Thursday, February 01, 2018

The Significance of Touching The Animal's Head When Making a Burnt Offering

The Purpose of the Offering
Leviticus 1:1-4:
1 Then the Lord called to Moses and spoke to him from the tent of meeting, saying, 
“Speak to the sons of Israel and say to them, ‘When any man of you brings an offering to the Lord, you shall bring your offering of animals from the herd or the flock. 
If his offering is a burnt offering from the herd, he shall offer it, a male without defect; he shall offer it at the doorway of the tent of meeting, that he may be accepted before the Lord. 
He shall lay his hand on the head of the burnt offering, that it may be accepted for him to make atonement on his behalf. 

Copyright © 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995 by The Lockman Foundation
Thoughts on the Passage
Because Leviticus is such a detailed instructional manual to God’s people of Israel, the various commentators have a lot to say about it.  Here we will try to keep it at a very high level, sharing only some of the key thoughts and ideas I was able to glean from my own study of the book as well as from some well-known commentators.

As God called out to Moses from the tent of meeting, we know, says David Guzik, that the Tabernacle had been completed and the place of sacrifice was ready. The sacrificial system God wanted could now be implemented in all its detail. Moses once again was to give the people of Israel the word that God shared with him on this matter of bringing their offering of the livestock, herd, and flock.

Robert Jamieson identifies a pattern that seems to show that when “the subject of communication were of a temporal nature, the Levites were excluded; but if it were a spiritual matter, all the tribes were comprehended [or included] under this name [sons of Israel].” So, as much as this is technical instructions as to how to undertake these various offerings, it had a very deep and significant spiritual implication.

This whole idea of sacrifice goes back to the covenant God had made with Israel at Mount Sinai.  It had three major parts: the law (what Israel had to obey), the sacrifice (to provide for their breaking the law), and the choice of blessing or curse (for their history going forward). The sacrificial system was necessary because God knew the law would be broken through sin.

Guzik says the system of sacrifice had its origins in the days of Adam when in Genesis 3:21 we read that God made “garments of skin” for Adam and his wife. One assumes that an animal had to be sacrificed by God to provide these garments. But that aside, we can for sure agree that it goes back as far as Adam’s sons, Cain and Abel who brought sacrificial offerings to God (Genesis 4) and then later we read of Noah’s offerings (Genesis 8:20,21). So, this was nothing new for the Israelites. And of course, they also observed “sacrifices to gods” all around them when they encountered different nations and cultures. It’s a concept that has been around universally from before the flood.
Therefore, it is possible these instructions were really based on much of what the priests of Israel were doing already wherever sacrifices were made. Now with the Tabernacle completed, the procedures could be formalized as the sacrifice of the people would be done in one place.
Guzik also suggests that offerings must cost the people something as they could only bring animals in their possession which had value, not wild ones.

In verse 3 is described the “burnt” or total offering that involved a male animal (thought to be, with all due respect to the pursuit of equality these days, stronger and thus more valuable) without blemish (no ‘seconds’ or ‘slightly marred goods’ accepted) and offered of one’s free will (indicating God wants our hearts to be freely given to Him).  Israel was not always obedient in this regard, as we read in Malachi 1:8.

Henry then adds the idea that as a total (burnt) offering “no part of it was eaten either by the priests or the offerer. It was designed to propitiate (or appease) the anger of God incurred by original sin, or by particular transgressions, and its entire combustion indicated the self-dedication of the offerer – his whole nature – his body and soul – as necessary to form a sacrifice acceptable to God.”

Matthew Henry, however, further clarifies the meaning here when he points out that “in Christ Jesus there is neither male nor female; nor is any natural blemish in the body a bar to our acceptance with God, but only the moral defects and deformities introduced by sin into the soul.” And furthermore, in reference to this being done freely, Henry says, this act “must be done by no other constraint than that of love”.

Henry also sees a parallel in verse 3 in reference to the fact that this offering must be done at the doorway of the Tabernacle, indicating that the offender is “as one unworthy to enter, and acknowledging that there is no admission for a sinner into covenant and communion with God, but by sacrifice; but he must offer it at the tabernacle of the congregation, in token of his communion with the whole church of Israel even in this personal service.”

With reference to the animal being without blemish, Jamieson informs us that the Egyptian priests made a minute inspection of the animal and once declared perfect, a certificate to that effect was fastened to its horns with wax, sealed with the priest’s ring so that no other animal might be substituted.

Verse 4 communicates a key idea in the process. The person making the offering was to put his hand firmly on the head of the animal, and perhaps pause there for a second. This was a clear picture of identification with the sacrificial victim, says Guzik. The guilty human transferred his guilt to the sacrificial victim that would die for the sin of the offerer and offender. Can you see the symbolism foreshadowing what we (those guilty of sin) had to do in transferring our sin onto Christ Jesus (which He took on wilfully) so that He could die in our place? The parallelism is remarkable.

While the Israelite doing this at that time hoped this touching of the animal’s head would make his sacrifice acceptable, we who put our trust in Christ’s sacrifice, know that God has accepted His offering of Himself in our place.

As Guzik says, it wasn’t enough that the victim or animal died. No, the one receiving atonement through the sacrifice had to actively identify himself with the sacrifice. Do you see the implication of that for our own salvation?


Guzik: “The idea behind the Hebrew word for atonement – kophar – is to cover. The idea is that an individual’s sin is covered by the blood of the sacrificial victim. But there is a difference between the Old Testament idea of atonement and the New Testament idea. In the Old Testament, sin is ‘covered over’ until redemption was completed by Jesus on the cross. In the New Testament, sin is done away with - and a true "at-one-ment" was accomplished by Jesus' sacrifice.”

And this is only the beginning of Leviticus. If you found it as fascinating as I did, please stay with us by making sure you have signed to be told when the next blog is published.  Share this with your friends.  And above all, feel free to write to me with comments or questions.  

It would be great if you would share your thoughts or questions on this blog in the comments section below or on social media.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Thanks for your comment.