God designed the offerings to teach the Israelites as well as to enable them to worship Him. They taught the people what was necessary to maintain and restore the believer's communion with God.
"The servant, therefore, had to approach his Sovereign at His dwelling place by presenting an appropriate token of his obedient submission."18
The regulations that follow do not contain all the detail that we would need to duplicate these sacrifices. Only information that helps the reader understand and appreciate future references to the offerings appears. In this respect the present section of text is similar to the instructions concerning the tabernacle. Neither section gives us all the information we could want, but both tell us all that we need to know.
"They [chapters 1-7] may be compared to the genealogies in Genesis and those at the beginning of 1 Chronicles, whose purpose is to introduce the main characters of the subsequent narratives."19
Each offering involved three objects:
1. The offerer (the person bringing the offering)
2. The offering (the animal or object being offered)
3. The mediator (the priest).
There were important differences between the offerings.20
1. Each offering was different from the other offerings.
2. Within each offering there were different options of what the offerer could present and how he could offer them.
The first three offerings were "soothing aroma"offerings. The last two also go together because they were not soothing aromas. The first three were offerings of worship that were a sweet aroma to God. Each of these offerings reveals what is essential for or what results from a relationship between a redeemed sinner and a holy God. The last two were offerings of expiation for sin and were therefore not a sweet savor to God. These two offerings reveal how to restore a broken relationship between a redeemed Israelite sinner and a holy God.
"This is notthe order in which the sacrifices were usually offered, but is rather a logical or didactic order, grouping the sacrifices by conceptual associations . . . ."21
In the revelation of the first three offerings, each chapter contains three paragraphs. In each chapter God described the most valuable sacrifice first and then the less valuable. The rules about these sacrifices may have been arranged in logical order to make them easier to memorize.22
These laws concerning offerings appear here in the text because they explain the sacrifices and ceremonies that took place at the ordination of Aaron and his sons (chs. 8-9). The legal material prepares the reader to understand the narrative material. This arrangement is typical in Leviticus.
The burnt offering (in Greek, holokautoma, from which we get the word "holocaust") expressed the offerer's complete consecration to Yahweh (cf. Matt. 22:37; Rom. 12:1-2). However it also made atonement for the offerer. Some rabbis believed the burnt offering atoned for all sins not covered under the sin offering.23Peace with God was the goal of all the sacrifices. The reason for listing this offering first is that it was the most common one. The priests offered a burnt offering every morning and every evening, and more frequently on holy days.
"The first case is dealt with in the most detail. The two subsequent ones are explained more briefly. But in all three the law makes clear exactly what the worshipper does and what the priest does. The worshipper brings the animal, kills it, skins it or guts it, and chops it up. The priest sprinkles the blood on the altar and places the dismembered carcass on the fire."24
"The sense of God's presence, which permeates the entire book, is indicated forty-two times by the expression before the LORD [v. 3, passim].'"25
Note several distinctivesof this offering.
1. It was a soothing aroma (or sweet savor; vv. 9, 13, 17). God was happy to receive this sacrifice because it was an offering of worship as well as payment for sin. The priests presented all three soothing aroma offerings on the brazen altar in the tabernacle courtyard. God saw the offerer as a worshipper as well as a guilty sinner. The offering was to be without any blemish, which was also true of the sin and trespass offerings. This indicated that the offerer was presenting the best to God who is worthy of nothing less (vv. 3, 10).
2. It was for acceptance (i.e., so that God would accept the offerer, vv. 3-4). This offering satisfied God's desire for the love of His redeemed creatures as well as His offended justice. This offering satisfied God by its wholeness quantitatively and qualitatively. The Israelite worshipper offered a whole spotless animal in place of himself.
3. The offerer gave up a life on the altar (v. 5). God has always claimed life as His own. In slaying this animal the offerer was saying that he was giving the life that God had given him back to God, its rightful owner. Giving one's life to God is not an act of great sacrifice. It is simply giving back to God what already belongs to Him. It is only "reasonable service"(Rom. 12:1).
