Introduction
Suppose this question was to be posed of the Lord’s people: ‘What
was the prime object of the Lord Jesus Christ in coming into this
world?’ What answer do you think most would give? Many would say
that the prime object was to save sinners. Now that was an
object (see 1 Tim. 1: 15)—a most blessed object—but it was not the
chief object. The chief object is what we find in Heb. 10:
“Wherefore coming into the world he says, Sacrifice and offering
thou willedst not; but thou hast prepared me a body. Thou tookest no
pleasure in burnt-offerings and sacrifices for sin. Then I said, Lo,
I come (in [the] roll of the book it is written of me) to do, O God,
thy will” (vs. 5-7). The prime object the Lord Jesus had in coming
into this world was to accomplish the will of God and so to glorify
God. As the Lord said Himself, in anticipation of His death on the
cross, “Now is the Son of man glorified, and God is glorified in
him” (John 13: 31).
We see this typified in the ordering of the offerings in Leviticus.
God begins with the burnt-offering, and ends with the trespass
offering—that is, He leaves off where we begin. When the arrow of
conviction first enters the soul, the heart is searched to its
depths in reference to sins actually committed, and the sinner has
an overwhelming desire to know that God has provided a sacrifice
through which there can be forgiveness. This is the trespass
offering of chapter 5 (see Lev. 5: 14—6: 7). Soon, as the
believer advances in spiritual life, there is a growing
consciousness that sins are but branches of a root, and the
sacrifice of Christ comes to be seen as that in which God has
condemned, not merely sins in the life but “sin in the flesh” (Rom.
8: 3). This is the sin offering of chapter 4 (see Lev.
4: 1—5: 13). Sin and
sins being known as settled, the soul is now truly at peace, and on
that basis engages in happy relationship with God. This is the
peace or fellowship offering of chapter 3
(see Lev. 3: 1-17). Inevitably, as communing with God, the soul is
led to contemplate the Man that God found such a delight in as
walking on this earth in subjection to His will. This is the
meat or meal offering of chapter 2 (see Lev. 2: 1-13).
Finally, the worshipper comes to see Christ’s death from God’s
side—not so much in the taking away of sins, but Christ as offering
Himself without spot to God in unswerving devotion to the Father’s
will. This is the burnt offering of chapter 1 (see
Lev. 1: 1-17), an “offering by fire to Jehovah of a sweet odour”
(Lev. 1: 9). Thus if we begin with what meets our need, God begins
with what glorifies Him and brings Him satisfaction and pleasure.
Divine Satisfaction
It is a tremendous thing when a soul enters into what God in
Christ’s death has done “concerning his sin which he hath sinned”
and has laid hold of those wonderful words “and it shall be forgiven
him” (Lev. 4: 35). How many, however, have considered what
God’s thoughts are about Christ and His death on the cross?
If the Father could say of Him during His life here, “This is my
beloved Son, in whom I have found my delight” (Matt. 3: 17; 17: 5)
how much more now that His obedience and love to the Father has
taken Him even into death itself! In John 14: 31 we find both things
in the same verse: “but that the world may know that I love
the Father, and as the Father has commanded me, thus I
do. Rise up, let us go hence” (my emphasis). Where was He going? He
rose from that supper to go to Calvary! As He said earlier, “My food
is that I should do the will of him that has sent Me, and that I
should finish his work” (John 4: 34). Of course, the Father always
delighted in Him, but now it is “On this account the Father loves
Me, because I lay down my life that I may take it again” (John 10:
17). There was a fresh cause, so to speak, for the Father’s love to
flow out toward the Son: “because I lay down my life that I may take
it again”.
If you turn to Eph. 5: 2 you will find that there are two sides of
the work of Christ presented to us in one verse. First: “walk in
love, even as the Christ loved us, and delivered himself up for
us”—that is our side. Second: “an offering and sacrifice to God for
a sweet-smelling savour”—that is God’s side. I am sure we lose very
much in our own souls through not looking at the burnt-offering
aspect of the sacrifice of Christ—what it is to God, and not only
what it is for us. Why are our meetings so low in tone—even when we
gather for the Lord’s Supper? Is it not because we can rarely think
beyond our needs in relation to Christ’s death? We may express our
thanks for the sin-offering and the trespass-offering, but how much
do we really enter into what Christ’s death was for God—the burnt
offering? Have we not forgotten that the peace offering—that which
speaks of our communion with God—was burnt “on the altar upon the
burnt-offering which [lieth] on the wood that is upon the fire”
(Lev. 3: 5)? True communion with God is found in God’s thoughts
about Christ.
