← Back to sermon library

Following Wednesday night, but 
tonight, chapter 1, verses 1 to 17, the burnt offering. So I'll 
read beginning in verse 1. Now the Lord called to Moses 
and spoke to him from the tabernacle of meeting, saying, Speak to 
the children of Israel, and say to them, When any one of you 
brings an offering to the Lord, you shall bring your offering 
of the livestock, of the herd, and of the flock. If his offering 
is a burnt sacrifice of the herd, let him offer a male without 
blemish. He shall offer it of his own free will at the door 
of the tabernacle of meeting before the Lord. Then he shall 
put his hand on the head of the burnt offering, and it will be 
accepted on his behalf to make atonement for him. He shall kill 
the bull before the Lord, and the priests, Aaron's sons, shall 
bring the blood and sprinkle the blood all around on the altar 
that is by the door of the tabernacle of meeting. And he shall skin 
the burnt offering and cut it into its pieces. The sons of 
Aaron, the priests, shall put fire on the altar and lay the 
wood in order on the fire. Then the priests, Aaron's sons, 
shall lay the parts, the head and the fat, in order on the 
wood that is on the fire upon the altar. But he shall wash 
its entrails and its legs with water. And the priests shall 
burn all on the altar as a burnt sacrifice, an offering made by 
fire, a sweet aroma to the Lord. If his offering is of the flocks, 
of the sheep, or of the goats as a burnt sacrifice, he shall 
bring a male without blemish. He shall kill it on the north 
side of the altar before the Lord, and the priest's errand 
son shall sprinkle its blood all around on the altar. And 
he shall cut it into its pieces with its head and its fat, and 
the priest shall lay them in order on the wood that is on 
the fire upon the altar. But he shall wash the entrails 
and the legs with water. then the priest shall bring it 
all and burn it on the altar. It is a burnt sacrifice, an offering 
made by fire, a sweet aroma to the Lord. And if the burnt sacrifice 
of his offering to the Lord is of birds, then he shall bring 
his offering of turtle doves or young pigeons. The priest 
shall bring it to the altar, wring off its head, and burn 
it on the altar. Its blood shall be drained out 
at the side of the altar, and he shall remove its crop with 
its feathers and cast it beside the altar on the east side, into 
the place for ashes. Then he shall split its wings, 
but shall not divide it completely, and the priest shall burn it 
on the wood that is on the fire. It is a burnt sacrifice, an offering 
made by fire, a sweet aroma to the Lord. Amen. Well, in this 
particular section in chapters one to nine, we see laws concerning 
sacrifice and specifically the laws concerning sacrifice with 
reference to the laity or the regular guy in Israel. You see that in chapter one, 
beginning in verse one. And it goes to chapter 6, verse 
7. And so you've got the burnt offering, 
which we're looking at this evening in chapter 1, the grain offering 
in chapter 2, the peace offering in chapter 3, the sin offering 
in chapter 4, 1 to 5, 13, and then the guilt offering in chapter 
5, 14 to 6, 7. So those are the several offerings. So that is instructions with 
reference to the worshipper, And then in chapter 6, beginning 
in verse 8, you have instructions for the priests. So how the priests 
are to function in terms of these several sacrifices. We know that 
in chapter 9, they offer up a sacrifice, it is successful, God accepts 
it, sends fire down upon the altar, the people rejoice, they 
shout for joy, they engage in a loud shout. And then in chapter 
10, we see sort of the anti-sacrifice in terms of Nadab and Abihu offering 
up strange fire. So you have the proper conduct 
of priests, and then you have the improper conduct of priests 
that sort of caps off this section on sacrifice. So as I said, tonight 
we'll just take up chapter 1 in terms of the burnt offering Next 
time, we may take up several chapters and a lot more of the 
sacrifices. I think in some ways, chapter 
one is paradigmatic. It kind of gives the pattern. 
It sort of gives the means. It sort of gives the procedure 
involved. So we may not necessarily have 
to rehearse every jot and tittle of every other sacrifice at this 
particular, or as we move through the book. But I want to look 
first tonight at the general command concerning the sacrificial 
system, and that's in verses 1 and 2. And then secondly, the 
specific directions concerning the burnt offering in verses 
3 to 17. But in terms of the general command 
concerning the sacrificial system, remember that we are dealing 
with the dwelling place of God. God has the children of Israel 
build the tabernacle, and that becomes His dwelling place. It 
doesn't exhaust His dwelling. It's not the only place God is. He's omnipresent, He's immense, 
He fills all things, but rather this is representative of His 
dwelling amongst His people, Israel. And we remember in chapter 
40, the tabernacle is completed. According to verse 34, it says, 
"...the cloud covered the tabernacle of meeting, and the glory of 
the Lord filled the tabernacle. And Moses was not able to enter 
the tabernacle of meeting, because the cloud rested upon it, and 
the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle." So Leviticus 
comes to solve that particular tension. to turn the dwelling 
place of God into the meeting place with God. And that's the 
emphasis in terms of the sacrificial system. How does sinful man get 
into the presence of a thrice holy God? Well, that's what Leviticus 
responds to, and that's what Leviticus deals with in terms 
of God's acceptance of sinful man. So we notice in verse 1, 
the Lord called to Moses and spoke to him from the tabernacle 
of meeting. We see as well the mediatorial 
office of Moses underscored. Notice he calls to Moses, speaks 
to Moses, and then tells Moses in verse 2, speak to the children 
of Israel and say to them. So Old Covenant Israel was taught 
very clearly that they needed a mediator between them and God. God is a holy God. God is a righteous 
God. Therefore, Moses functions as 
the mediator between God and men. So Moses receives command 
from God, and then Moses delivers those commands to the people. He functions in a prophetic capacity 
there. One man, one commentator I'm 
going to lean a lot on in the book of Leviticus, his name is 
Gordon Wenham. He says, with these words Moses 
is told to resume his characteristic role as mediator between God 
and the people. Moses' special position as the 
prophet who declares God's will to men as and as intercessor 
when they sin. From the burning bush in Exodus 
3 to the plagues in Exodus 7 to 12, the law given at Sinai, Exodus 
19 and following, and the golden calf episode in Exodus 32 to 
34, Moses carries out his role as mediator. Numbers 12, 6 and 
following likens him to God's confidential servant, while Deuteronomy 
18, 15 tells Israel to await another prophet like Moses. So 
as good as Moses is, Deuteronomy 18.15, the children of Israel 
are told to look for a prophet like Moses that would be one 
of their brethren, and that is a prophecy concerning our Lord 
Jesus Christ. Peter applies that passage to 
him in the book of Acts, in Acts chapter 3 at verse 22, and as 
well on the Mount of Transfiguration. We have God say, this is my beloved 
son in whom I am well pleased. And then he says, hear him. Well, 
that language of hear him is reminiscent to Deuteronomy 18.15. 
