restitution of the loss plus one fifth of its value, along with the required animal sacrifice for an atonement (6:1-7).

It is obvious that a distinguishing feature of the guilt offering was the creation of debt, either to God’s place of worship when it was offended against or to any of God’s people when such were sinned against. The debt made a person guilty before the Lord and it was required that the offender arrange for both an animal (a ram) as an atonement and also the financial payment of the debt.

The trespass offering indicated clearly that sin was serious in God’s estimation and that a costly atonement was required before forgiveness was available. The details speak to us about our need of the work of Jesus on the cross.

The sin offering and Jesus Christ (Leviticus 4 and 5)

Thankfully, Jesus our high priest is not like the priests of Israel who constantly failed. Further he is the one sacrifice to which the ritual sacrifices of Israel pointed. He was without blemish, taking the place of sinners, each of whom had innumerable faults.

There is a New Testament passage that links Jesus and the sin offering: ‘For the bodies of those animals whose blood is brought into the holy places by the high priest as a sacrifice for sin are burned outside the camp. So Jesus also suffered outside the gate in order to sanctify the people through his own blood. Therefore let us go to him outside the camp and bear the reproach he endured’ (Heb. 13:11-13). What does this mean?

In the sin offering, the carcases of the bulls were burned to ashes outside the precincts of the camp – in other words, at the place for putting rubbish. When Jesus died, he was executed outside the gates of Jerusalem, at Calvary, which was the despised place of execution. He became an object of contempt, and for many people that is where they still locate him.

On the other hand, the place of burning was where the sin offering was completed – it was not completed when the bull’s blood was used and when its fat was used in the tabernacle. The completion occurred when the carcase was burned in the place of contempt. Jesus cried ‘Finished’ at Calvary, an announcement that he had completed his work as the sin offering.

A worshipper in Israel could look from a distance at the pile of ashes and say, ‘That was my sacrifice.’ In contrast, a Christian is not to remain at a distance, but instead he is to stand at the cross and despise its shame because he knows that was the place where Jesus dealt with the sins of his people. Since his sacrifice is never repeated, believers have nowhere else to go but to stand with Jesus at Calvary, outside the camp.

The sin offering and Christian worship (Leviticus 4 and 5)

As with the other offerings, there are some important lessons for our worship of God from the sin offering. What are some of them?

First, we should be thankful that we have a high priest, Jesus Christ, who has never failed, who never had to offer a sacrifice for his own sins. Jesus is our priest, who is our representative, and he perfectly and completely fulfilled all the demands put upon him by God.

Second, we should learn that the biggest dangers to our spiritual walk are little, inadvertent sins. Such can happen in unsuspecting ways. For example, the sin of covetousness can happen anywhere. When that happens, we need to go to God and ask him for Christ’s sake to cleanse us from the polluting effects of external things.

Third, the details of the sin offering remind us that sins connected to the worship of God are more serious that sins found elsewhere. More was required of the priests and of the elders of the community for inadvertent failures in public worship that was asked of politicians and ordinary people when they became unclean accidentally. For example, it is worse for us as Christians to have wandering thoughts during a church service that it is for us to have them at the dinner table. The first is inadvertent sin, the other is not.

Confession of sin is an important part of corporate Christian worship. We gather to worship the Lord, an activity that involves giving to God certain requirements and receiving particular blessings from him. He requires us to confess that we are sinners, and he assures us that when we do we will receive from him a full and free pardon. We don’t come to him leaning on an animal sacrifice. Instead we come, leaning the full weight of our souls on Jesus Christ; we don’t come with a sacrifice about to be slain, but with One that was slain at Calvary.

An Israelite and Unintentional Sins (Leviticus 5:1-13)

Four examples of unintentional sins are given in this passage and each of them could easily be done by an Israelite. Firstly, he could be a witness to a situation but instead of speaking out as a reliable witness in court he decides to keep silent and not get involved (v. 1), He may have thought that others also witnessed it and they could testify instead. Such a response was regarded by God as sin. When we think about it, such a response is not only a failure to love God, but it is also a failure to love one’s neighbour.

