Leviticus - Chapter 1

1 The LORD called Moses and spoke to him from the tent of meeting, saying,

Could this verse (the preposition "from") reveal the secret of Moses' conversations with the Lord in the Tabernacle?
I have mentioned several times that I have adopted Asher Intrater's theory (in Who Dined with Abraham?) that Moses spent time with Jesus at Mount Sinai and in Tabernacle. Intrater's theory is well founded in my opinion.
Could Moses' time in the Tabernacle have been spent there waiting for God/Jesus to address him? For it does not say that the Lord called Moses to come to the Tabernacle, but that He called to him while he was already in the Tabernacle.
In addition, it states that God called "from" the Tabernacle, which suggests that Moses was outside and God called him in ("Come to my office, I need to tell you something") or that God spoke from within and Moses listened outside. But neither is very likely.
We generally assume that our prayers (i.e., conversations with God) take place in such a way that God is always available, always on call, always on the line. And it is up to us when we pick up the "phone" and address God. He then immediately responds and begins to communicate with us.
Somehow it really "works", on the other hand this approach has some problematic points:
- It's disrespectful - the Lord is not a helpline where our personal counsellor, psychologist and billionaire uncle are all on the line 24/7. (I am referring here to the election billboards of the ANO movement, where individual candidates "boasted" that they had a mobile phone directly to Andrej Babiš.)
- The Lord is not an automatic wish-granter in the sense of: I throw a prayer in and a wish comes out.
- The Lord is not a personal butler, a GPT chat room or a Bixby (personal assistant on a mobile phone) who will happily chat with us about anything and whenever we want.
Our communication with the Supreme has, or should have, the features of communication with a fellow human being, but at other times it has the features of a royal audience. We know that Our communication with the Supreme has, or should have, the features of communication with a fellow human being, but at other times it has the features of a royal audience. We know that A father is not a "Hey" or a "buddy"; he is not on equal footing with his children. On the other hand, he is sympathetic to his children, loves them and willingly adapts to their level in communication.
This place might indicate that not (maybe not only) God waited in the Tabernacle for Moses to visit Him occasionally, but Moses also waited in the Tabernacle for the Lord to address him occasionally.
It is very good to be with God in prayer continuously throughout the day. It is good to be with God in our allotted time. But it is also good to create time in our lives when we are waiting for the Most High to address us.
So what did the Most High feel it necessary to tell Moses? We will see that it was instructions to the people. What instructions, then, did the Lord deem necessary for Israel?
What would we consider important if we were the leaders of a nation? As we shall see, the Lord considers it crucial offering sacrifices. This theme runs through the book like a red thread.
We'll think about it, what the sacrifices are meant to show us and why they are so important to God and to us.

2 "Speak to the people of Israel and say to them, brings any one of you⁽brings an offering to the LORD,⁾ you shall bring your offering of livestock from the herd or from the flock.

h.: man;
impf.; or: brings ;
[In the case of sacrifices, the general procedure expressed by the verbs is usually repeated: to bring (or bring, hiqríb), to lay on the hand (samak), to kill (shahat), to sprinkle (záraq, or some manipulation of blood), to set on fire (or sacrifice, hiqtír n. sárap) for some: to eat ('ákal);
h. qorbán;
God felt it necessary to give Moses instructions regarding sacrificies. Sacrifices are a rather complex area of Jewish religious life. There are several kinds of sacrifices and the manner of their offering is usually precisely defined.
As noted in the Czech Study Translation memo, some things are repeated and common among sacrifices. Here we are talking about qorban, translated as offering to the Lord
The sacrifices were as follows (we will further specify):
- Burnt Offering (Olah): the sacrifice of an animal that was burnt whole on the altar. A symbol of consecration and redemption.
- Grain Offering (Minchah): An offering of fine flour, oil and incense, often offered with a burnt offering, symbolizing thanksgiving.
- Peace Offering (Šelamim): Part of the sacrifice was consumed by the offerer as a symbol of communion with God and others.
- Sin Offering (Chatat)For unintentional sins.
- Guilt Offering (Ašam)For certain offences.
- Qorbán: A general term for victims. It conveys the meaning of approach.
The principle of sacrifice is interesting in itself. What is the "principle" of sacrifice? The principle is giving up something: I'm giving up something of mine for someone else. In this case, God. I give or pass it on to another. I don't have it anymore. It's actually a gift.
The bigger the sacrifice, the more valuable it is. But we know from Jesus and the poor widow that it is not the absolute but the relative value of the sacrifice that matters: that the more value I give up, the more it "hurts."
If I give up a hundred crowns, it's a sacrifice, but for most people it's not a big deal. If it's the last or the only penny, it increases the price of the sacrifice.
The highest value we can sacrifice is our life.
Why am I sacrificing something? There can be several reasons - we can see that there are five types of sacrifice. To name a few - reconciliation, pleasure, gratitude.