4. The animal perished completely, consumed in the fire on the altar (v. 9) except for the skin, which went to the priest (v. 6; 7:8). This symbolized the comprehensive nature of the offerer's consecration to God. Perhaps God excluded the skin to focus attention on the internal elements, the real person. God deserves the surrender of the entire person, not just a part.
"In the overfed West we can easily fail to realize what was involved in offering an unblemished animal in sacrifice. Meat was a rare luxury in OT times for all but the very rich (cf. Nathan's parable, 2 Sam. 12:1-6). Yet even we might blanch if we saw a whole lamb or bull go up in smoke as a burnt offering. How much greater pangs must a poor Israelite have felt."26
Note also some variationswithin this offering.
1. The animals acceptable for this offering varied. Bullocks (oxen), lambs, goats, turtle doves, and pigeons were acceptable. Some commentators suggest that each type of animal bore characteristics shared by man that made it an appropriate substitute (e.g., strong, foolish, flighty, etc.). Generally the higher the individual Israelite's responsibility before God (e.g., priests, rulers, common people, etc.) the larger and more expensive was the animal that he had to offer. People with greater responsibility would also have had more money and therefore more ability to bring the more expensive sacrifices.
2. The butchering of the animals also varied. The offerers cut the bullocks, lambs, and goats into four parts, but they did not do so with the birds. This difference at least reflects the practical need to divide larger animals into more easily manageable pieces. Moreover they washed the entrails and legs of the animals in water (vv. 9, 13). This washing probably symbolized the need for internal purity. They did not wash the birds. The offerer pressed (Heb. samek) his hand on the animals but not on the birds (cf. Isa. 59:16; Ezek. 24:2; 30:6; Amos 5:19).27The offerer personally slew the animals, but the priest slew the birds (vv. 5, 15).
In summary, the burnt offering was an act of worship in which the Israelite offered to God a whole animal. The fire on the altar completely consumed it as a substitute for the offerer and as a symbol of his total personal consecration to God. These sacrifices were voluntary on the Israelite's part.
"The burnt offering was the commonest of all the OT sacrifices. Its main function was to atone for man's sin by propitiating God's wrath. In the immolation of the animal, most commonly a lamb, God's judgment against human sin was symbolized and the animal suffered in man's place. The worshipper acknowledged his guilt and responsibility for his sins by pressing his hand on the animal's head and confessing his sin. The lamb was accepted as the ransom price for the guilty man [cf. Mark 10:45; Eph. 2:5; Heb. 7:27; 1 Pet. 1:18-19]. The daily use of the sacrifice in the worship of the temple and tabernacle was a constant reminder of man's sinfulness and God's holiness. So were its occasional usages after sickness, childbirth, and vows. In bringing a sacrifice a man acknowledged his sinfulness and guilt. He also publicly confessed his faith in the Lord, his thankfulness for past blessing, and his resolve to live according to God's holy will all the days of his life."28
Christians, too, need to remember our need for daily forgiveness, confess our sins, and purpose to walk in God's ways (cf. 1 John 1:7-9).
The meal (grain, cereal) offering was also an offering of worship. It evidently symbolized the sacrifice and commitment of one's person and works to God as well as the worshipper's willingness to keep the law (cf. Rom. 12:1-2; Heb. 13:15-16). A meal offering always followed the official daily burnt offering (cf. Num. 28), and it often accompanied a peace offering (cf. Num. 15:3-5; 2 Kings 16:33). The meal offering was a type of tribute from a faithful worshipper to his divine overlord.29
"God having granted forgiveness of sins through the burnt offering, the worshipper responded by giving to God some of the produce of his hands in cereal offering."30
This offering was distinctivefrom the others in the following respects.