A Sweet-Smelling Savour
The presentation of offerings to God was not the prerogative of an
elite but was open to all. It was “when any man of you
presenteth an offering to Jehovah” (Lev. 1: 2). If the offering was
a burnt-offering, then “he shall present it a male without blemish:
at the entrance of the tent of meeting shall he present it, for his
acceptance before Jehovah” (v3)—the meaning of present it in
the Hebrew (offer it in the AV) is to bring near).
Mark, the animal was not yet killed. Yes, it goes on to say, “for
his acceptance” (v3)—and we will come to that—but do not lose sight
of the fact that it was presented at the tent of meeting. In the
type, the offerer brings Christ before God in all his perfection (“a
male without blemish”—v3). But that is not all, for “he shall
slaughter the bullock before Jehovah” (v5), and the priest was then
to burn “all on the altar, a burnt-offering, an offering by fire to
Jehovah of a sweet odour” (v9). Doubtless both offerer and priest
smelt the sweet odour, but the point was that God
smelt it. Thus “Noah built an altar to Jehovah … and offered up
burnt-offerings on the altar. And Jehovah smelled the sweet
odour” (Gen. 8: 20, 21, my emphasis).
Interestingly, the Hebrew word for burnt-offering (olah)
means ascending or that which goes up. The equivalent
word in Greek (see Mark 12: 33; Heb. 10: 6, 8) is
olokautwma
(holokautoma)
or, as it might be rendered, holocaust. It is also worthy of
notice that the word burn used in Lev. 1 differs from that
used in Lev. 4: 12, when the sin-offering was carried “outside the
camp unto a clean place” and burnt (saraph) “on wood with
fire”. The word used throughout Lev. 1 is qatar, which means
to convert by fire into incense (same word as in Exod. 40:
27). Thus not only were the two offerings burnt in different places,
but the Spirit of God deliberately chooses a word that demonstrates
the divine satisfaction inherent in the burning of the
burnt-offering.
The Offerer and the Priest
It is noticeable that the burnt-offering involved different actions
by different individuals. While we cannot always be exactly certain
who was doing what, it would appear that there is a measure of
alternation, and that the word he consistently refers to the
offerer. Thus the offerer was to present the offering (see Lev. 1:
3), to lay his hand on the offering (see v4), to slaughter it (see
v5), to flay it and to cut it up (see v6), and to wash its inwards
and legs (see v9). Aaron’s sons, however, were to present and
sprinkle the blood (see v5), put fire and lay wood on the altar (see
v7) and lay the pieces in order (see v8) and to burn all (see v9).
Of course, the Christian is represented in both “any man” (v2) and
“Aaron’s sons” (v5), but while both functions are united in the
believer, they can also be distinguished. On the one hand, the
believer is an offerer and is occupied in such activities as reveal
the perfection of the sacrifice for his own acceptance. On the other
hand, the believer is a priest and serves in such a way that the
offering goes up as a sweet savour to God.
The Offerer
The first action of the offerer was to present his offering: “If his
offering be a burnt-offering of the herd, he shall present it a male
without blemish: at the entrance of the tent of meeting” (Lev. 1:
3). At this point, it is very helpful to connect the last chapter of
Exodus with the first chapter of Leviticus. Twice in Exod. 40 we
read that “the cloud covered the tent of meeting, and the glory of
Jehovah filled the tabernacle” (vs. 34; see v35). Then in Lev. 1: 1
we read that “Jehovah called to Moses and spoke to him out of the
tent of meeting”. God did not speak from Mount Sinai where He had
given the law, but out of the tabernacle which He had filled with
His glory. In Exod. 40 we find the glory filling the tabernacle, and
then in Lev. 1 God speaking out of that glory as to the way that the
believer is made fit for all eternity to dwell in that glory! The
Israelite presented the burnt-offering “for his acceptance
before Jehovah” (Lev. 1: 3, my emphasis). Here the AV has
“of his own voluntary will” instead of “for his acceptance”, but
there is no doubt that “for his acceptance” is correct—the word the
AV translates “accepted” in v4 (rasah) is the verb form of
“of his own voluntary will” (rason) in v3. Now of course the
Levitical offerings were only “the representation and shadow of
heavenly things” (Heb. 8: 5) but it is precisely that
which gives them their value. If the offerer in Lev. 1 had a sense
that he was accepted before God, what then of the reality for the
Christian, who has been taken “into favour in the Beloved” (Eph. 1:
6)?