„The "principle" of the individual sacrifices I tried to capture in Lv 7:14

The sacrifices included an animal from from the herd or from the flock.. Why? I can think of one:
- Domestic animals were widely available and widespread at the time. We can wonder what sacrifices the Most High would require if the Israelites were the inhabitants of today's big cities. Pets?
- Bov and cattle are reasonably expensive - almost everyone could afford them. The sacrifice hurt the owner financially, but it didn't destroy him.
- Cows, goats and sheep are animals of a relatively high "intelligence level", they have their own inner life, their own individual characters, they experience emotions, they are generally close to us - so it is not difficult to form a relationship with them. Their deaths affect people. If insects, reptiles, amphibians, fish or other animals far removed from humans were sacrificed, it would hurt less. On the other hand, for all its proximity, the animal is still not human.
- For most sacrifices, the death of a living creature is a serious and to some extent "magical" matter. Life is a mystery and is God-breathed. It is not easy to take the life of a living creature.
- Killing is associated with bloodshed. Blood is certainly no ordinary liquid.

3 7 Andoffering is a burnt offering from the herd, he shall offer a male without blemish. He shall bring it to the entrance of the tent of meeting, that he may be accepted before the LORD.

Now Moses gives instructions about burnt offering olah
The sacrificial animal is to be a male (i.e. a bull, we're talking about cattle). Why? Why does God care about the sex of the animal? Why doesn't it say "animal", the sex doesn't matter. Maybe:
- Males (and females) represent their group, family or herd "outwardly". Males face the world, protect against the world. They interact with the world.
- So it is natural that when it comes to the need for someone to give his life for others, it will be a male. He will "stick his neck out" for others. If he could decide that, the male would not want a female from his herd to be taken to the sacrifice, This psychologizing is probably inappropriate - people may be able to reason that way, whether animals, I don't know. (Males in herds of wild animals do protect the herd from predators, they put their lives on the line).
- In humans, men are primarily the ones who are involved in God's plans for the world. Women have an equally important, but mostly derivative, supporting role. Being sacrificed to God is certainly such an involvement in God's plans.
- The males were more valuable, more expensive, the damage to the sacrificer was therefore greater.
The male has to be without blemish - the cause here is clear. Human nature is such that if God had not instituted this measure, the temple would have become a kafilery and the priests the butchers: the people would have disposed of the weak, the sick, or the defective in any way by sacrifice. This would render the sacrifice meaningless - as we have already said, the sacrifice must "hurt" the sacrificer, otherwise there is no sacrifice.
Everything is goin on at the entrance to the Tent, it means outside. There was an altar, too.

