Bible Commentaries
Leviticus 1

Verses 1-38

III

OFFERINGS

Leviticus 1-7

I make some general statements that apply to those books of the Pentateuch before Leviticus. In sacrifices of every kind, we commence with the fundamental idea of vicarious expiation. Vicarious means "in the place of another," a substitute dying for another. The next advance in thought is the atonement that is made in heaven based upon the blood that he shed here upon earth. The next thought is, how the blood of the expiatory sacrifice is applied to the sinner. The next is, that but once is the expiatory blood ever sprinkled on the mercy seat; after that, it is sprinkled just outside the most holy place. There are sins that a man commits after Christ’s blood is applied, and for these sins there are offerings and the application to the forgiveness of sins; those particular offenses and all of these things are presented in this book and afterward realized in the New Testament idea.

First of all the offerings is the vicarious offering, simply because every other one depends on that. You couldn’t offer what is called a thank offering unless there had first been an expiatory offering based upon which the thank offering can be offered. One cannot offer a peace offering unless it is based upon the idea of an expiation that has preceded that peace offering. The fundamental idea then is the expiatory sacrifice of the substitutionary victim.

The word "burnt offering" is a very comprehensive term. A burnt offering may be a sin offering, it may be a consecration offering, it may be a meal offering or it may be a peace offering. Then the burnt offering may be burnt in whole or in part. In the case of a sin offering it is always burnt, every make his offering. Now, poor people could not have offered pigeon. Why? Why that variety? So that every one could bit of it; so in the consecration offerings; in others only a part is burnt. So it is very easy to get your mind confused on the burnt offering.

The next thought in connection with the burnt offering is, where it is burned. There are only two places where the burnt offering can be burned. If it is a sin offering as well as a burnt offering, it is all burned outside the camp; but if it is a consecration burnt offering, or of that kind, the burning is always on the brazen altar of sacrifice.

Now, let us take up the idea of the burnt offering which is for the purpose of consecration. These offerings, or consecrations, are of great variety. I will tell you why directly. One might offer a bullock, a goat, a sheep, a turtledove, or a young a bullock when they wanted to consecrate themselves unto God; it was more than they were able to pay. It is an indication of the extreme poverty of our Lord’s family that when they went to consecrate him they could not bring any more than a pair of turtledoves. The object of the variety is to enable everybody to make an offering, whether rich or poor.

The next thought in this connection is, that this must always be a whole offering, not a part. If one was rich enough to offer a bullock, he must offer the whole bullock and the whole bullock was burned. If he was so poor that he could only offer turtledoves, he never presented half of the turtledove or pigeon, but presented the whole dove, the whole pigeon.

The next thought is the last on the consecration offering, viz.: that no life can be consecrated unless it has first been saved; therefore, I say expiation comes first. Now leaving the expiation idea, let us see what is the thought. When a man is saved, saved by the blood of Jesus Christ, what is the first question for him? It is that his entire life and everything that he has is to be consecrated to God. This is the first thought. That was the thought when Jesus was presented in the Temple and when the appearance of the turtledoves indicated the consecration. Everything that he had was laid upon the altar of God.

Now let us look at an era of Texas history. All of you who live in Texas have doubtless heard George Truett’s sermon on consecration. I am sure he has preached it a hundred times. The idea is the giving up wholly to God after you are first saved; that you cannot give your sinful nature to God, but if the blood of Christ has cleansed you, then you can come before God. That is what this Levitical law requires. He was to bring the turtledoves and the whole of them was to be put upon the altar.

Now let us look at the ritual for the consecration offering. When one made that offering, first of all he laid his hands upon it. That indicates the idea of the transfer of his sins to the victim; it also indicates that his faith laid hold on that victim for what was done for him in that offering. In the New Testament times, you will see that the laying on of hands came to signify the imparting of the Holy Spirit.

What was done with the expiatory blood? That was carried into the most holy place and sprinkled on the mercy seat. What was done with the blood of the victim in the consecration offering? It was never carried and sprinkled on the mercy seat, because it was based on the expiation, but it was sprinkled on the sides of the brazen altar. Now, get these significant thoughts in your mind. This is to show that one must offer to God, without any mental reservation whatever, an entire consecration of affection, of talents, of money, of everything that he has. That is why Brother Truett preached that sermon so much. He saw the little things that Christians were doing, and the ease with which they go along, and he wanted to preach that fundamental sermon which would show them that if they were God’s children then they were called upon to lay upon the altar themselves and everything that they had. As Paul says about the churches of Macedonia, that they first gave themselves and then gave their contribution. A contribution without giving yourself doesn’t count.