How,
exactly, was the offerer accepted? “He shall lay his hand
on the head of the burnt-offering” (Lev. 1: 4, my emphasis). That
action meant that the offerer was identified with all the value of
the sacrifice. In other words, if God accepted the sacrifice, He
accepted the one who brought it. If God found the sacrifice a sweet
savour and found delight in it, He found the same delight in the one
who came with it. The offerer was fully identified with the value of
the sacrifice before God. Hence, “and it shall be accepted for
him”—or, as we might say, instead of him. It is not
that he, the offerer, was to be accepted because of
the offering (although true), but that the offering shall be
accepted for him. Whatever the offerer was as a
sinner, and whatever were his feelings, his experiences, or his
thoughts as to the value of the sacrifice—none of this had anything
to do with his acceptance. The only question was the value of the
offering in the sight of God. The offerer might have said, ‘If God
accepts the sacrifice, I am accepted; If God finds delight in the
sacrifice I bring, then He finds delight in me too’. In other words,
it is Christ and His work accepted by God instead of me. Instead of
being before God in our disobedience and lack of devotedness, we are
accepted according to all the value of Christ’s work on the
cross—where His obedience and devotedness to the Father were fully
manifested.
What then of the words, “and it shall be accepted for him to
make atonement for him” (v4, my emphasis)? Simply that what
is all for God also has (wonderful grace) the effect of dealing with
what I am as a sinner. Atonement may not be the prominent thought in
the burnt offering (the word atonement occurs once in Lev. 1
compared to 9 times in chapters 4 and 5) but it is there (comp. Job
1: 5)—as it must be if I am to be accepted.
A Perfect Sacrifice
Next, then as to the character of the sacrifice presented: “He shall
present it a male without blemish” (v3). An imperfect animal could
not be accepted (see Lev. 22: 17-25). If there had been a single
spot or a single blemish upon that bullock, it could not have been
accepted, and if the bullock had not been accepted, the offerer
would not have been accepted—for it was for his acceptance that the
animal was offered. What does this “male without blemish” point to?
To the holy perfection of the Lord Jesus Christ, who “offered
himself spotless to God” (Heb. 9: 14). Sin is really independence of
the divine will, and yet here was One who did not sin (see 1 Pet. 2:
22), knew no sin (see 2 Cor. 5: 21) and in whom sin was not (see 1
John 3: 5). Furthermore, the obedience that characterized the Lord
in His life here was only perfected, so to speak, in His death. In
Gethsemane, He faced the enormity of what He would have to go
through if He persisted in His path of obedience: “My Father, if it
be possible let this cup pass from me”. He immediately goes on to
say, “But not as I will, but as thou [wilt]” (Matt.
26: 39). Perfection in a Man!
This absolute perfection of the Son is typified in that the offering
was not only without blemish—outwardly perfect, we might say—but
perfect throughout. We see this in the action of the
offerer: flaying the sacrifice removed its skin so that its insides
could be seen and cutting it up into its pieces implies an
examination and display of its constituent parts (see Lev. 1: 6).
Again, “its inwards and its legs shall he wash in water” (v9)—that
is, the animal sacrifice was to be made clean, to picture both the
inward purity of Christ as without sin, and the perfection and
holiness of His walk.
The Priest
Turning now to the “priest” (Lev. 1: 9), it is important to realise
that he is not Aaron (which would represent Christ), but one of
“Aaron’s sons, the priests” (v5). Such represent believers, not as
seeking acceptance, but as worshippers acceptably occupied in the
service of God. Essentially, this means that the priest moves with
spiritual wisdom to present the death of Christ to God, not in its
character as a sin-offering, but as “a burnt-offering, an offering
by fire to Jehovah of a sweet odour” (v9)—that in which God’s heart
can find deep and eternal satisfaction.