4 He shall lay his hand on the head of the burnt offering, and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him.

We see another principle of the sacrifice of olah: the sacrificer on it lays his hand - it's about the symbolic transfer of one's own identity to the animal.
We begin to penetrate deeper into the mystery of sacrifice: the animal dies in the place of the human, in the place of the sacrificer. He dies vicariously. The principle is obvious:
The "right" way should be the death of ther sacrificer. There may be two reasons why it would be right for him to die:
- The sacrificer wants to sacrifice himself to God to please Him, to belong to Him. He wants to give himself to God. The sacrificer so loves God, so wants to serve Him, that he offers everything he has, that is, his life, at His disposal.
- The sacrificers deserve death because of their sins. The penalty, the wages of sin, is always death. (Ro 6,23).
Because God is invisible and inaccessible, it is impossible to truly surrender to Him. If God were to "dwell" somewhere, man would knock on His door and say he would like to stay with Him as His slave. He could physically give his life to God. But given God's inaccessibility (He dwells in an inaccessible heaven), that is not possible.
On the Earth God has arranged it so that if someone wants to give Him something, they have to destroy it. When someone kills and burns an animal, God takes it to mean that the animal has been handed over to Him.
The formulation that the sacrificed animal it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him., shows that in the case of olah it is a sin offering. By laying his hand on the animal, man transfers his sins to it, and it is subsequently punished for them by death.
Which of course is totally unfair - what does a bull have to do with me being a sinner? Nothing at all. It's totally unfair to the animal, But towards us it is an expression of God's immeasurable kindness (shall kindly be accepted). The fact that I don't have to die, I really appreciate that. I feel sorry for the bull, but frankly, I'm glad I don't have to be in his shoes.
To put it in concrete terms, it's a strange image: me putting my hand on the head of a bull and praying that he becomes my representative in my cause. That the punishment which is to be inflicted on me may be inflicted on him.
The idea of bringing a bull to court and asking the judge to apply the punishment I deserve to it. In our terms: I got five years in prison, please judge, let this animal go to prison instead of me.
Just for the record, I drove past grazing cows. They're huge animals. The idea of something that big getting killed and burned for me is strange.
The bull is also wild and aggressive - he had to be led by the nose ring, otherwise he would be unmanageable.
What is the purpose of all this? Obtain reconciliation for the sacrificer! We find that man does not live in a reconciled state towards God. What does that mean? Man is separated from God by sin, there is a barrier or chasm between them created by man's sin (see picture in 1 Peter 1). There is tension between man and God, their relationship with each other is broken. God is angry with people, hurt or offended by their behavior. Perhaps it could be said that God does not talk to people.
What about it? The correct thing to say would be: You're right, God, I've behaved badly, I deserve to die - and be executed. With this punishment, he would have served his sin¹, he would pay adequately for his sin, God would forgive him, there would be a reconciliation and his relationship with the Creator would once again be untarnished. That would be the correct and logical course of action.
Fortunately for us, God has agreed to a substitution, a vicarious sacrifice - ...so that we might not have to die, but someone else could serve serve the sentence. In this case, an innocent bull, later an innocent Christ.
But this principle of sacrifice also shows horror of sin – because someone has to die. Sin cannot be swept under the carpet, it cannot be waved away, it cannot be forgiven without reason. Death must come, blood must be shed.
God has not made it so that it is enough to confess the sin, apologize for it, pay for it with money, or compensate for it with good works. Death must occur.
This necessity of shedding of blood is to remind us forever of the catastrophe of sin. Human sin is terrible and has cosmic devastating consequences.
We New Testament Christians have become accustomed to living in a mode where repentance is enough to forgive our sins - and we tend to forget that it is only because the blood has already been shed by Christ. If Christ hadn't died for our sins on the cross, we could repent all we wanted, but it wouldn't help.

The issue of self-sacrifice is partly illustrated by a well-known story from the African church. When there was a collection during the service, people gave their gifts in kind - someone gave a kilo of flour, someone gave ten eggs, someone gave a chicken. The poor boy in the last row had nothing to give to God. Yet he longed for it very much. So he went into the basket himself.

5 Then he shall killthe bull before ⁽the LORD, and Aaron's sons the priests⁾ shall bring the blood and throw je u the blood He against the sides of the altar that is at the entrance of the tent of meeting.

[i.e., one who offers sacrifice; LXX changes to: they (i.e., priests)]
Here the phrase is used for the first time, originally to denote Aaron's own sons (Eleazar and Ithamar), and later (apparently after their death) it changes to a more general meaning: the descendants of Aaron;
The animal is killed.
Killed before the Lord: That is, in a holy place, in the presence of God. It must be clear that this killing is related to God, it is happening before His eyes. There must be no doubt that this death is happening for God's sake.
These places fundamentally modify our ideas about the Supreme One. Many people think of the Lord as a kind, all-encompassing uncle who smiles all the time, never gets angry, waves his hand over everything, smooths things over, and manage everything.
Here we see God angry and despairing at human depravity. A God who has "before His tabernacle" hecatombs of cattle brought in to be slaughtered and their blood manipulated before His eyes.
But it's much worse than that: The Lord is the God who sent His own Son to die and then watched His agony.
That's chillingly scary.
And all of this happened because of us - we caused it by our sin. All those innocent bulls being gored and Christ writhing on the cross are the result of who we are, who we choose to be.
In front of the Tent of Meeting (and later in the Temple) it must have looked like a slaughterhouse or a crematorium - hectolitres of blood, the smell of blood and raw meat, the smell of burning meat, smoke like from a crematorium, dirty priests covered in blood.
All this was done so that it could be blood was brought and the altar at the entrance was sprinkled with blood on all sides. That's why all this horror is happening. It was necessary to bring the blood before God to declare clearly that sin had been punished, that sin had been dealt with.
It is impossible not to imagine A God immensely angry with human depravity, who barely restrains his anger from destroying people. And the priests who, with humility and trembling, sprinkle animal blood in His direction, hoping that the Most High will concede the exchange and His wrath will be turned away from men.
This is how the cards are dealt. This is the reality.
The way God sets the rules for sacrifices almost precludes any other interpretation of God's character. God is not only like this, God is also weeping and compassionate. This aspect of His personality, however, cannot be ignored.
Recently a man said to me (after preaching on King David's sin and subsequent punishment) rebuked: God punishes no one. When I countered that the Bible explicitly says this about David, he said: Such a God is not my God. In the sense - the God I believe in is not like that.
But it doesn't really matter what kind of God we believe in, what is important is what He is really like. We don't create our idea of God as we would like Him to be. But we try to resist what He is actually like. We certainly can't do it perfectly on this side of eternity, but we have no better information about God than the Bible.
And the terrible aspect of God's character that we see in the principle of blood sacrifice cannot be ignored.