Now, let us get the idea of fire, the burning, that is, God’s acceptance of the consecration. When the fire consumes utterly the whole of the burnt offering that is laid upon the altar, that fire represents the idea of God’s acceptance and appropriation of the consecration of the entire life. Take, for example, the marvelous scene that occurred in the days of Elijah. The people assembled to determine who was the true God, Jehovah or Baal. The priests of Baal built their altar and laid their sacrifices on it, and then from morning till evening prayed: "O Baal, hear us; now if Baal be God, let him send down the fire and show that he accepts it." Elijah wanted to show them the difference in the case of Jehovah. So when he had prepared the altar and laid the victim on it, he had barrels of water poured on the victim until the water filled the trenches around the altar of Jehovah. If Jehovah had fire hot enough to consume it, he was surely God. When he prayed, "O, Jehovah, hear us," fire came down and devoured the sacrifice and licked up the water out of the trenches. The significance of the fire is that it is God’s acceptance of the offering.

The next thought is that which takes place when the smoke of the offering goes up. When you come to the New Testaments Paul says that when they made their offerings it was a sweet savour unto God (Philippians 4:18).

Now let us take up the next burnt offerings, i.e., the meal offerings. This is not the consecration offering. This consists, as to its materials, of an agricultural product of one kind or another. And when they were brought up and put upon the altar, what is meant by it? It means that, as the whole life was consecrated to God in the consecration offerings, in this one the idea is service. First, we have expiation, then consecration, then service, and these thoughts presented in the book of Leviticus are of real value. If you were to go to preach a sermon on this, you would divide it thus: First, expiation, then atonement, then the consecration of the entire life which has been saved, then service.

There is another distinction between the meal offering and the consecration offering, viz.: that it is intended by the meal offering to make a contribution to the ministers of religion, priests in those times, preachers in these times; that it is a reasonable service of saved men, consecrated men, devoted to service, to minister carnal things to those who minister unto them spiritual things. So, a large part of the offering went to the priest, and to show the application of it in the New Testament Paul says that they went up to the altar and partook of the things of the altar. So God has ordained that those who preach the gospel should live of the gospel. In the last chapter of Leviticus there is this addition made, viz.: the tithe of all that God had given them, and that tenth, or tithe, was for keeping up the worship, or service of God. The peace offering must never precede the expiation. There is no peace with God until the sins are expiated. The peace offering is not all burned, only a part of it. The object of the peace offering was not to obtain peace. In other words, the peace offering relates to peace because of expiation, and Paul translates that idea into the New Testament language, "Being justified by faith, let us have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ." The justification is based on the expiation. There is no such thing as peace, spiritual peace with God, until first there has been justification and atonement and God has declared one justified. In this peace offering we come also to the idea of fellowship. Here the people share with the priest in eating of what is not burned. Only certain parts are burned; the other parts are kept for a feast and the people come up and eat with the officers and the priests in this.

We now come to a distinction in what are called sin offerings. In burning the offerings known as the sin offerings, if one was a king or a priest, he had to make a greater offering than if he had been one of the common people. Why is that? Now, just think about it. It means that if a king’s son sins or if the preacher sins, it is a greater offense than if any one else sins, because he occupies a higher position. It is required that those who bear the vessels of God should be holy. I heard a preacher say that he had as much right to do wrong as any one in his congregation. Perhaps he did, but the responsibility on that preacher to abstain from doing wrong is stronger than on a member of his congregation and he is held to a stricter and larger account.

I now call your attention to this feature of the sin offering, viz.: the Old Testament makes it perfectly clear that a sin offering must be made for a sin of which the person is unconscious; for sins that are unwittingly done. I heard a Methodist preacher give a definition of sin. He said, "Sin is a voluntary transgression of a known law." I told him to strike out "voluntary" and strike out "known" and even then he would not have a true definition of sin. Suppose that a little child steps on a red-hot iron, does the child’s unwitting act or ignorant act keep that hot iron from burning its foot? You hold out a candle before a baby; it looks pretty and he will reach out and grab it and is burned. The law of nature is fixed. Now you apply that to the spiritual world. Law is not a sliding scale; law is a fixed thing; a thing is right or a thing is wrong, utterly regardless of whether we know it to be right or know it to be wrong. David offers this prayer: "Cleanse thou me from secret faults." Not faults that he is keeping secret, but of which he is utterly unconscious.