Secondly, he may inadvertently or accidentally touch the remains of a dead animal (v. 2), perhaps by sitting somewhere outside his house or by touching a utensil that had been in contact with a dead animal. Such contact would have happened often in a community with livestock. Eventually he discovers that he had made this contact and had become ceremoniously unclean. Perhaps the occasion was several weeks or months previous. What is he to do? He is not allowed to ignore it or to assume that the passage of time allows him to forget about it. Instead he has to make his way to the tabernacle/temple and present a sin offering.

Thirdly, he may have touched human uncleanness inadvertently or accidentally (v. 3). Perhaps he was walking barefoot along a road and came in contact with the uncleanness that way. This type of contact could have happened on a daily basis within one’s home. The contact had made him guilty, even although he had not noticed he had done it. Once he realised that the contact had been made he had to make a sin offering, The second and third examples show that contact with forbidden things was virtually unavoidable, and the worshipper of the Lord had to realise that this was the case.

Fourthly, a person may speak inadvertently or accidentally about future intentions. He may have made a rash statement about giving something to God (as Jephthah did when he said that he would offer to God the first creature he saw come out of his house and it turned out to be his daughter) or he may have made a promise that he had no real intention of fulfilling. Since he had made the announcement publicly, it was inevitable that someone would remind him of it and his failure to keep it. The only remedy was to make his way to the tabernacle and make a sin offering.

The worshipper would also observe other ways in which some sins are regarded as worse than others. While he only had to offer a female lamb or kid, he would know that others had to offer more expensive sacrifices – the priests, the elders on behalf of the community or the leader individually. He would observe that there was a grading of sin: the sin by a priest was the most serious, then the sin by a community, and then the sin of a civil leader, and each of them was more serious than the sin of an ordinary person. We can put it this way: an inadvertent sin by Aaron was more serious than a similar sin by David, even though both of them had God-given roles. Or we can say that an accidental sin by a congregation is worse than a sin by an individual.

I don't think our worshipper would forget his visits to the tabernacle. As he heard the reasons why people were there, he would realise the seriousness of little sins. As he saw the number of animals that were sacrificed, he would realise the seriousness of accidental sins. As he heard the priest tell each person that his particular sins were now forgiven, he would realise afresh the pardoning grace of the God of Israel. The Israelite worshipper would leave the place of confession of sin a different person.

The worshipper in Israel and the sin offering (Leviticus 4 and 5)

This section of Leviticus states an obvious truth – which is that sin affects every person. So when the worshipper took his animal to the place of sacrifice he realised that the officiating priest was also a sinner who was often in need of his own sacrifice. The ritual was a mutual expression of concern about sinfulness.

A second reality that the Israelite worshipper would have realised is that the Holy One of Israel had provided a way whereby his sinful people could come before him and express their repentance and need of atonement.

Further, the worshipper would see that there were degrees of sin. Here there are two types of sin – unintentional sins and deliberate sins. The worshipper would note that there was not a sacrifice of atonement for deliberate sins (King David realised this was the case when he committed the sin of adultery with Bathsheba and the sin of ensuring the death of her husband Uriah). But he would also realise that unintentional sins were noted by God and required atonement. The worshipper could not merely shrug his shoulders when he committed unintentional sins.  

The examples of unintentional sins are interesting, and we can think about them tomorrow. An obvious response we can make about the details of the sin offering is to be thankful that we have the offering of Jesus to deal with our sins.

The Sin Offering (Leviticus 4:1-5:13)

The opening clause of chapter 4 (And the Lord spoke to Moses) indicates that the two offerings about to be described (the sin offering and the guilt offering) are separated from the three previous offerings (the burnt offering, the grain offering and the peace offering). A suggested reason is that the former three were voluntary whereas the sin and guilt offerings were compulsory whenever a sin had been committed.

The fourth offering to be specified in Leviticus concerns unintentional sin (sin means to miss a mark or standard). Four types of persons are identified as likely to commit unintentional sin: a priest (vv. 2-12), the congregation corporately (vv. 13-21), a leader (vv. 22-26) and an ordinary individual (vv. 27-35), with four examples of possible sins being mentioned (5:1-13). Specific sacrifices must be offered by each type of person when guilty of unintentional sin: a priest had to offer a bull without blemish, a congregation had to do the same, the leader had to offer a male goat without defect, and the ordinary individual had to offer a female lamb or kid that was flawless, or if he was very poor he could offer a pigeon or small cake instead (5:7ff.).