1. It was a soothing aroma (vv. 2, 9). To God the meal offering was pleasing because it was an act of worship as well as atonement for sin.
2. The offering itself was the fruit of human labor. A possible contrast between the burnt and meal offerings is that one represented what man owes God and the other what he owes his fellow man.31However it seems more likely that the contrast intended was primarily between the person of the offerer and his works. The animals offered in the burnt offering were God's creations, but the cake or grain offered in the meal offering was the product of man's labor. God charged mankind with the responsibility of cultivating the earth (Gen. 1:29; cf. 9:4-6). Man cultivates the ground to provide for the needs of man--his own needs and the needs of other people. The grain or flour from which the "staff of life"comes symbolized what God enabled man to produce. By offering this sacrifice the offerer was saying that he viewed all the work that he did as an offering to the Lord.
The meal offering appears to have been acceptable only when offered with the burnt offering. This indicated that one's works were acceptable to God only when they accompanied the offerer's consecration of himself to God.
The materials used in this offering undoubtedly had significance to the Israelites. Fine flour (v. 1) baked into bread represented then, as now, the staff of life. The fact that the offerer had ground the flour fine probably emphasized the human toil represented by the offering. The olive oil (v. 1), as mentioned previously, was a symbol of God's enabling Spirit that bound the flour of the offering into cake. This consistency made it possible to offer the sacrifice as a finished "dish"rather than as a collection of ingredients. Frankincense (v. 1) was a very fragrant spice, but its aroma did not become evident until someone subjected it to fire. The oil and incense made the offering richer and more desirable, and therefore more pleasing to God. God also specified salt for this offering (v. 13). Salt symbolized a covenant in that nothing in antiquity could destroy salt including fire and time. Adding salt to an offering reminded the worshipper that he was in an eternal covenant relationship with his God. God specifically excluded honey and leaven from the recipe for the meal offering (v. 11). Some writers have suggested that these ingredients represented natural sweetness and sin to the Israelites.32Most have felt they were unacceptable because they cause fermentation, and fermentation suggested corruption.33
3. Another distinction was that the priest did not offer the whole meal offering on the altar. He placed only a handful of the uncooked grain or cooked cake on the brazen altar and burned it. The priest ate the rest (vv. 9-10). The offerer cooked the dough at home first, of course, and offered it as cake rather than batter (vv. 4, 5, 7). Humankind, symbolized by the priest, derived most of the benefit of this offering. This was appropriate since it represented man's work for his fellowman. The offerer received none of this sacrifice for himself. This too was appropriate.
4. Finally, the sacrifice was "to the Lord"(v. 1). Though it fed the priests the offerer did not offer it for the priests but to God (cf. Eph. 6:7; Col. 3:23-24).
God permitted various kinds of meal offerings: baked (v. 4), grilled (v. 5), fried, (v. 7), and roasted (v. 14). These constituted the variationswithin this offering.
The peace (fellowship, NIV) offering was the third sacrifice of worship. It represented the fellowship between God and man that resulted from the relationship that God had established with the redeemed individual. Peace and fellowship resulted from redemption, and this act of worship highlighted those blessings from God. This was an optional sacrifice; an Israelite could bring it if and when he felt like it. Thus it was not one of the offerings that the priests presented daily in the tabernacle, though God ordered its presentation at the feast of Pentecost (23:19). Because it was voluntary, its offering became a festive occasion.
There were two major distinctivesof this offering.
1. It was a soothing aroma (v. 16).
2. All the participants fed together on this sacrifice: the offerer, the priest, and God (symbolically). Eating together had great significance in the ancient Near East, as I mentioned previously. People who ate a ritual meal together were committing themselves to one another in a strong bond of loyalty. Eating together also symbolized fellowship. In this sacrifice the offerer fed on the same offering he had made to God. In the burnt offering God got the whole sacrifice. In the meal offering God and the priest shared the sacrifice. However in the peace offering all three participants shared a part. Even the priest's children ate of this offering, but they had to be ceremonially clean to participate (7:20; cf. 1 Cor. 11:28).