The priest first comes before us in v5, after it is
said of the offering that “it shall be accepted for him to make
atonement for him” (v4)—for acceptance precedes worship. The initial
action of Aaron’s sons was to “present the blood and sprinkle the
blood round about on the altar that is at the entrance of the tent
of meeting” (v5). Blood is the witness of death, and the altar being
at the entrance of the tent of meeting emphasises that there can be
no meeting God apart from Christ’s death. The presentation of the
blood by the priest shows his understanding of how the divine
pleasure resides in the One who was “obedient even unto death”
(Phil. 2: 8), and how that necessarily forms the basis of not only
our acceptance but our worship. Yet the blood was also sprinkled
“round about” (Lev. 1: 5)—which is surely a hint that whoever acts
as a priest will bring those around him into the same thoughts about
Christ’s death as he has before God.
The next action of the sons of Aaron was to “put fire on the altar,
and lay wood in order on the fire; and Aaron’s sons, the priests,
shall lay the pieces, the head, and the fat, in order on the wood
that is on the fire which is on the altar” (Lev. 1: 7, 8). This is
all very deliberate and precise, picturing that the priest has a
measure of understanding of the place of each in order for there to
be a sweet savour going up to God. The fire speaks of divine
judgment, and the head reminds us of “not my will, but thine be
done” (Luke 22: 42). The fat speaks of what made the sacrifice of
value (comp. Gen. 45: 18)—it was not
“poor” or “lean-fleshed” (Gen. 41: 19)—and the priest, as occupied
in these things, is typical of the Christian who intelligently
addresses God in worship regarding the pleasure that God has found
in Christ’s obedience unto death.
Next, “the priest shall burn all on the altar, a burnt-offering, an
offering by fire to Jehovah of a sweet odour” (Lev. 1: 9). See how
the fire and the sweet odour go together: Christ was tested to the
utmost at Calvary, and yet the more He was tested the more the sweet
odour came out. Notice too, that all was to be burned
for everything in the burnt-offering was for the
satisfaction of God. Indeed, the Greek word for burnt-offering
(dolokautwma)
implies this, being derived from the words for whole and
burn). In this particular, the burnt-offering differed from the
meal and peace offerings in which only a part was burned with fire
(see Lev. 2: 9, 10; 3: 3-5) and the offerings for sin which, though
wholly burnt (apart from the fat) were not burnt on the altar (see
Lev. 4: 11, 12). Here some might draw attention to Lev. 7: 8, where
we read that “the skin of the burnt-offering which he hath presented
shall be the priest’s for himself” as if this might contradict the
“burn all” of Lev. 1: 9. However, the “burn all” refers to the
bullock after the removal of its skin by flaying (see
Lev. 1: 6). Why then this reservation of the skin for the priest—for
it was clearly not food like parts of the other offerings were? The
skin is the outward form, and the lesson appears to be that the one
who serves God is to take on likeness to Christ.
Other details should not be passed over: the burnt-offering was to
be “on the hearth on the altar all night unto the morning, and the
fire of the altar shall be kept burning on it” (Lev. 6: 9). Thus in
the darkness of the night, when Israel was asleep, or perhaps
murmuring in their tents, there was the sweet savour of the
sacrifice going up before God. In the same way, during the long,
dark night of the Lord’s absence and in the midst of the failure of
His people, the sweet savour of His sacrifice is as fresh before God
as at the moment when it was offered. And if, personally, we get
away from the Lord, is our acceptance before God changed? No, for
the sweet odour of the sacrifice of Christ before God remains, and
it is in that that we are accepted. Indeed, it further says that “a
continual fire shall be kept burning on the altar: it shall never go
out” (v13). What does
that imply? On the one hand, that even when we have been in the
glory of God for innumerable ages, we shall be there on the same
ground as that upon which we are accepted now, namely, the value of
the sacrifice of Christ before God. On the other hand, that God’s
delight in Christ’s offering of Himself is equally eternal and
unwavering.