When the sacrifice was a bull for a priest, the fatty portions were offered on the altar of burnt offering and the rest of the animal was burned outside the camp. Distinct from what took place with the sin offering of others some of its blood was taken into the tent of meeting: ‘the priest shall dip his finger in the blood and sprinkle part of the blood seven times before the Lord in front of the veil of the sanctuary. And the priest shall put some of the blood on the horns of the altar of fragrant incense before the Lord that is in the tent of meeting, and all the rest of the blood of the bull he shall pour out at the base of the altar of burnt offering that is at the entrance of the tent of meeting’ (vv. 6-7). 

The reason why some of the blood was sprinkled before the veil, some put on the horns of the altar of incense, and the rest poured out at the base of the altar of burnt offering was that the holy place, in which all this took place, was where the priest served the Lord. Because the priest had been contaminated, the location of his service needed to be cleansed. The ordinary Israelite did not get past the altar of burnt offering at the entrance of the tabernacle, but the priest, as it were, served between the altar of burnt offering and the veil that separated the holy place from the holy of holies.

As far as a sin offering for the congregation was concerned, the ritual was the same as that for the priest except that no blood was put on the horns of the altar of incense. With regard to the sacrifices for leaders and individuals, no instructions are given regarding the disposal of the dead carcases after the blood and fat has been removed (however Leviticus 6:26 says that the priests could use the carcases as food); as with the offering for the congregation, the blood of the sacrifices for leaders and individuals was not sprinkled on the altar of incense.

Whatever else we take from the descriptions of the sin offering, we can see how offensive sin is to God, but we can also see his desire to provide a way of atonement. We will think of other aspects in the next few readings.

Jesus and the peace offering (Leviticus 3)

The outcome of the peace offering was that worshippers, priests and God shared together in the sacrifice. Their mutual participation depicts what is the case in the new covenant era – God and believers now enjoy the fulfilment of what the peace offering indicated. There are at least three ways in which this is the case.

First, the slain Jesus is the source of salvation. On one occasion Jesus said to the crowd that unless they ate his flesh and drank his blood they would not have eternal life (John 6:54, 56). I am not suggesting that the Saviour was referring to the peace offering when he said these words, but we can see an application. The Israelite worshippers had to eat a meal in which the central feature was the flesh of a slain sacrifice – they could not drink the blood because it had already been utilised at the altar. Christian worshippers feed on Jesus who was slain, and receive the benefits of his sacrifice, what he purchased for them; they also experience the benefits of his shed blood, including the forgiveness of sin and cleansing from its defilement. The slain Christ is the ground of all our spiritual blessings. We plead his merits when we approach the Father to give us his blessings.

Second, Jesus was a willing sacrifice. In the Levitical ritual the animal was not a willing sacrifice, nor was it capable of becoming an intelligent offering. How different was the sacrifice of Jesus! He was both fully willing to become the sacrifice and fully aware of all the details involved in doing so. He was prepared to undergo divine wrath at Calvary, to enter the place where there was no shalom, in order for us to have it (peace, prosperity and joy). This is a reminder not only of the cost of our peace, but of the willingness and determination of Jesus to bring it about.

Third, Jesus through his sacrifice brought permanent shalom into the experience of his people. Obviously a meal connected to a peace offering in Israel would only last a short time until all the food had been consumed. In contrast, the provision of shalom (the peace of God) will last for eternity. Jesus refers to himself as the hidden manna (Rev. 2:17) on which his people will feed forever. He is the slain Lamb who will give them the blessings of the eternal inheritance. In this life, their enjoyment of the inheritance is disrupted often; in the next, all will be shalom, but the redeemed of the Lord will always remember who was the Peace Offering on Calvary.

Lessons for Christian worship from the peace offering (Leviticus 3)

An aspect of true worship is joyful celebration of peace. Paul reminds the Philippians that joy is a mark of authentic worship when he writes in Philippians 3:3: ‘For we are the circumcision, who worship by the Spirit of God and glory [rejoice] in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh.’ He also reminds the Romans: ‘For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking but of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit’ (Rom. 14:17).