So Moses is a prestigious man. Moses is a great man. But Moses 
will be overshadowed by the greater man, the Lord Jesus Christ. So 
God says in verse 2, speak to the children of Israel and say 
to them. The Geneva Bible says, "...hereby 
Moses declares that he taught nothing to the people but that 
which he received of God." We often say the law of Moses, or 
we refer to the commandments of Moses. God spoke through Moses. Moses was not the originator. Moses didn't make these things 
up. Moses didn't conceive of the Levitical law. He didn't 
conceive of the priesthood. He didn't design the tabernacle. 
Rather, he was the agent that received these commands and passed 
them along to Israel. And then, after we see the dwelling 
place of God here, we see the mediatorial office of Moses, 
and we see the regulative principle of worship. We won't labor this 
point, because I think I do a lot. But notice, in verse 2, "...speak 
to the children of Israel, and say to them, When any one of 
you brings an offering to the Lord, you shall bring your offering 
of the livestock, of the herd, and of the flock. In other words, 
God commands how man is to approach Him. God doesn't leave it up 
to the Israelites. God doesn't say, let's have an 
encounter group. Tell me your thoughts. What would 
you like to see in the worship of God? That's not how it comes 
across. If you look at Deuteronomy chapter 
12, this principle is enshrouded throughout scripture. It is trans-covenantal. Whether you're in the Old Covenant 
or you're in the New Covenant, this abides. So if you look at 
Deuteronomy 12, 32, whatever I command you, be careful to 
observe it. You shall not add to it nor take 
away from it. It's intriguing that so many 
in the Christian Church today see that applicable in Old Covenant 
Israel, but they don't see it applicable in New Covenant Israel. 
They don't see that we are duty-bound to obey the scriptures of the 
New Testament with reference to our approach to God. When 
you search the New Testament, you don't see a lot of the things 
that we see in Christian worship at times. And so God demands 
and God commands and God regulates how His people are supposed to 
worship. We notice, and as I've already 
alluded to, you can turn there, Leviticus chapter 10, specifically 
at verses 1 and 2, you see the premium God puts on worship that 
is regulated according to His Word. So after the giving of 
these commandments concerning sacrifice in chapters 1 to 9, 
both to the laity and to the priesthood, we see, as I said, 
at the end of chapter 9, they offer up a sacrifice. Verse 24 
says, fire came out from before the Lord and consumed the burnt 
offering and the fat on the altar. When all the people saw it, they 
shouted and fell on their faces. Then Nadab and Abihu, the sons 
of Aaron, each took his censer and put fire in it, put incense 
on it, and offered profane fire, or strange fire, before the Lord, 
which he had not commanded them. So fire went out from the Lord 
and devoured them, and they died before the Lord. And Moses said 
to Aaron, This is what the Lord spoke, saying, By those who come 
near me I must be regarded as holy, and before all the people 
I must be glorified. So that's going to be a recurring 
lesson that I call our attention to as we move through Leviticus. 