"A libation [drink] offering (nesek) accompanied burnt and fellowship offerings. The priest's portion of the fellowship offering was symbolically waved' before the Lord as his portion and called the wave offering' (tenupa). Certain portions of it (namely, one of the cakes and the right thigh) were given as a contribution' from the offerer to the priests, the so-called heave offering' (teruma)."34
The Israelites were not to eat the fat of this sacrifice but to offer it to God on the altar. This may have symbolized that God was worthy of the best since the ancients regarded the fat of an animal as its best part. Another explanation is that since the Old Testament used the kidneys and entrails to represent the seat of human emotions (cf. Job 19:27; Ps. 16:7; Jer. 4:14; 12:2), these parts represented the worshipper's best and deepest emotions. This view finds support in the fact that Israelites offered the peace offering in intrinsically emotional situations, when they thanked God or requested from Him.35
"The slain-offering [peace offering], which culminated in the sacrificial meal, served as a seal of the covenant fellowship, and represented the living fellowship of man with God."36
These varietiesare significant.
1. There were several grades of animals that God permitted. These were similar to the burnt offering but were fewer. Bullocks, lambs, and goats were acceptable. Female animals were acceptable showing that this was a less important sacrifice than the burnt offering.
2. The Israelites could present this offering for any of three possible reasons: as a thanksgiving offering, as a freewill offering, or to fulfill a vow (i.e., a votive offering; cf. 7:12-16).
When the Israelites offered thousands of sacrifices at one time they were usually peace offerings. They ate only a part of what they offered on these occasions.37There are many similarities between this offering and the Lord's Supper. Both were celebrations that commemorated a covenant, both were occasions of rededication to God, and both involved blood.
Keil and Delitzsch pointed out that ancient Near Easterners offered certain offerings before God incorporated these into the Mosaic Law. Moses previously mentioned burnt offerings in Genesis 12:7; 13:4, 18; 22; 26:25; 33:20; and 35:1-7, and peace offerings in Genesis 31:54 and 46:1. However the sin and trespass offerings were new.
They ". . . were altogether unknown before the economy of the Sinaitic law."38
The structure of the chapters dealing with the sin and trespass offerings differs from that describing the burnt, meal, and peace offerings. Also the opening words of this chapter introduce a new section. These differences help us appreciate the fact that these two offerings are in a class by themselves while sharing some of the similarities of the first three. The sacrificial victim was the organizing principle in chapters 1-3 with revelation about the more valuable animals leading off each chapter. In 4:1-6:7 the most important factor is the type of sin that called for sacrifice, and the status of the sinner is a secondary factor.
"Whereas the main issue in the burnt, grain, and fellowship offerings was the proper procedure to be followed, the main issue in the discussion in the sin and guilt offerings is the occasion that would require these sacrifices."39
There were two types of occasions that called for the sin offering: unwitting or inadvertent sins (ch. 4) and sins of omission (5:1-13). We could subdivide this section on the sin offering as follows.40
Inadvertent sin ch. 4
Introduction 4:1-2
Blood sprinkled in the holy place 4:3-21
For the high priest 4:3-12
For the congregation 4:13-21
Blood smeared on the brazen altar 4:22-35
For the tribal leader 4:22-26
For the ordinary Israelite offering a goat 4:27-31
For the ordinary Israelite offering a lamb 4:32-35
Sins of omission 5:1-13
A lamb or goat offering 5:1-6
A bird offering 5:7-10
A flour offering 5:11-13
The sin (purification, Heb. hatta't) offering dealt with unintentional sins. The translation "sin offering"is a bit misleading since the burnt, peace, and trespass offerings also atoned for sin.