What can the content of the peace offering tell us about how we should worship the Lord in order to maintain our enjoyment of the heavenly shalom of God? Here are three details.

One lesson we can take from the ritual of the peace offering is that we have to be careful about what we choose as a remedy for the sins that cause the breakdown of our enjoyment of God’s blessings. When we respond to our sins, we often have two wrong responses: the first is to make resolutions not to repeat the wrong attitudes or behaviour and the second is to try and use our repentance and confession as the means of recovering shalom.

But, taking the imagery of the peace offering, neither of them is flawless, and neither of them, even combined, can bear the weight of our sins. Imagine if the Israelite worshipper had come to the tabernacle with a piece of paper on which he had written out his resolution or holding a bottle in which he had collected his tears of repentance. If the priest had said to him, ‘Now lean all your weight on your piece of paper and bottle of tears,’ we know what would have happened. The worshipper would have nothing to lean on. Similarly, when we have lost a sense of peace and joy, we cannot look to our good intentions or our repentance in order to recover them. Instead we have to select the only perfect substitute that is available, Jesus Christ, and once again lean all our souls on him.

A second lesson for our worship from the peace offering is that we are to contemplate (observe) what happened at the cross in order for us to have peace. The Israelite worshipper noted that when he came to offer his peace offering, it was offered on an altar on which there already was a burnt offering. The devout Israelite needed several different sacrifices in order to appreciate the variety of ways by which his God should be worshipped. In contrast, the Christian recognises that Jesus fulfilled these various viewpoints, depicted in the several offerings, when he offered up himself as a sacrifice which included perfect dedication to God. The way to recover peace and maintain our enjoyment of it is by continual contemplation of the One who offered himself as the sacrifice to deal with sins and its awful consequences.

A third lesson is the reminder that we are not to forget the pleasure that God enjoys because shalom exists between him and his people. In the peace offering, God was given the fat and other items of the animal that were regarded as the choicest parts – in other words, he received the best. Even as the special parts of the animal were given to God, so the Father has particular insights and delights in the person and work of his Son. An example of his delight occurred at the baptism of Jesus when the Father spoke from heaven and said, ‘This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased.’ The Saviour himself said in John 10:17: ‘For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life that I may take it up again.’ And regarding the future, we can note the wonderful words of Isaiah: ‘the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his [Jesus] hand’ (Isa. 53:11).

The Israelite worshipper and the peace offering (Leviticus 3)

We can imagine a devout Israelite coming to the tabernacle thankful for the deliverance that he and his people had received from God. They had been rescued from slavery in Egypt and their former masters had been overthrown by God’s power displayed in the ten plagues and in the dividing of the Red Sea. He has been informed by God that Israel is now in a special relationship with the Lord and he has promised to bless his people. Yet the continued enjoyment of this relationship depends on the Israelites’ obedience to God’s commandments (Exod. 24:7). 

At the same time, the worshipper knows that he is sinful, and the only way by which he can deal with this problem is by offering the sacrifice that the Lord specifies for dealing with personal sins that will prevent the Israelite from enjoying the blessings that God has promised him. What features would mark the worshipper’s approach?

One feature would be carefulness in choosing which animal to offer. The worshipper wants to experience ongoing assurance that God’s blessings are his, therefore he will choose a flawless animal. He knows that a little flaw in his chosen animal will deprive him of the enjoyment of God’s mercies.

A second feature would be identification with the animal. The worshipper takes the animal to the tabernacle entrance and identifies himself with the creature about to die as his substitute. By leaning heavily on the animal’s head, he says by his actions that his hope of enjoying divine blessings depends on this animal taking the punishment due to him.

A third feature of the worshipper’s response is an awareness that the Lord desires to share in the blessings that will be the enjoyment of the worshipper. This reality was taught to the worshipper when he cut out the fat and other items that were offered to the Lord. As the worshipper performed this task, he would know that God would receive his share of the animal (a picture of God’s satisfaction with the animal that had died to ensure that divine blessings would continue to be given to the worshipper). This action by the worshipper was an essential part of the process that led to fellowship with God at that time.

Further the worshipper would also know that others (the priests and himself) would also share in the peace offering. Yet he was being taught that a worshipper had to provide God with his portion of the animal before the remainder could be given to others. It was impossible to adjust this order. God had to be pacified before peace could be experienced.