Under Old Covenant worship, there was a sacrificial system. There 
was a tabernacle. There was a temple. There were 
strict regulations on who would serve in that tabernacle or in 
that temple. There were strict regulations 
concerning the furniture, concerning the priesthood, concerning the 
worshiper himself. When we get to the New Covenant, 
those things are no longer, because New Covenant worship, the positive 
commands associated with New Covenant worship, do not involve 
the tabernacle or the temple, because they were temporary and 
pointed forward to the Lord Jesus. Now that Jesus has come, we don't 
have a tabernacle or a temple. We don't have a priesthood. We 
don't have sacrifice. We don't have incense. We don't 
have the same sorts of things. But we're not free to engage 
in worship in whatever manner we please. The New Testament 
contains sufficient data on how the church is to worship her 
God. So while there is no temple, or no tabernacle, or priesthood, 
or sacrifice, or those things that were extant in the Old Covenant, 
nevertheless, we find that same premium placed by God through 
the apostolic authors on the necessity for the children of 
God to obey God when it comes to the worship of God. In other 
words, in this new covenant era, we don't have the prerogative 
and we don't have the freedom or liberty to dictate how it 
is we're going to approach God. Rather, we have ears to hear 
and hearts to receive, and we are bound by God to obey God 
in the manner of Christian worship. Now, secondly, notice the specific 
directions concerning the burnt offering. Our focus is going 
to be primarily on verses 3 to 9, because the other verses are 
basically the same. So just with reference to the 
animals involved, Notice you have the burnt offering from 
the herd in verses 3 to 9. Then you have the burnt offering 
from the flocks in verses 10 to 13. And then you have the 
burnt offering of birds in verses 14 to 17. So the burnt offering 
is the same, it just is dependent upon what you have in terms of 
resources. So the birds would be for the 
poor that were in Israel. If you turn to Leviticus chapter 
12. Leviticus chapter 12, specifically at verse 8. You see that emphasis. Leviticus chapter 12, verse 8. 
And if she is not able to bring a lamb, then she may bring, and 
not able to bring a lamb because she doesn't have that. She doesn't 
have access to that. She's poor. She doesn't have 
the wherewithal to bring a lamp. Then she may bring two turtle 
doves or two young pigeons. One is a burnt offering and the 
other is a sin offering. So the priest shall make atonement 
for her and she will be clean. And remember, this is precisely 
what Mary brings when her and Joseph bring Jesus to the temple. It's doves. It's not a bull, 
it's not a goat, but rather it is an offering of birds. They were in a lower economic 
strata, they did not have the ability to pony up, no pun intended, 
an animal from their herd or flock. And so that's simply the 
division in terms of the animal structure in verses 3 to 9, verses 
10 to 13, and verses 14 to 17. So whether it's from the herd, 
whether it's from the flock, or whether it's a bird, this 
is the manner in which you engage in the burnt offering. Now there 
are several things described here in terms of the ritual. 
And as I said, we probably won't have to duplicate this as we 
move our way through the rest of the sacrifices. There are 
variations to be sure. There are several different types. 
Burnt offering, grain offering, peace offering, sin offering, 
guilt offering. So there are some differences. 
There are some nuances. There are some subtleties. But 
just to get an overview of what the system looked like, I thought 
it would be helpful to look at Leviticus 1 in a bit more detail. So in the first place, notice 
the presentation of the sacrifice in verse 3. So verse 2, If his offering is a burnt sacrifice 
of the herd, let him offer a male without blemish. He shall offer 
it of his own free will at the door of the tabernacle of meeting 
before the Lord. So the type of offering specified. 
If his offering is a burnt sacrifice of the herd. And then the nature 
of that particular animal out of his herd is further described. Notice a male without blemish. I mentioned last week that as 
you move through this detailed legislation, we don't always 
get all the answers that we want. I mean, there are references, 
verse 4 says, to make atonement for him, but with reference to 
the specific details of the why involved in all of these sacrifices, 
I don't think we get all those questions answered. We get the 
how, we get the procedure, we get the mechanics or the logistics 
involved, So with reference to the legislation, it doesn't always 
provide the specific details about the sacrifices. The original 
audience knew more about the why. They needed the instruction 
on the how. We learned something about the 
how, but we don't know all about the why. However, we have a hermeneutical 
assistance. or we have hermeneutical assistance, 
and that hermeneutical assistance is the New Covenant. So if this 
is prefigurement, if this is typical, if this is foreshadowing, 
and it points us forward to the Lord Jesus Christ, then I think 
it's a good guide in terms of hermeneutics to use what we have 
in the New Covenant to help us to understand some of the things 
that perhaps are a little obscured for us in the Old Covenant. Again, 
we're not going to get every answer that we have in terms 
of question, but we understand in terms of the fuller revelation 
of the New Covenant and the anti-typical significance of our Lord Jesus 
and His coming and fulfillment of all these things, that is 
a great hermeneutical help in terms of seeking to solve some 
of the mysteries involved. We can make that particular movement 
because of the book of Hebrews. If we didn't have the book of 
Hebrews, we'd still have sufficient information. But the book of 
Hebrews tells us that it's Christ to whom that system pointed. So if in Hebrews the Apostle 
Paul is writing to Jewish believers and trying to dissuade them from 
going back to the Levitical priesthood, he does that by showing that 
Christ fulfills it. Everything that Moses stipulated 
in the book of Leviticus, for instance, everything that Moses 
stipulated by way of the cult and its approach to our living 
God, when it comes to the Lord Jesus Christ, he fulfills that. 
And so it's a good hermeneutical movement to go back into redemptive 
history with that knowledge. So when you look at the particulars 
here, notice it's a male. It says, if his offering is a 
burnt sacrifice of the herd, let him offer a male. Now this 
is consistent with the first promise of the Messiah. Genesis 
chapter 3 verse 15 taught Israel to look for a male, to look for 
a man, to look for a he that would be the seed of the woman 
that would crush the head of the devil. And so this emphasis 
on the male of the flock is typical, and it points us forward to our 
Lord Jesus Christ. As well, the necessity of a blemish-free 
male. Now, the animal wasn't perfect. I don't think there's ever been 
an animal that's perfect. But it wasn't imperfect. It wasn't a broken leg. It wasn't 
blind. It wasn't the loser in the barnyard 
brawl. Rather, it was a blemish-free 
male. And that underscores something 
in terms of sacrifice. The word sacrifice implies a 
pinch. It implies some deprivation. 
It implies some degree of pain involved. Sacrifice means that 
something costs you something. If you're giving out of your 
wealth and there's no pinch whatsoever, then you're not really engaged 
in sacrifice. This is the lesson of the widow's 
mites. This is what our Lord Jesus taught 
us. So with reference to this sacrifice, 
when the man went out to his flock, he took the best of his 
flock. The best of his flock that would 
work hard for him, or the best of his flock that he could sell 
or trade for other goods and services. And so when it comes 
to sacrifice, there is a deprivation on the part of the worshiper 
in terms of his approach to God. It's not that God needs this. 
It's not that God is in some sort of a state of deficiency 
and he needs our particular animal and he needs that blood or he 
needs that food in order to sustain himself. But it's a reciprocity. It is a reflex. It is the reality 
that the God who saved us is worthy of all that we have. And 
we signify that by bringing a sacrifice. We signify that by bringing him 
a token, by bringing something emblematic of our wealth. Again, 
Gordon Wenham says, sacrifice was at the heart of Old Testament 
worship. An essential ingredient of sacrifice 
was that it had to be costly. As David said, I will not offer 
burnt offering to the Lord my God, which cost me nothing, 2 
Samuel 24, 24. The same sentiment underlies 
the remark that the offering should be from the herd or from 
the flock, which meant in practice young bulls, sheep, and goats. 