"Propitiation of divine anger . . . is an important element in the burnt offering. Restitution . . . is the key idea in the reparation [trespass] offering. Purification is the main element in the purification [sin] sacrifice. Sin not only angers God and deprives him of his due, it also makes his sanctuary unclean. A holy God cannot dwell amid uncleanness. The purification offering purifies the place of worship, so that God may be present among his people."41
"The root ht'for sin' occurs 595 times in the Old Testament, and Leviticus, with 116 attestations, has far more occurrences than any other Old Testament book. This section (fifty-three attestations) is the heaviest concentration of the discussion of sin' in the Bible."42
Like the burnt and meal offerings this one was compulsory, but the Israelites offered it less frequently (cf. Num. 28-29). The most important feature of this offering was the sprinkling of the blood of the sacrifice.
Three notable distinctivesstand out.
1. This offering was not a soothing aroma. It was for expiation, namely, to make amends. The offerer ritually charged the sacrificial animal with his sin (cf. Isa. 53:5; 1 Pet. 2:24). The animal had to be without defect (cf. 1 Pet. 2:22). The offerer executed God's judgment for sin on the sacrificial substitute when he slew it. In every sin offering an innocent substitute replaced the sinner (cf. 2 Cor. 5:21).
A problem arises in verse 31 where Moses referred to this non-soothing offering as a soothing aroma. One commentator suggested that a copyist accidentally transferred the statement from the discussions of the peace offering in chapter 3.43Another believed it was the burning of the fatty tissue, not the whole sin offering, that was the soothing aroma.44
2. The priest burned outside the camp the skin and other parts that he did not eat or burn on the altar. He burned the fat on the altar. God evidently regarded it as the best part of the animal. The priest ate most of the flesh (6:26; cf. Heb. 13:11-13; Matt. 27:46).
3. This offering dealt with most unintentionally committed sins (cf. 5:14-16). These oversights demonstrated a sinful nature. Any sin committed unwittingly (4:2, 13, 22, 27; 5:2-4) proved the need for this offering and demonstrated a sinful nature.
God permitted several varietiesof this offering.
1. God permitted the offering of less expensive animals or flour (5:11) by the poor. However everyone had to offer this sacrifice since everyone committed unintentional acts of sin. Flour did not express the cost of expiation as well as a blood sacrifice did, but God permitted it for the very poor.
2. People with higher social and economic status had to bring more expensive sacrifices illustrating the principle that privilege increases responsibility. Evidently any sin that the high priest committed in private or in his public capacity brought guilt on the whole nation (cf. 10:6; 22:16).45
3. God allowed procedural differences as well (e.g., where the priest sprinkled the blood, how he burned the fat, etc.) depending on the offerer's position in the nation.
The sin offering covered only sins committed unintentionally. This category included sins done by mistake, in error, through oversight or ignorance, through lack of consideration, or by carelessness. That is, this sacrifice covered sins that sprang from the weakness of the flesh (cf. Num. 15:27-29). It did not cover sins committed with a "high hand,"namely, in haughty, defiant rebellion against God. Such a sinner was "cut off from among his people"(Num. 15:30-31). Many reliable commentators interpret this phrase to mean the offender suffered death.46Not all deliberate sins were "high handed,"however, only those committed in defiant rebellion against God.
"The sin offerings did not relate to sin or sinfulness in general, but to particular manifestations of sin, to certain distinct actions performed by individuals, or by the whole congregation."47
Note the promises that the offering would atone for these sins (4:26, 31, 35; 5:10).
Scholars have understood the meaning of "atonement,"from the Hebrew root kpr, in three different ways. Most of them have believed that it is related to the Arabic cognate meaning "to cover."Another possibility is that the verb means "to wipe or purge."A third view is that the verb means "to ransom."Probably the second and third views are best since they go back to the Hebrew root rather than to the Arabic cognate. Both these interpretations are valid depending on the context. However, the idea of covering is also frequently present.48
Most commentators understand this sacrifice as the principal expiatory offering in ancient Israel.49Nevertheless references to this offering in the text consistently connect it with purification. Sin defiles people and, particularly, God's sanctuary. Animal blood was the means of purification. The pollution of sin does not endanger God but human beings. Textual evidence points to the burnt offering as the principal atoning sacrifice in Israel.50
The idea that sin pollutes and defiles seems very strange in the modern world. Notwithstanding Leviticus reveals that sins pollute the place where they take place (cf. 18:24-30; Deut. 21:1-9).