A fourth feature of the worshipper’s activity was observation. He would note what the priests did with the various parts of the animal. As with the burnt offering, the blood of the victim was thrown on the sides of the altar, reminding the worshipper as he sacrificed a peace offering that the only way to shalom involved the shedding of the blood of a sacrifice. He would also note that the items offered to God were placed on top of a burnt offering that was already burning on the altar. The burnt offering may have been the daily burnt offering (Exod. 29:38-39; Num. 29:3-4) or it may have been his own offering (as described in Leviticus 1). Since the burnt offering signified dedication, the worshipper would be reminded that the enjoyment of divine blessings promised to Israel, especially in the land of Canaan, would only be known by those who were devoted to the Lord.

No doubt there were other attitudes in the heart of a devout Israelite as he made a sacrifice designed to preserve for him the ongoing enjoyment of the shalom promised by God to Israel. Yet I think that these four features – carefulness is choosing a substitute, identification with the substitute, awareness of what God desired from the substitute, and observation of what happened to the animal – give us sufficient understanding of how seriously an Israelite worshipper would view his visit to the tabernacle to make a peace offering.   

The Peace Offering (Leviticus 3)

In this chapter of Leviticus, the peace offering described is a voluntary offering. There were three other occasions when a peace offering was prescribed: the investiture of the priests (Lev. 9:18, 22), the feast of weeks (Lev. 23:19-20) and the occasion of completing a Nazarite vow (Num. 6:17-20). The peace offering was usually offered with a burnt offering (Lev. 3:5).

The details of the peace offering here differ to some extent from those of the burnt offering in Leviticus 1. For example, only a male animal could be sacrificed as a burnt offering whereas male and female could be used in the peace offering. Further, in the burnt offering the entire animal was consumed by the fire of the altar whereas only the fat, the kidneys and a piece of the liver, as well as the tail if a sheep was offered, were placed on the altar as a peace offering. A third difference was that the fat of the animal was specified as the Lord’s portion, and in Leviticus 7 we are told that the priests and the offerers also ate part of the sacrificed animal.

Other aspects of the peace offering were analogous to those of the burnt offering. The animal had to be free from blemish and the ritual order for worshippers and priests was similar. Each worshipper had to lay his hand on his animal’s head before killing it, the priest threw its blood against the altar, then each worshipper cut up his animal and separated its parts, and the priests then offered the fat and other items on the altar.

The Hebrew term for peace found in the peace offering is connected to the word shalom, which has become part of our language, although it is generally used without any understanding of what it meant. Usually peace is interpreted to mean absence of trouble and a sense of tranquillity whereas shalom also included the concepts of prosperity, security and joy. The peace offering was not a sad occasion; instead it was designed to be a celebration marked by thankfulness for the divine blessings received and for the assurance that they would be permanent possessions. Since others shared in the occasion, some prefer to call this offering the fellowship offering.

One other difference between the specified details for the burnt offering and for the peace offering was the absence of a peace offering by the poor. A poor person could offer a dove as a burnt offering, but there was not a similar provision in the peace offering. One possible explanation for the omission is that wealthier worshippers were expected to invite poor Israelites to the meal that followed the peace offering. Or perhaps the inclusion of female lambs and kids made it possible for poorer Israelites to use them.

In future readings, we will consider the peace offering from three perspectives – that of an Israelite worshipper, some lessons for Christian worship, and how the peace offering depicts the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross. Meanwhile, we can thank God for bringing foretastes of the eternal shalom into our experiences now.

The grain offering and Jesus Christ (Leviticus 2)

Yesterday we thought about various aspects of the grain offering as they describe Jesus and his work, including how the offering could be cooked.

The instructions for the cooked offering do not mention the inclusion of frankincense, although perhaps its addition was assumed because it is included in the grain offering that was presented at the Feast of Weeks, but they do stress the necessity of oil, which can remind us of the ways the Spirit upheld the Saviour when he was in the oven of the Father’s wrath. When we draw near to God in worship, we do so conscious that Jesus was in that oven because of our sins and also to ensure that we would not be in it because he paid the penalty for them. And he needed the help of the Spirit as Hebrews 9:14 tells us.