The sacrifices were to be domestic animals, not wild animals or 
game. According to Deuteronomy 14.5, 
game could be eaten, if correctly slaughtered, but not offered 
as sacrifice, since it cost nothing. Furthermore, only perfect animals 
were acceptable in worship. Only the best is good enough 
for God. That's the lesson. That's the 
emphasis. That's what is the demand here. You bring the male that is without 
blemish. He goes on to say, the prophet 
Malachi later told those who offered second-rate animals that 
they were despising the Lord's name and polluting his table. 
It's not wrong to reflect on Malachi in light of the original 
legislation, because this legislation was not obeyed. It was not carried 
out. The people of God throughout 
the history of Old Covenant Israel wasn't just post-exilic in terms 
of Malachi, But why do you think the exile came? It came for a 
whole bunch of reasons, one of which was they weren't worshipping 
God properly. They were engaged in the formal. 
They were engaged in the external. They were engaged in simply the 
outward. And that's what Malachi condemned. You bring the lame, 
or you bring the blind, or rather you steal sacrifice on the way 
to the temple in order to present that up to God. God says, through 
the prophet Malachi, offer that to your governor, to your pagan 
governor, to your Tershatha. See if you can pay your taxes 
under Persian occupation with that. See if he'll accept that. 
What's the obvious answer? Of course he's not going to accept 
that. And yet you bring these mangy 
beasts to the living and true God? If fathers are honored by 
their children, and I'm the great God, where is my honor? Michael 
Morales says, choosing an unblemished, clean animal from one's own flock 
or herd not only underscored the personal cost involved. This 
is why I think it's wise for us to ponder this. We just sort 
of jump into the narrative and we ask all these questions about 
what about the bird and what about this and what about the 
blood? Think about the guy who's got to go out to his flock and 
he's got to deprive himself of something that is valuable to 
him, that works for him, that could gain for him. So Morales 
says, choosing an unblemished, clean animal from one's own flock 
or herd not only underscored the personal cost involved for 
an animal that had been raised, fed, and tended at one's own 
expense, but also facilitated the idea of vicarious substitution. So it comes out of his flock. 
It is his beast that he presses his hands upon. It is his animal 
that he presents there before the Lord Most High in the tabernacle. So notice as well, still considering 
the presentation of the sacrifice, the heart disposition of the 
worshiper. He shall offer it of his own 
free will, at the door of the tabernacle, meaning before the 
Lord. So you see the emphasis there. And again, this is what 
Israel failed to realize as they move through subsequent history, 
is that God looks upon the heart. If you're there unwillingly, 
if you're there grudgingly, if you're giving this because you 
have to, that's not the disposition that you're supposed to maintain. 
If in the days of Malachi, the people of God fell to such a 
place where they were actually stealing sacrifices, or they 
were taking blind and lame sacrifices, they didn't offer it up of their 
own free will. There was not a heart disposition. 
So I think at times we look back on Old Covenant religion and 
we say, well, as long as they went through the procedure. No, 
they need to go through the procedure with the proper heart disposition. 
They need to be willing to meet their God at the door of the 
tabernacle and to present their offering unto Him. So the location 
of the sacrifice is specified at the door of the tabernacle 
of meeting before the Lord. So the place of the tabernacle 
was a place of sacrifice. It was a place of worship. As 
well, it was the place where God visibly manifested His presence 
through that Shekinah glory. So that when the worshiper came 
there, it was, as it were, Him presenting that animal, not to 
the priest, not simply to satisfy some requirement, not simply 
to check off the box and maintain his external purity in terms 
of covenant, he was there to meet with the Lord in this act 
of worship. Now notice, secondly, the placement 
of his hands on the sacrifice. It's probably not just a placing, 
it's probably a pressing on this particular animal. So the placement 
of his hands on the animal, you'll see I think Leviticus 16 teases 
out or shows us or demonstrates more involved in this particular 
process. But though there's no command 
for what he's supposed to think or say or do, most likely he's 
praying while he's doing this. In an analogous section in Leviticus 
16.21, when the high priest lays his hands or presses his hands 
upon that scapegoat, he's not just doing this silently, he's 
confessing the transgressions of Israel. And then he sends 
that goat out into the wilderness as a symbol of or an explanation 
of expiation, removal of guilt. So likely the worship here is 
doing the same thing. He's got his hands on the animal. He's communing with God. This 
was the means by which he met the Lord. Now, probably a lot 
of them weren't saved. Probably a lot of them were saved. They heard the promise in Genesis 
3.15. They saw the symbol in Genesis 22. They had been receiving 
these things from God through Moses all throughout the book 
of Exodus. They had faith in Yahweh. He 
was able to bring them out of bondage and he brought them into 
this place for worship. So most likely as he presses 
his hands upon this animal, he's praying, he's communing, he's 
living in light of God's goodness. Now the placement of the hands 
is duplicated in other sacrifices. You see it in Leviticus 3, Leviticus 
4, and then as I've already mentioned, in Leviticus chapter 16. So notice 
again in verse 4, "...then he shall put his hands, or press 
his hand, on the head of the burnt offering. And it will be 
accepted on his behalf," notice, "...to make atonement for him." 