The relationship of 5:1-13 to chapter 4 is a problem. I have suggested one solution above: these sin offerings deal with sins of omission rather than inadvertent sin. One scholar suggested another explanation.
"Modern critics tend to regard 5:1-13 as the poor man's' offering, the option given to the offender of 4:27-35 who cannot afford the prescribed flock animal. This interpretation, however, is beset with stylistic and contextual difficulties: . . . My own hypothesis is herewith submitted: The graduated hatta't[sin offering] is a distinct sacrificial category. It is enjoined for failure or inability to cleanse impurity upon its occurrence. This the sin of which he is guilty' (5:6, 10, 13) is not the contraction of impurity but its prolongation."51
This relationship continues to be the subject of some debate. Wenham summarized this section well.
"The purification [sin] offering dealt with the pollution caused by sin. If sin polluted the land, it defiled particularly the house where God dwelt. The seriousness of pollution depended on the seriousness of the sin, which in turn related to the status of the sinner. If a private citizen sinned, his action polluted the sanctuary only to a limited extent. Therefore the blood of the purification offering was only smeared on the horns of the altar of burnt sacrifice. If, however, the whole nation sinned or the holiest member of the nation, the high priest, sinned, this was more serious. The blood had to be taken inside the tabernacle and sprinkled on the veil and the altar of incense. Finally over the period of a year the sins of the nation could accumulate to such an extent that they polluted even the holy of holies, where God dwelt. If he was to continue to dwell among his people, this too had to be cleansed in the annual day of atonement ceremony (see Lev. 16)."52
Under the New Covenant the blood of Jesus Christ cleanses the believer from all sin (cf. Heb. 9-10; 1 Pet. 1:2; 1 John 1:7; Rev. 7:14). Thus this offering is now obsolete for the Christian. However sin in the believer's life can grieve the indwelling Holy Spirit (Eph. 4:30). Furthermore the New Testament reminds us that judgment is still proportionate to responsibility (cf. Luke 12:48; James 3:1). For us confession is a prerequisite to cleansing for fellowship (1 John 1:9) even though Christ's death has brought purification from sin's condemnation.
The structure of 4:1-6:7 indicates that this offering has a close relationship to the sin offering. This offering removed the guilt of certain sins that involved trespassing against God. Trespassing means going beyond the limits of what is right. The Hebrew word asham, translated "guilt,"also means "reparation."It may be helpful to think of this offering as a reparation or compensation offering since other sacrifices also deal with guilt.
"Guilt in the biblical sense is not just a feeling but a condition. There may be known transgressions that bring feelings of guilt, but there is also the condition of guilt before God, caused by sins known or unknown. Sometimes a hardened sinner has few feelings of guilt when he is the most guilty."53
This chapter is divisible into two parts: the trespass offering for inadvertent sin (5:14-19), and the trespass offering for deliberate sin (6:1-7). There is a further distinction in 5:14-19 between trespasses that someone committed with sure knowledge of his guilt (5:14-16) and those that someone committed with only suspected knowledge of his guilt (5:17-19).
"From all these cases it is perfectly evident, that the idea of satisfaction for a right, which had been violated but was about to be restored or recovered, lay at the foundation of the trespass offering, and the ritual also points to this."54
The identity of the "holy things"(v. 15) is problematic. The phrase evidently refers to anything dedicated to God by the Israelites including the tabernacle, its furnishings, the offerings, houses, lands, and tithes (cf. ch. 27).55Violating these things would have involved eating holy food (cf. 22:14), taking dedicated things, and perhaps failing to fulfill a dedicatory vow or pay a tithe.