How does the mention of leaven, honey and salt refer to the person and work of Christ? In a previous reading, we suggested that leaven and honey were omitted because they were used in some pagan sacrifices. And the Saviour did not endorse in the slightest way the false worship that he saw, even when it occurred in the Jewish temple. It could never be said of him that he compromised in the least as far as God’s worship was concerned. No amount of external pressure could cause him to adjust his loyalty to God.

Salt, as is said in the description of the grain offering, depicted a covenant relationship. The reason why the Son of God came into the world was because of the commitment he had given in the covenant of redemption, when he agreed to become the Saviour of his people. His ministry was governed by that covenant’s requirements, including his death.

Further, his teaching can be summarised as instruction about the covenant of grace which each of his followers enter into, a covenant that gives them forgiveness of sin, the presence of the sanctifying Spirit, the reality of communion with God, and the prospect of heaven, and all based on his completion of his work.

One final point from the grain offering as it depicts the person and work of Jesus, and it is that both God and the priests received part of it. God received his portion in the part that was offered as a memorial by the priest; this shows us that the most effective way, indeed the only way, by which we can ask God to remember us is by asking him to do so for the sake of Christ. The priests ate the rest, and this is a reminder that the spiritual food of those who serve the Lord must be Christ himself, his person and his work. On an occasion of public worship, the grain offering tells us that worshippers should gratefully thank God for Jesus and think about him, those with official duties should anticipate feeding on Christ, and both groups should be aware that the one who appreciates Jesus the most is his heavenly Father.

 

The grain offering and Jesus Christ (Leviticus 2)

Does the grain offering depict the person and work of Jesus in a manner similar to how the burnt offering and other offerings do? One way to answer this question is to see if Jesus referred to himself as grain and we know that in John 12:24 he likened himself to a grain of wheat and likened his work to a grain of wheat that must die: ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit.’ So we can use that verse from John as a key to opening up Leviticus 2 as far as understanding some truths about Jesus is concerned.

The grain offering could be presented uncooked or cooked and would suggest that the uncooked offering is a picture of Jesus’ life, and the cooked offering is a picture of his death. The uncooked offering had oil mixed with it and frankincense put on it. As we noted yesterday, oil often speaks of the Holy Spirit and the New Testament reminds us of several ways in which Jesus was linked to the Spirit: for example, his conception was by the power of the Spirit, and the Spirit descended on him at his baptism and anointed him to fulfil the role of Messiah. Concerning the frankincense, which speaks of prayer, we can see in the Gospels that Jesus was a man of persistent prayer, who spent many hours a day in communion with God. So we can say that when we bring an offering of gratitude to God, we give thanks to him for the holy life of Jesus.

What about the cooked or baked offering? I think it points to the sufferings of Jesus and the three utensils also indicate different aspects of his sufferings. For example, the grain that was baked in an oven was hidden from public view whereas the grain that was cooked in a pan or a griddle was open to others to see how it was being cooked. This would suggest that some of the Saviour’s sufferings were observable by others (such as those who stood around the cross and saw his physical distress) and some of his sufferings were hidden from the sight of all creatures (only God could see what was happening to Jesus’ soul as he bore the heat of the oven of the wrath of God).

There are some other ways in which the grain offering pictures what Jesus did, and we can think about them tomorrow.

The grain offering and Christian worship (Leviticus 2)

There are several lessons regarding worship that can be applied to New Covenant believers from this Old Covenant ritual; indeed some are similar to the features that we have mentioned in the previous reading concerning an Israelite worshipper. Christian worship should be marked by gratitude and voluntary giving in addition to regular required amounts (for example, believers should pay a tithe, but they can give more when they wish to do so). But I would highlight four ways in which the ritual of the grain offering has a message for today.

First, our worship must involve an appreciation that we are in a covenant relationship with God. We come to him as creatures of a Creator who provides for us, as servants of a Master who has complete authority over us, as sons of a Father who has redeemed us from the slavery of sin through the atoning death of his own Son, Jesus Christ. Other illustrations of the bond between his people could be mentioned. What is at the root of each of them is a covenant made by God.