So that's the why. And again, we see that along 
the way, but what does this mean, to make atonement for him? I 
think the old authors, and I've tried to share this before, they 
use the language of satisfaction, where we seem to emphasize atonement, 
not that it's not right to emphasize atonement, but in the older authors, 
Reformed and Puritan, they often emphasize satisfaction. The idea 
being is that atonement is the satisfaction of divine justice. In other words, God is angry 
with the wicked every day, Psalm 711. There's got to be something 
to breach that chasm that exists. There has to be a mechanism in 
place wherein a holy God can accept sinful men. In other words, 
His anger, His wrath, His fury toward our sin must be appeased. It must be atoned. His divine 
justice must be satisfied. And so this particular word, 
we think of the day called Yom Kippur, that simply means Day 
of Atonement in Hebrew, Kippur. What does that mean? It can mean 
to pay a ransom price, we see that in the Old Testament, and 
it also means the payment by a substitute for the sinner. So the animal takes the place 
of the worshiper. That's the symbolism here. So 
he lays his hands upon this animal. He presses down upon it. And 
there is this transference. It's not mystical. It's not metaphysical. It's probably 
more legal in terms of approach to God. It is rather, though, 
this movement, the center to the animal, And now the animal 
is executed in the stead of the sinner. It's substitutionary 
curse bearing. It's what you have in Genesis 
chapter 22. It's what you have when Abraham 
says, the Lord will provide. And when the angel of the Lord 
stays the hand of Abraham, and then they look and they see a 
ram caught in the thicket, God did in fact provide a substitute 
to take the place of Isaac on Mount Moriah. So we've got the 
payment of a ransom price, and we've got the payment by a substitute 
for the sinner. So the animal takes the place 
of the worshipper. You can turn to Leviticus 16. 
Leviticus chapter 16, specifically at verse 21. So the first goat's 
already been killed, his blood's already been poured out on the 
mercy seat for the high priest, and for the children of Israel, 
and for that holy place itself. Think about how sort of necessary 
it was to provide blood of atonement for the very holy place itself, 
because there was a lot of traffic with sin in that place. So it 
had to be purified, it had to be cleansed. So that first goat 
is gone, and then in 1620, and when he has made an end of atoning 
for the holy place, the tabernacle of meeting, and the altar, he 
shall bring the live goat. Aaron shall lay both his hands 
on the head of the live goat, confess over it all the iniquities 
of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions concerning 
all their sins, putting them on the head of the goat, and 
shall send it away into the wilderness by the hand of a suitable man." 
So you see that, payment of a ransom price. You've got this blood 
of the goat shed, and that poured on the mercy seat. And then you've 
got this substitutionary atonement on the part of this second goat. 
So the sins are confessed, they're laid upon the goat, the goat's 
driven off into the wilderness, and they bear it no more, at 
least for a year. When we come to scripture, we 
see this sort of a concept in other places. Turn to 1 Samuel, 
chapter 21. 1 Samuel, chapter 21. The idea of a payment of a ransom 
price in order to appease or satisfy the wrath of God. I'm 
sorry, 2 Samuel 21. 2 Samuel 21. Notice in verse 1, now there 
was a famine in the days of David for three years, year after year, 
and David inquired of the Lord. And the Lord answered, it is 
because of Saul and his bloodthirsty house, because he killed the 
Gibeonites. Long story short, the Gibeonites 
say, we want seven men and we want them to hang. And God approves 
that, David approves that, they hang the seven men, and look 
how the narrative ends. So in verse 14, they buried the 
bones of Saul and Jonathan, his son, in the country of Benjamin, 
in Zelop, in the tomb of Kish, his father. So they performed 
all that the king commanded, and after that God heeded the 
prayer for the land. Justice was satisfied. There's 
acceptance now. So the famine was as a result 
of sin that had been undealt with. Now that the sin is dealt 
with, God hears prayer, and God then sends rain. It doesn't say 
that specifically. That's the implication, though. 
After that, God heeded the prayer for the land. And then notice 
in 2 Samuel chapter 24. 2 Samuel chapter 24. Specifically at verse 18, Gad 
came that day to David and said to him, go up, erect an altar 
to the Lord on the threshing floor of Arana the Jebusite. This is the same location as 
Moriah, the same location as the temple. So David, according 
to the word of Gad, went up as the Lord commanded. Now Aaronah 
looked and saw the kings and his servants coming toward him. 
So Aaronah went out and bowed before the king with his face 
to the ground. Then Aaronah said, Why has my lord the king come 
to his servant? And David said, To buy the threshing 
floor from you, to build an altar to the Lord, that the plague 
may be withdrawn from the people. Now Aaronah said to David, Let 
my lord the king take and offer up whatever seems good to him. 
Look, here are oxen for burnt sacrifice, and threshing implements, 
and the yokes of the oxen for wood. All these, O king, Orana 
has given to the king. And Orana said to the king, May 
the Lord your God accept you. Then the king said to Orana, 
No, but I will surely buy it from you for a price, nor will 
I offer burnt offerings to the Lord my God with that which costs 
me nothing. So David bought the threshing 
floor and the oxen for 50 shekels of silver. And David built there 
an altar to the Lord and offered burnt offerings and peace offerings. 
So the Lord heeded the prayers for the land and the plague was 
withdrawn from Israel." So you've got this satisfaction of divine 
justice to make the way of acceptance for the guilty sinner. Now, when 
we turn to the New Testament, it's hard to miss the doctrine 
of substitutionary atonement. It's unfortunate that many in 
the church have missed the doctrine of substitutionary atonement, 
but it's very difficult. Behold the Lamb of God who does 
what? He takes away the sin of the world. Well, let's just look 
at a few of these passages because the reality is that penal substitution 
has fallen on hard times. Matthew chapter 20, I cited this 
the other night in the sermon on Sunday night. 2028, just as 
the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve and to 
give His life a ransom for many. That is substitutionary atonement. That is the satisfaction of divine 
justice by the holy, harmless, undefiled One. That is the substitute 
that stood in our place, received God's wrath, so that He could 
indeed provide a way of access for us men to the presence of 
God Almighty. As well, look at Romans chapter 
3. Romans chapter 3, and this is 
just a sampling. There really are more texts in 
the New Testament that highlight substitutionary atonement. Notice 
in Romans 3 25, whom God set forth as a propitiation by his 
blood through faith to demonstrate his righteousness because in 
his forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously 
committed to demonstrate at the present time his righteousness 
that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has 
faith in Jesus. 2 Corinthians 5, 21, God the 
Father made Him, Christ the Son, who knew no sin, to be sin for 
us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him. 