The situation described in verses 17-19 evidently involved an instance of suspected trespass against sacred property. Someone suspected that he had sinned but did not know exactly how.56This sacrifice pacified oversensitive Israelite consciences. Stealing sacred property was one of the most dreaded sins in antiquity.57
The third type of offense (6:1-7) involved not only stealing property but lying about it when confronted. The real offense was not so much taking the property as trespassing against God's holy name by swearing falsely about one's innocence.
"It seems likely that atonement for deliberate sins was possible where there was evidence of true repentance, demonstrated by remorse (feeling guilty), full restitution (v. 23 [4]), and confession of sin (cf. Num. 5:6-8)."58
The major distinctivesof this offering were these.
1. It was not a soothing aroma offering.
2. The Israelites were to offer it when they had wronged someone--either God (5:15, 17) or God and man (6:2). Every trespass against one's neighbor involved a trespass against God, but not every trespass against God involved a trespass against one's neighbor (cf. Ps. 51:1-4). Even though the offender may not have been aware of his trespass he was still guilty. When he became aware of his sin or even suspected his guilt, he had to bring this offering. This repentance reduced the guilt of the crime to that of an involuntary act.59
3. The offending Israelite had to pay restitution to the injured party in some cases (5:16; 6:5). The guilty party had to restore whatever the victim of his sin had lost.
4. In addition to restitution the offender had to add 20 percent (5:16; 6:5). This policy applied in the ancient Near East outside Israel in some cases (cf. Gen. 47:27). God considered the fifth part a debt the offender owed because of his offense, not a gift to the victim. The victim ended up better off in one sense than he was before the offense.
There is much less description of the ritual involved in presenting this offering compared to the others (cf. 7:1-7).
The only significant variationsin this offering were that only a ram or a male lamb were acceptable sacrifices (cf. 5:14-19; 14:12-20; 19:21-22; Num. 6:12). Evidently if a person could not bring a ram or a lamb he could substitute the value of the animal in silver.60There were more options in most of the other sacrifices.
"The reparation offering thus demonstrates that there is another aspect of sin that is not covered by the other sacrifices. It is that of satisfaction or compensation. If the burnt offering brings reconciliation between God and man, the purification or sin offering brings purification, while the reparation offering brings satisfaction through paying for the sin.
"The sacrificial system therefore presents different models or analogies to describe the effects of sin and the way of remedying them. The burnt offering uses a personal picture: of man the guilty sinner who deserves to die for his sin and of the animal dying in his place. God accepts the animal as a ransom for man. The sin offering uses a medical model: sin makes the world so dirty that God can no longer dwell there. The blood of the animal disinfects the sanctuary in order that God may continue to be present with his people. The reparation offering presents a commercial picture of sin. Sin is a debt which man incurs against God. The debt is paid through the offered animal."61
Christians do not need to try to compensate God for our offenses against Him since He has accepted the sacrifice of Jesus Christ as full payment for our debts (cf. 2 Cor. 5:19; Eph. 2:1; Col. 2:13). Nevertheless we have a responsibility to recompense others against whom we trespass (cf. Matt. 5:23-24; 6:12).
"The five basic sacrifices are . . . introduced twice, each sacrifice being treated both in the main section addressed to the people [1:1-6:7] and in the supplementary section addressed to the priests [6:8-7:38]."62
The main theme of this section is who may eat what parts of the offerings and where. Generally only the priests could eat the sacrifices, but the offerers could eat part of the peace offering. In this section frequency of offering determines the order of the material rather than theological significance (cf. chs. 1-5). The regular daily burnt and meal sacrifices come first, then the less frequent sin (purification) offering, then the occasional trespass (reparation) offering, and finally the optional peace (fellowship) offering.