For example, as creatures we live under the protection promised by God in his covenant with Noah; as his servants, we live in a relationship in which he has promised to be our God and we his people; as his sons, we belong to a family that was the object of divine affection and consideration in the covenant of redemption made within the Trinity before the universe was created. Further aspects of a covenant context can be found throughout the Bible; indeed, every time a believer says ‘my God’ or its equivalent he is using covenant language.

Second, our worship includes practical support for the full-time servants of God. The priests were provided for in the grain offering, and that provision is a reminder of Paul’s statement in 1 Corinthians 9:13-14: ‘Do you not know that those who are employed in the temple service get their food from the temple, and those who serve at the altar share in the sacrificial offerings? In the same way, the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel.’ Such support can be through official channels (like what happened at the Feast of Weeks) or it can be voluntary. But providing for God’s servants is an expression of worship that pleases him.

Third, the grain offering reminds Christians that they are no longer their own; indeed they have been bought with a price. Presenting a grain offering was a confession by the worshipper that he was paying tribute to his Sovereign. Christians show by their lives that they belong to Jesus Christ. Yet, similar to how a devout Israelite came with his grain offering to confess his submission to God, so Christians draw near to worship the One who is their Lord and Master. An Israelite could offer a grain offering as often as he wished. Similarly, Christians can express their glad submission regularly to God.

Fourth, there are spiritual equivalents of the oil and frankincense that were used in the grain offering. Details from other biblical references indicate that oil often illustrates the Holy Spirit and that incense depicts prayer. Clearly, all that a Christian does should be by the enabling of the Holy Spirit and prayer should accompany whatever he does for the Lord. An obvious application from the immediate context of Leviticus 2 concerns gatherings for public worship of God – the contribution of each believer, whether pastor or otherwise, should be given in the Spirit and in the atmosphere of dependent and expectant prayer.

The grain offering and an Israelite (Leviticus 2)

The grain offering was given to the Lord as an acknowledgement that all their provisions came from him and an as expression of thankfulness to him for his kindness. The term used is minha, which means a gift or a tribute (for example, it is translated ‘present’ when used by Jacob in Genesis 43:11 and ‘tribute’ when given by various kings to Solomon in 1 Kings 5:1). It was a reminder to the offerer that he was a subject of a higher authority to whom gratitude should be expressed as a demonstration of loyalty.

A grain offering could be offered at any time in addition to the prescribed offering at the Feast of Weeks and other specified occasions. Those additional offerings were voluntary by which the Israelite worshipper spontaneously showed his delight dependence on and an ongoing submission to the Lord. Yet his obedience could not only be expressed by spontaneous offerings – he also had to obey specific divine commandments concerning his offering as part of the Feast of Weeks.

Further, this offering reminded the Israelite worshipper that he was involved in a totally different religion from the surrounding peoples. This was depicted in the absence of leaven and honey, which were used in pagan sacrifices. Inevitably there were some similarities between the offerings of the Israelites and the neighbouring peoples. Therefore items were omitted that pointed to the reality of being different. Nevertheless, in other offerings, leaven and honey were allowed, so it is not correct to say that leaven always depicts evil.

The grain offering also informed the Israelite worshipper that he was responsible for providing the priests with food and other provisions. Priests did not have land as their inheritance, therefore they had to look to other Israelites to provide. One way of doing this was through the grain offering. This giving to the priests was an essential part of the Israelites’ worship of God and was not an add-on to his worship. The point made earlier about the combination of voluntary and specific applies here as well. Priests would receive a share from the specified offerings at the Feast of Weeks, but they would also receive a portion from the voluntary grain offerings.

Part of the grain offering was burned on the altar as a memorial offering. This may mean that the worshipper had remembered God, but it is more likely that it signified that the offerer wanted the Lord to continue to remember him and supply his future needs.

Moreover, the grain offering had to include salt. Salt was used in the making of covenants and some scholars suggest that it came to be included in the grain offering through the practice of those making a covenant concluding it by sharing a meal in which salt was taken. What is clear is that salt was a reminder of the covenant between God and Israel, and its inclusion was a confession of the unique relationship that existed between God and the worshipper – a relationship of Redeemer and redeemed, of Guide and travellers, and of Provider and the needy.