Finally, we have the action of the priest with regard to the ashes
of the burnt-offering (see Lev. 6: 8-13)—he first put the ashes
“beside the altar” (v10) and then carried them “without the camp
unto a clean place” (v11). This taking up of the ashes possibly
pictures an understanding of the solemn fact that if Christ has
died, then I have “died with Christ” (Col. 2: 20) and my life, as in
this world where He died and (in type) was reduced to ashes “is hid
with the Christ in God” (Col. 3: 3). Placing the ashes beside the
altar perhaps suggests that this is first realised in the presence
of God, while “without the camp” (Lev. 6: 11) links with the same
expression in Heb. 13: 13 reminding us that since Christ has been
wholly consumed here, then we have no place here either.
Gradations of offerings
Most of what we have considered so far relates to the offering of a
bullock as a burnt offering (see Lev. 1: 3-9) but other offerings
are also described. There is, however, a definite gradation of
offerings, from the bullock through the sheep or goats (see vs.
10-13), and down to the doves or pigeons (see vs. 14-17). What this
signifies can be drawn from what is said about the sin-offering,
where the greater the gravity of the sin the larger or more valuable
the sacrifice demanded. Thus if one occupied in the service of God
had sinned, he was to bring a bullock (see Lev. 4: 3-12), while a
secular leader was to bring a buck of the goats (see vs. 22-26), and
an ordinary person could approach acceptably with a female goat, a
sheep, two birds or even fine flour (see Lev. 4: 27-5: 13). Now
guilt is not the prime thought in the burnt offering but what is
satisfying to the heart of God, and so, rather than the size or
value of the sacrifice being the measure of sin, it is instead a
measure of the apprehension in the offerer’s mind of what was
delightful to God. Or, put another way, while God found pleasure in
every burnt offering presented to Him, the amount of sweet odour
rising into the divine nostrils varied according to what was
brought.
The sheep or goat offering was clearly of a lesser quality to that
of the bullock. Unlike with the bullock, there is no mention of the
laying on of hands and acceptance—no apparent consciousness of
identification with the victim, and of being accepted as Christ is
accepted.
The blood is sprinkled round about on the altar (see Lev. 1: 11) but
not presented—perhaps suggesting that the needs of the sinner rather
than what is due to God is the prominent thought in the mind. There
is no flaying of the sacrifice, and the priest is said to “present
[it] all” (v13) rather than “burn all” (v9). Some of these
differences are minor but they do in general seem to suggest that
while the bullock is the standard sacrifice, the offering of the
flock is not quite as good—not just in the sacrifice itself, but in
how it was dealt with.
When we come to the offering of the birds, the sense of what is of a
lower grade is clear. This inferiority is heightened by the opening
remarks of Lev. 1 where there is no mention of birds: “When any man
of you presenteth an offering to Jehovah, ye shall present your
offering of the cattle, of the herd and of the flock” (v2).
Nor are birds mentioned in the dedicatory burnt offerings of Numbers
7 (see v15 etc.). Furthermore (and unlike
with the bullock or the sheep) there is no requirement for the
offering of a dove or pigeon to be a male without blemish, and while
it was split “open at its wings” (v17), it was not divided. This
implies a limited awareness of the depth of perfection in Christ.
Indeed, the crop (or food-pouch) being discarded along with the
feathers (see v16) suggests an inadequacy in the type. With the
bullock, although much larger, all was to be burnt (see v9) but
there is a falling short of this ideal with the birds. This suggests
a limited apprehension of the true thought of the burnt offering.
Despite this, however, it still says that the sacrifice of doves was
“an offering by fire to Jehovah of a sweet odour” (v17). God found
pleasure in it despite its imperfection. Why? Because, in its
measure, it speaks of Christ as offered to God. Let no one therefore
feel hindered (or be hindered) from coming before God in worship,
however feeble his apprehension might be!
Conclusion
May the Lord give us, beloved friends, to know more of that wondrous
work of the Lord Jesus on the cross—not only what it has done for
us, but what it is to God. It will be our theme of praise in glory,
for the same blessed Saviour will occupy us then and will bring out
the thanksgiving of our lips and the adoration of our hearts. May
God grant that it may be more and more so even now!