It's clearly substitution. In other words, God lays upon 
the Lord Jesus our sin. That doesn't mean Jesus is personally 
a sinner. He's not an adulterer. He's not 
a murderer. This is imputation. This is a 
legal transaction. Our sin is imputed to the Son 
of God. He is punished for us. and then His righteousness is 
imputed to us. It's the great exchange. We bring 
filth and disgust and unrighteousness to Him, and He cleanses us and 
gives us that righteousness that avails with God. Galatians 1.4 
3. Grace to you and peace from God 
the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ, who gave Himself for 
our sins, that He might deliver us from this present evil age, 
according to the will of our God and Father, to whom be glory 
forever and ever. Amen. He gave Himself for our 
sins. Look at Galatians 2.20. He says, 
I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but 
Christ lives in me in the life which I now live in the flesh. 
I live by faith in the Son of God who loved me and gave himself 
for me. Substitutionary atonement. So 
when that man lays his hands upon the animal, there is this 
transference. There is this sin conveyed to 
this beast. The beast is punished in his 
stead. It typifies the Lamb of God who gets our sin imputed 
to him, and he's punished in our stead. Notice 1 Timothy 2. 1 Timothy 2, verses 5 and 6. He says, who desires all men 
to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there 
is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 
who gave himself a ransom for all to be testified in due time. Titus 2.14, Titus 2.14, the doctrine 
of substitutionary atonement, who gave himself for us that 
he might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for himself 
his own special people, zealous for good works. Look at 1 Peter 
chapter 3. 1 Peter 3 at verse 18, For Christ 
also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that 
he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but 
made alive by the Spirit. You see, substitutionary atonement. That's what the Bible teaches. 
Penal substitutionary atonement. There have been those, very recently, 
that deny this doctrine. In fact, one goes so far as to 
say that if penal substitutionary atonement is correct, then it 
makes God the biggest child abuser in the cosmos. This idea that God would punish 
His Son in our place is cosmic child abuse. Well, that's an 
absolute misreading of not only Leviticus chapter 1, but the 
New Testament commentary to give us the significance of Leviticus 
1 and to give us the significance of the redemptive work of the 
Lord Jesus Christ. And then one final passage, and 
again, this is a few among many, Revelation chapter 5. Revelation 
chapter 5, notice in verse 8, Now when he had taken the scroll, 
the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down 
before the Lamb, each having a harp and golden bowls full 
of incense, which are the prayers of the saints. And they sang 
a new song, saying, You are worthy to take the scroll and to open 
its seals, for you were slain, and have redeemed us to God by 
your blood. You've redeemed us to God by 
your blood, substitutionary atonement, substitutionary curse bearing, 
out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation, and have 
made us kings and priests to our God, and we shall reign on 
the earth. So going back to the book of 
Leviticus, if you follow the argument, if you follow the significance 
in terms of Christ's sacrifice for his people, you cannot possibly 
conceive that Jesus loses any for whom he died and for whom 
he was raised again. There is an eternal security 
for the people of God. The just gave himself for the 
unjust. The one died in the stead of 
the many so that the many could have everlasting life. So in 
this burnt sacrifice or burnt offering, you see that typified, 
you see it prefigured. So going back to Leviticus chapter 
1, we notice thirdly the slaughter of the sacrifice in verse 5a. 
and then present it to the priest so that it can be placed on the 
fire. This was a bloody system. It was a smelly system. It was 
a system that underscored God's holiness and their sinfulness. And so the worshipper slaughters 
the sacrifice according to verse 5a. He shall kill the bull before 
the Lord. Now notice then the sprinkling 
of the blood of the sacrifice according to verse 5b. This is 
the priest's task. And the priests, Aaron's sons, 
shall bring the blood and sprinkle the blood all around on the altar 
that is by the door of the tabernacle of meeting. So we've got the 
worshiper. He kills it. He cuts it up. He 
hands it to the priest. The priest does the sprinkling. 
And then in verses 6 to 9, we see the burnt part of the burnt 
offering. The entirety of the animal is 
burned here, except for the skin. The skin remains. We see that 
in chapter 7. You can look there specifically 
at verse 8. It belongs to the priest. 7, 8, and the priest who offers 
anyone's burnt offering, that priest shall have for himself 
the skin of the burnt offering which he has offered. There are 
certain sacrifice where there are priests are eating of it, 
and there are participation on the part of the priest, and even 
on the part of the worshiper. The burnt offering is not the 
case. The burnt offering is completely burnt. It's completely offered 
except for the skin. So nothing is left, and nothing 
is eaten of it. So the worshiper skins the animal 
and cuts it in pieces according to verse 6. The priest prepares 
the fire on the altar in verse 7. Now, there's a bit of debate, 
at least as I picked up in the commentaries, on the nature of 
this particular fire. I think the older Jewish commentary 
and perhaps older Christian commentary suggested it was that fire that 
comes down in Leviticus chapter 9, and then it's kept in perpetuity 
by the priesthood going forward. Others suggest, no, that was 
one of the priestly tasks was to make sure that the fire was 
lit and that it was going and that it was able to engage, sure, 
to consume the burnt offering. I did not have the time to go 
through all of that, but just know there are those two positions. 
Either way, there's a fire there so that the priest can take these 
pieces of the worshipper's animal and put it on there so that it 
can be consumed by the fire. The entirety of the animal, 9A, 
and then notice the offering is a sweet aroma to the Lord. 