The Grain Offering (Leviticus 2)

God must be worshipped by his people. Yet because he is a great God, far beyond the mind of humans to grasp, it was necessary that distinct offerings be made to him, with each offering indicating a different response by the worshipper. In Leviticus 1 the burnt offering is described, and it was a means by which the worshipper stated that he was dedicating himself to God. Four other offerings are mentioned in this section of Leviticus, with the next being the grain offering.

Two types of grain offering were allowed: first, there was an uncooked offering (vv. 1-4) and, second, there was a cooked or baked offering, with three types of such offering described. All grain offerings had to be made with fine flour mixed with oil; the uncooked offering also had frankincense on it and the other offering had small differences between its various kinds.

Both the uncooked and the cooked offerings were given to a priest. He would offer part of each offering to the Lord on the altar as a memorial offering (vv. 2, 9, 16), with the remainder of each offering given to the priests to use. The worshipper did not partake of any of the grain offering. The portion of the grain offering that was given to the priests was regarded as most holy (v. 3). This was probably a reminder to them to eat it in a devotional manner – failure to do so would be like Christians taking the Lord’s Supper in a disrespectful way.

Leaven and honey could not be used in the preparation of the voluntary grain offering. Each grain offering had to be seasoned with salt (salt was a symbol of the covenant between Israel and God).

Instructions are also given about the annual grain offering connected to the Feast of Firstfruits (vv. 11-16). Leaven and honey could be offered at this event, but not on the altar. Instead, only ears of corn, which had been roasted and crushed and covered with oil and frankincense, were allowed. A small portion was used by the priest as a memorial offering.

Other passages indicate that the grain offering often accompanied other offerings such as the burnt offering and the peace offering (and its position in Leviticus 2, which is between the burning offering in the previous chapter and the peace offering in the following chapter, may point to this aspect).

There was no blood in the grain offering and by itself it was not an atoning sacrifice, but its connection to other offerings, as well as the fact that it was offered on the blood-stained altar of burnt offering, would allow it to be part of an occasion when atonement was made. This may give the reason why Cain’s offering was rejected (Gen. 4).

There was nothing wrong with offering the fruit of the ground as long as it was accompanied by a blood sacrifice, and Cain omitted the latter. Cain may have possessed a natural form of gratitude to his Creator, but he had no awareness that he needed his Creator to also function as his Saviour.

The Burnt Offering (Leviticus 1) and us

What does this ritual mean for a sinner in his relationship with Jesus? Regarding a sinner’s approach to the Lord several comments can be made.

First, it is impossible for him to draw near to God without a sacrifice. The access to God’s presence is closed against all sinners, no matter how upright they may be. We are unable to enter God’s presence in our own merit.

Second, we have to select the sacrifice that God has ordained for us. In Leviticus 1 and subsequent chapters, he described the kind of sacrifices he would accept from Israel. Elsewhere in the Bible God makes it clear that the only sacrifice that is acceptable is the one offered up by the Lord Jesus on Calvary as the sinbearer. Each one of us has to choose him as our sacrifice. But what does it mean to choose him? The person leaning with his weight on the animal pictures for us the simplicity of faith – we lean fully on Jesus for salvation, we depend on him alone.

Third, the worshipper has a part to play in the sacrifice in the sense that he killed the animal. This is a reminder that our sins caused the death of Jesus, that in dying he took our place and bore the pains of the wrath of God. Each Christian has said at conversion, ‘I choose Jesus freely as my Saviour, I lean entirely on him for deliverance from the judgement of God because I know that my sins caused some of the distress and pain he experienced on the cross.’

Paul challenged the Roman Christians when he wrote in Romans 12:1: ‘I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship.’ Paul probably had the burnt offering as the background of his exhortation.

Throughout Romans Paul has reminded his readers of some of the great benefits that came to them through Jesus, such as justification by faith, adoption into God’s family, sanctification and glorification. In the light of those great blessings, he exhorts his readers to dedicate themselves to God.

In other words, the only valid response to the true Burnt Offering is for each believer to remain a burnt offering throughout his or her life, fully dedicated to Jesus Christ. When that happens, it means that, in addition to having detected sweet aroma in the dedication of Jesus, the Father will sense sweet aroma in the commitment of his children to his service.