And it is in this connection that I must speak of a very important matter of which Leviticus does not treat at all, viz.: the sin for which no offering can be made. We learn about it when we come to Numbers. The soul that doeth right in ignorance, an atonement shall be made for that sin; the soul that doeth ought presumptuously, no atonement can be made for that sin. If we sin wilfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sin but the certain fearful looking for judgment. Now, Jesus taught that a certain kind of sin is an eternal sin. It never has forgiveness, neither in this world nor in the world to come. That does not mean that some sins are forgiven here and some over yonder, but that God may forgive sins as for eternity and yet chastise the sinner here upon earth. When we come to the New Testament, particularly, to discuss the unpardonable sin, the sin for which there is no provision for forgiveness, I will show you how easily one may become possessed with the idea of committing the unpardonable sin.

I received a letter from a soldier in the regular army last year. He said, "I have never met you but I have heard that you have studied the Bible a great deal. I am in deep trouble. I have knowingly and wilfully committed sin." Then he quoted that passage, "If we sin wilfully." And he says, "Have I not committed the unpardonable sin?" I wrote him that his trouble arose from misunderstanding the kind of knowledge that meant; that it did not mean a sin against intellectual knowledge. The unpardonable sin is a sin against spiritual knowledge. Paul says that he sinned ignorantly, and that did not mean that he was intellectually ignorant of the Old Testaments, but he meant that he did not have the spiritual light that points to Jesus Christ.

The only way in which a man can commit the sin for which there is no atonement to be made is in a case like this: We will suppose that a great meeting is in progress, in which the power of God is marvelously displayed; in which the people of God are praying; in which the presence of God is felt in their gathering by any Christian. If, while preaching is going on in such a meeting and Jesus Christ is held up, a sinner is impressed by the Spirit of God that the preacher is telling the truth, that he (the sinner) is a lost soul, and that Jesus is his appointed Saviour, and he, under that spiritual knowledge, feels impressed to make & movement forward and accept Christ and turns away from that spiritual knowledge and says "No," deliberately, maliciously, and wilfully walking away from it, that is the unpardonable sin. I heard a preacher once, when he saw a boy and girl laughing, accuse them of committing the unpardonable sin. I thought he was committing a great sin to make such accusation. Now, I have discussed the sin for which there is no offering. I have brought it in here because I don’t want to discuss it twice.

Suppose I should ask this question: What is the difference between the sin offering and the trespass offering? I will mention one; it is not all. Suppose a man in ancient times killed another one, the sin offering was made; suppose he stole $100 from a man, then he brought the trespass offering; one is called a sin offering and the other, trespass offering. In the trespass offering, one has to make restitution before he gets forgiveness. He can’t restore if he has killed a man; but if he has stolen money, if it is in his power, he must give the money back. Shakespeare asks this question: "Can a man be pardoned and retain the offence?" If he slips into your room and appropriates a piece of your property and goes off and says, "God forgive me," God says, "Go and put the property back." In the sin offering, there is no restitution on his part; there, the great sacrifice of Jesus is the one; but here is something he can do.

Now, who can answer this question: What denomination insists most on restitution where one has committed the trespass? I am sorry that I cannot say that it is the Baptists. It is the Roman Catholics. Just; let any one come and confess to a priest and want absolution – don’t believe in confessing to a priest, but let that man come there and make that confession – and that priest will insist on restitution before he will absolve him; no way to get out of it.

How is it with most people on that matter? They are ashamed to make restitution, because restitution exposes them. They often do it secretly. For instance, a man by unrighteousness, by burdening a thousand hearts, by bringing desolation into a thousand homes, will acquire an immense fortune. He does not feel right about it and wants to ease his conscience. He won’t come out and say, "I did wrong," but he says, "I will give to one of the religious denominations, or I will build a church, or I will establish some good charity." Do you know that a unique part of American history illustrates that part of the case? That is the conscience fund. The United States had to establish a conscience fund. They get so many letters of this kind unsigned: "I robbed the government by withholding a tax that was due. I should have paid it. My conscience so lashes me under religious conviction that I am compelled now to put that money back." Now, this same conscience fund has assumed enormous proportions. Men feel that they do not want to come out and make a confession. They do not come out and say, "Mr. A and Mr. B confess to have stolen from the government." It is a fine thing in America that conscience takes hold of us.