Now, brethren, this is in the language of men. It's according 
to an improper predication. God doesn't have a nose because 
he's a spirit. God does not have the same sort 
of capacity or a similar capacity or the nature of man in terms 
of, wow, that smells good or that doesn't smell good. I think 
the emphasis here is on approval. The emphasis here is on God's 
acceptance. The emphasis here in verse 9, 
and replicated or duplicated again in verse 13, and then again 
in verse 17. In each instance it says, it 
is a burnt sacrifice, an offering made by fire, a sweet aroma to 
the Lord. So approval, acceptance. If you turn back to the book 
of Genesis, you already see this sort of indication in Genesis 
chapter 8. After Noah emerges from the ark, 
we see him offer up sacrifice to the Lord. And according to 
Genesis 8, 20, then Noah built an altar to the Lord and took 
of every clean animal and of every clean bird and offered 
burnt offerings on the altar. And the Lord smelled a soothing 
aroma. Then the Lord said in his heart, 
I will never again curse the ground for man's sake. Although 
the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth, nor will 
I again destroy every living thing as I have done. And then 
as well, God willing, we'll see this same turn of phrase this 
Sunday night in our study in the book of Ephesians. In Ephesians 
chapter 5, we're told to walk in love. And in chapter 5 at 
verse 1, therefore be imitators of God as dear children, and 
walk in love as Christ also has loved us and given himself for 
us, an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling aroma. So this animal in Leviticus chapter 
1 that was correctly dealt with, processed, the animal that was 
a substitute for the worshiper, The animal that had its throat 
cut, that was then cut into pieces and laid upon that altar, that 
was a soothing aroma to the Lord. So when God's people worship 
God in an appropriate manner, when God's people sacrifice in 
an appropriate manner, when God's people approach Him in the manner 
that He specifies, that is pleasing to Him. So there is this sense 
that sin produces or creates this kaza, or this breach, and 
it's this sacrificial system that repairs the way and enables 
the Israelite to enter in to the very meeting place with God 
Most High. So in conclusion, we learn first 
the sinfulness of man. The sinfulness of man. This is 
the most frequent of the offerings. It's to be done daily, this burnt 
offering. As well, we learn in the book 
of Hebrews, specifically with reference to the Day of Atonement, 
but probably for the faithful, it was more reminiscent than 
just on that day, that there is a reminder of sins every year. So when the worshiper took that 
animal, and the worshiper cut the throat of that animal, and 
the worshiper cut up that animal to present to the priest, No 
doubt, as I said, he's praying, and he's probably not saying, 
you know, can I have a new summer home by the lake? He's probably 
rehearsing his sin. He's probably rehearsing the 
desire for rightness with God and acceptance by God. And then 
this emphasis on sacrifice in order to meet with God underscores 
the sin problem. If man was not sinful, he would 
have just wandered right into that dwelling place, right into 
that tabernacle without any problems. He could have approached the 
glory of God, the way that Adam and Eve communed with God in 
the garden in the cool of the day. It wasn't until sin was 
introduced in the garden that there was a breach. The implication 
prior to that, the implication is that they had communion in 
the cool of the garden at that particular time. Adam and Eve 
finished their daily tasks, they met with the Lord God Most High. 
But sin brings a breach. Morales says, Israel's sins must 
be dealt with, expiated. Only a cleansed humanity may 
belong to Yahweh. The way to God then is through 
a bloody knife and a burning altar. That's the emphasis in 
chapters 1 to 9. You don't get into the presence 
of God as a sinner without the shedding of blood. As well, we 
see the acceptance by God. Now, if you turn to the prophets, 
you see this threat of, or a penalty of, non-acceptance. Look at the 
book of Jeremiah. Jeremiah chapter 14. Jeremiah 
chapter 14, verse 11. So you see here, The deal is done. They are going 
into judgment. He's already told Jeremiah that 
this is going to happen. Seventy years. They're going 
to be in the Babylonian captivity. That's the context for, do not 
pray for this people. So don't take that and say, well, 
I'm not going to pray for Chilliwackians that they come to know the Lord. 
No, it's a different context. It's a different setting. Pray 
for Chilliwackians that they may know the Lord. But in this 
context of impending judgment and doom, one of the things underscored 
is that when they sacrifice, I'm not going to receive it. 
And then notice in Hosea the prophet, Hosea chapter 8. Same 
sort of an emphasis. If the height of Israel's religion 
was acceptance by God through this sacrificial system, then 
a great curse or a great problem or penalty was non-acceptance 
by God when the sacrifice was offered. I'm sorry, Hosea chapter 
8, specifically at verse 13. For the sacrifices of my offerings, 
they sacrifice flesh and eat it. But the Lord does not accept 
them. Now He will remember their iniquity 
and punish their sins. They shall return to Egypt." 
And then again in Amos 5. Amos 5, specifically at verse 
22. Amos 5.22, Though you offer me burnt offerings and your grain 
offerings, I will not accept them, nor will I regard your 
fattened peace offerings. Take away from me the noise of 
your songs, for I will not hear the melody of your stringed instruments. But let justice run down like 
water, and righteousness like a mighty strain. So while Israel 
is living in abject rebellion against God, He's not going to 
accept their sacrifice. He's not going to accept their 
offering. But in Leviticus, we see that 
when this process is followed, when the worshipper brings the 
heart, when he does this out of free will, when he does it 
with a desire to commune with his God, God accepts it. It's 
a soothing or a sweet aroma to the Lord. And then finally, in 
terms of the typology, the male points to the Lord Jesus. The 
blemish-free points to the Lord Jesus. The sweet aroma to the 
Lord points to the Lord Jesus. And the work of atonement points 
to the Lord Jesus. So you've got Jesus Christ all 
throughout the book of Leviticus. So for those who say, I don't 
want to read my Old Testament because it's not about Jesus. 
