Ob and In:
(1) Linked to Exodus the glory filling the tabernacle
1 Then the LORD called to Moses and spoke to him from the Meeting Tent:
(NET) Lev 1:1 arises from its function as a transition from Exod 40 to Lev 1. The first clause, “And he (the LORD) called to Moses,” links v. 1 back to Exod 40:35, “But Moses was not able to enter into the tent of meeting because the cloud had settled on it and the glory of the LORD had filled the tabernacle”...Since Moses could not enter the tent of meeting, the LORD “called” to him “from” the tent of meeting.
(2) What is the burnt offering and what is the function of it
4 He must lay his hand on the head of the burnt offering, and it will be accepted for him to make atonement on his behalf
(NET) 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).
(EBC) The idea of substitution is clearly present in Genesis 22.
(NET) The primary meaning of the Hebrew verb, however, is “to wipe [something off (or on)]” (see esp. the goal of the sin offering, Lev 4, “to purge” the tabernacle from impurities), but in some cases it refers metaphorically to “wiping away” anything that might stand in the way of good relations by bringing a gift (see, e.g., Gen 32:20 [21 HT], “to appease; to pacify” as an illustration of this). The translation “make atonement” has been retained here because, ultimately, the goal of either purging or appeasing was to maintain a proper relationship between the LORD (who dwelt in the tabernacle) and Israelites in whose midst the tabernacle was pitched
(BKC) Though the offense had to be expiated, more significantly the sacrifice was required because the personal relationship between God and man had been disrupted. So expiation had the effect of making propitiation—turning away divine wrath by a satisfactory, substitutionary sacrifice.
(3) What is special about the burnt offering
a.
(BKC) The ritual of the burnt offering, like all the Levitical sacrifices, significantly involved the worshiper in the sacrificial procedure, for he performed the acts of presenting the animal, the laying on of hands, slaughter, skinning, dissecting, and washing.
But all ritual procedures involving contact with the altar were reserved for the priest, including the manipulation of blood, the arrangement of the wood, and the appropriate parts of the sacrifice for incineration on the altar.
b.
(BKC) As to general characteristics, all Levitical offerings were (a) ceremonially clean (cf. chap. 11), (b) utilitarian and usable for common food, (c) domesticated (wild game could be eaten but not sacrificed, Deut. 14:4–5), and (d) costly, in relation to the domestic wealth of the Israelite. In short, God required the highest quality possible in line with the means of the worshiper.
Reflection: Do I realize that my relationship with God needed to be repaired every day? Do I realized that the repairing was a costly choice. Israelites could have used their animals in other use or in offering. They had to make a choice in order to use it as a offering to substitute them. Every time when they approach God they were reminded that they could only go so far. There were still room that they could not cross.
Thank God that Jesus repaired my relationship with God. He paid the costly repair. He opened the way to God with no further hinderance. May I also be reminded every day about the repairing work of Jesus for me.
Audrey
Comments