Now, study the difference in the trespass offering and the sin offering and you will see that in the case of the trespass offering there must be restitution not only in the law which was broken but fourfold. Zaccheus in the New Testament times says, "Lord, if I have wronged anybody, I restore it fourfold," which is a reference to this law. As I have borne testimony to the fidelity of the Roman Catholics, I will tell you an amusing thing in literature. One of the greatest historic romancers was Sir Walter Scott, who wrote the book, The Betrothed. A certain castle was left in charge of a knight, to be held faithfully until the owner returned from the Holy Land. A certain number of Flemish people had come over from Flanders and had established a colony under the walls of the castle. When the old knight went out to fight his battle in which he thought he would die, he put this old Flemish man in charge of his castle. The priest distrusted the Flemish man. He believed the Fleming was about to receive overtures from the enemy. The danger was that they were about to destroy the castle. So they managed to get him to hold parley that if they would deliver a certain number of cattle, that he would consider opening the gates to them. The old priest disguised himself and heard the Fleming make that treaty and he determined to denounce him. The Fleming took the priest aside and said: "Father, I have a daughter, Rose. I got into financial trouble and I promised a man that I would give him my daughter if he would give me four hundred marks, and now I have received the four hundred marks and I don’t want to give my daughter." "Sir, you must restore the four hundred marks." "Well, but, Father," he says, "those cattle you see coming yonder are the marks I received, the daughter Rose is this castle. Now, must I restore those cattle?" "No, you fool, the church makes a distinction in certain matters." And the priest was right in his interpretation, because to restore those cattle meant not being true to the trust of the old knight and was to restore that over which the Fleming had no jurisdiction. He was very much amazed that he did not intend to betray him.

Suppose a man is called in to witness in a court and gives false testimony and an innocent man is made to suffer. He dies on the gallows. Now, this man whose false testimony convicted him has come under conviction himself, spiritual conviction. That prisoner is dead and gone. He brings the case to a preacher. "Now, what must I do? I cannot restore that man’s life." The preacher says, "No, but you can restore his reputation; you can take the shame off his wife and children, and you must come out. I cannot encourage you that God will save you if you do not come out openly before the world and admit your guilt." That illustrates the restitution idea; that if you cannot restore all and can restore part, you must restore all that you can.

QUESTIONS

1. Give a general statement applying to all the books of the Pentateuch touching sacrifices.

2. What of the signification of the blood sprinkled outside the most holy place?

3. What offering precedes all others and why?

4. What can you say of the sweep of burnt offerings?

5. What are the different kinds of burnt offerings?

6. What is the order of these offerings?

7. What of distinction in the burning?

8. Where were they burned?

9. What three characteristics of the consecration offerings?

10. Upon what must the consecration offering be based?

11. What modern preacher has a great sermon on consecration and what the main point?

12. What does the ritual prescribe for the consecration offering?

13. What of the signification of the laying on of hands?

14. What was done with the blood?

15. If an expiatory offering, where placed and why?

16. What of the signification of the fire in the consecration offering?

17. What Old Testament illustration of this idea of fire?

18. What does Paul gay of this from God’s viewpoint?

19. What is the idea of the meal offering?

20. Give the scriptural order of the sacrifices.

21. What is the object in the meal offering?

22. What New Testament corresponds to this teaching?

23. What was added later to supplement the offerings?

24. In the peace offering, how much burned?

25. What was the object, negatively and positively?

26. In the case of the sin offering, how burned?

27. Where was the blood placed?

28. What distinction in the case of kings and priests, and why?

29. For what kind of sins were sin offerings made?

30. What is sometimes given as a definition of sin?

31. What words should be stricken from this definition?

32. Is this, then, a good definition, and why?

33. What great sin is not discussed in Leviticus?

34. What is that sin?

35. What distinction between sin offering and trespass offering?

36. What said Shakespeare on this point?

37. What denomination insists most upon this?

38. How is this with most people?

39. How do some attempt to make restitution?

40. How has Uncle Sam provided for this?

41. Give a New Testament reference to the law of the trespass offering.

42. What of the point in the illustration from Scott?

43. What of the relation of this law to the trespass offering to salvation. Illustrate.