It's exactly about Jesus. It's all about Jesus, and that's 
why you should read your Old Testament. Well, let us pray. 
Our Father in heaven, we thank you for your word. We thank you 
for the way that it connects together, for the consent of 
the parts, the scope of the whole, and we give praise to you for 
including us in this wonderful plan of redemption. We thank 
You for the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. We 
thank You that You made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, 
that we might become the righteousness of God in Him. May we rejoice 
in this, may we express our gratitude, and may we live lives that are 
consistent with our high calling in the Lord Jesus. And we pray 
in His most blessed name. Amen. Well, any questions or 
comments? Yeah. Is it? Yeah. Yeah, it is. The one on the right I didn't 
think so. No, not the right. That one. 
The tent. Yeah, on the left. Yeah. Oh, yeah. Yeah, I mentioned before that 
Venice used to put one up at Camp Hope, right? They'd put 
a model, like a replica. Really? Oh, yeah. It was really 
neat. That's cool. Yeah, you could kind of beebop through 
there and see what it looked like. And it was a scale. It was bigger than one of the 
ones. It was bigger. Yeah, it does 
seem like it was bigger. But anyways, it was quite fun. 
Not fun, but you kind of get a look at it. Yes, sir? How do 
we understand the progression of the sacrifices, like the way 
they were recorded in the Bible? Because up to Noah, which I think 
was about 2,000 years, correct? Yeah. It's pretty vague as to 
what they do specifically. Yeah. As it progresses, it gets 
more and more and more detailed. It gets more detailed and legislated 
in a formal way. But yeah, just even looking at 
Genesis 8, Noah offered up a burnt offering, a burnt sacrifice. 
So there were things present. And probably through oral tradition, 
they passed it along. But we get to a stage in Israel's 
development or history where now it's a bigger group of people. 
It's a more formal setting. It's a people that's going to 
move into a land. They're going to have a permanent 
temple. So the tabernacle is sort of preparatory for that. 
And legislation comes at that stage. And it's more of an old 
covenant. in position. So not that there 
wasn't sacrifice prior to the formalization of the Old Covenant, 
but there wasn't an Old Covenant at the time of Noah. So there 
were those sacrifices if you're kind of paying attention. It 
was never really outlined specifically? No. Abel offered the blood and 
Cain offered food. Yeah. Another big debate is some say, 
well, Cain was obviously wrong because he didn't offer blood. 
I'm not sure that's the thing going on. Later, Hebrews 11 says, 
by faith Abel. So Abel brought the sacrifice 
with the right disposition. So was it the wrong sacrifice 
and wrong disposition, or was it An OK sacrifice, but the wrong 
disposition. I'd be more inclined to say it 
was the wrong disposition that Cain had. But if, when Adam receives 
this skin covering from God, it may have been, I don't know, 
because I kind of think maybe he would have said, oh, and by 
the way, make sure it's blood that you bring to God. It seems that he didn't take 
some leaves. We tried the leaves. And that 
didn't avail. It was God who took this animal, 
killed it, and then took the skin and covered it up. So whenever 
I've gone through that, I thought, yeah, there's pretty good arguments 
on either side. Yes, sir? So with the sacrifice in the 
Old Testament, why don't you often see them being burnt? Why 
don't we see Jesus being burnt? Why don't we see Jesus being 
burned? Because God ordained crucifixion. Yeah, that's a good question. I mean, crucifixion is the means 
by which God intended. We have the prophetic announcement 
of that in Psalm 22. A bloody execution was the purpose 
or the specifics involved. Some have said, well, it didn't 
really matter how Jesus died. Well, the passage we looked at 
on Sunday night, it does seem to matter how Jesus died. I must 
go. I must be crucified. So there 
wasn't in the mind of the Savior a specific way that he was going 
to exit this world. And it wasn't going to be through 
fire. It wasn't going to be through COVID. It wasn't going to be 
through choking on his soup or whatever. It was going to be 
through the shame of the cross. Yeah, I mean, the actual animal 
is dead when you kill it. And then it's offered up in terms 
of the fire. So it's not the fire that kills 
the animal. The animal is killed and then he's placed into the 
fire. It's not like falling. It's not the fall that gets you. 
It's the sudden impact at the end that really is the bomber. Well, I would imagine they did 
it. I would imagine they did it because there was a status, 
not just vertically, but horizontally. They were a community, and part 
of being in that community was abiding by the legislation. So there was probably people 
that came that didn't have the same heart as someone else. So yeah, I mean, Was everyone 
a day that I was glad when they said unto me, let us go to the 
house of the Lord? Probably not. And then, as I said, you see 
that really vividly in Malachi. So I don't think, in Malachi's 
day, this was a brand new thing. I think if you look in, you know, 
even the passages that I mentioned, you know, Hosea and Amos, those 
are not post-exile. They're not at the time of Malachi. 
They're pre-exile. Hosea is a very early prophet. So already back then, God is 
saying, look, I'm not going to receive it. Well, the reason 
is because you're sinning against each other, and you don't have 
the heart, and you're not engaged in righteousness. So yeah, there's 
always a remnant in Israel that was faithful, that was believing, 
and that this was a great help and encouragement too. But in 
terms of, you know, Could they maintain status even without 
a regenerate heart? Yeah. When you look at Hebrews 
9, it seems to make a distinction between the blood of Jesus, which 
cleanses us from sin, the conscience from sin, and then the sacrificial 
system in the Old Testament, where it was for the flesh. There 
was an externalism involved or built in so that you could maintain 
purity and holiness without being saved. You can maintain your 
status. That's right. Yeah, that's another passage 
that I think points forward to the crucifixion of the Lord. 
Great. Deuteronomy chapter 21, and Paul cites that in Galatians 
3 when he highlights that Christ has become a curse for us. Yes, 
excellent.