Leviticus 1:3

Burnt Offering Regulations: Animal from the Herd

1:3 “‘If his offering is a burnt offering ¹  from the herd he must present it as a flawless male; he must present it at the entrance ²  of the Meeting Tent for its ³  acceptance before the Lord.

Exodus 29:10-11

29:10 “You are to present the bull at the front of the tent of meeting, and Aaron and his sons are to put ⁴  their hands on the head ⁵  of the bull. 29:11 You are to kill the bull before the Lord at the entrance to the tent of meeting

[1:3]  ¹ sn The burnt offering (עֹלָה, ’olah) was basically a “a gift of a soothing aroma to the Lord” (vv. 9, 13, 17). It could serve as a votive or freewill offering (e.g., Lev 22:18-20), an accompaniment of prayer and supplication (e.g., 1 Sam 7:9-10), part of the regular daily, weekly, monthly, and festival cultic pattern (e.g., Num 28-29), or to make atonement either alone (e.g., Lev 1:4; 16:24) or in combination with the grain offering (e.g., Lev 14:20) or sin offering (e.g., Lev 5:7; 9:7). See R. E. Averbeck, NIDOTTE 4:996-1022.

[1:3]  ² tn Heb “door” (so KJV, ASV); NASB “doorway” (likewise throughout the book of Leviticus). The translation “door” or “doorway” may suggest a framed door in a casing to the modern reader, but here the term refers to the entrance to a tent.

[1:3]  ³ tn The NIV correctly has “it” in the text, referring to the acceptance of the animal (cf., e.g., RSV, NEB, NLT), but “he” in the margin, referring to the acceptance of the offerer (cf. ASV, NASB, JB). The reference to a “flawless male” in the first half of this verse suggests that the issue here is the acceptability of the animal to make atonement on behalf of the offerer (Lev 1:4; cf. NRSV “for acceptance in your behalf”).

[29:10]  ⁴ tn The verb is singular, agreeing with the first of the compound subject – Aaron.

[29:10]  ⁵ sn The details of these offerings have to be determined from a careful study of Leviticus. There is a good deal of debate over the meaning of laying hands on the animals. At the very least it identifies the animal formally as their sacrifice. But it may very well indicate that the animal is a substitute for them as well, given the nature and the effect of the sacrifices.