6Then he shall flay the burnt offering and cut it into pieces,

h.: He sheds his skin;
To flay a bull is a strenuous and bloody "half day's work". Anyone who has only pulled down a flat of Christmas carp knows that it requires strength in the fingers, a very sharp knife, a rag and, if possible, pliers. Everything slips in your fingers. It must have been hard work for the falying priest - he was sweaty and completely filthy when he finished.
He still had to cut it into pieces - he needed a good axe for that, and it was again a laborious job, not a matter of a few cuts - the tendons and ligaments are strong.

7 and the sons of Aaron the priest shall put fire on the altar and arrange wood on the fire.

Parallel to the manipulation of the sacrifice, the preparation of the fire was underway.
It had to be big - it would be possible to burn a hen on an ordinary "campfire", but to burn a bull of several metres (though not the whole bull, as we shall see later) perfectly requires a huge pyre and metres of wood. It is then impossible to get within many metres of such a fire.
The workload and working environment of the priests were not enviable. Moreover, everything took place in the heat. It is quite possible that the priests fainted from the heat and exhaustion of their work. They were quite well dressed, certainly not working in shorts and a T-shirt. Firefighters put on asbestos suits also can only physically withstand working near fire for a limited amount of time.

8 And Aaron's sons the priests "I have shall arrange the pieces, the head, and the fat, on the wood To je that is on the fire on the altar; 9 but its entrails and its legs he shall wash with water. And the priest shall burn all of it on the altar, as a burnt offering, a food offering with a pleasing aroma to the LORD

[i.e. the hard fat around the kidneys of cattle and sheep]
So what of the bull is to be burned? the pieces, the head, and the fat,. What are the pieces? Big chunks of meat? I have found that beef is butchered into leg, sirloin, rib, brisket, shoulder, shoulder and neck. What are the parts? Surely someone knows, or at least the priests did.
Entrails and legsshould be rinsed before burning. Legs are probably the lower part of the legs with the hooves. Entrails I guess they mean the heart, lungs, stomach, liver, kidneys, intestines, etc.?
Proč Washing with water? It may have been a symbolic, ritualistic act: purity was important in the sacrifice, it showed that the sacrificed animal was free from sin, pure, undefiled, that it was holy, set apart for God, that the best was being given to God.
The entrails may have been soiled with faeces and body fluids, the feet with dust and mud. When I give something to someone, I don't want to give it to them dirty and muddy. If I give someone a shirt, I'll be sure to wash it first.
Could there have been a technical side to it: the cleaned parts could burn better and "cleaner"?
It could have been the completeness of the ritual: Everything about the sacrifice was prescribed in detail - by carefully following God's instructions, the priests treated the sacrificed animal with reverence, showing that it was a special act with supernatural implications.
It is about the sacrifices of olah and iseh

10 7 Andgift for a burnt offering is from the flock, from the sheep or goats, he shall bring a male without blemish,

Let us recall the context at this point: Moses is in the Tent of Meeting and receives instructions from the Lord. He hears them audibly. Perhaps he is sitting at a table with him (was there any suitable furniture in the Tabernacle?). Maybe he is standing. Quite possibly he is writing them down. Maybe he is asking questions, asking follow-up questions. Could he also be receiving a supplemental audio-visual "power-point" presentation? (A picture is sometimes worth a thousand words).
Briefing continues - we've discussed the cattle, moving on to the sheep and goats.
The use of sheep and goats is possible - probably because of the price. Sheep and goats cost an order of magnitude less than a bull, not everyone could afford to sacrifice a bull. (The price of a bull in today's prices is in units of tens of thousands, sheep and goats rather in thousands).
It must be again a male without blemish.

11 and he shall kill it on the north side of the altar before the LORD, and Aaron's sons the priests shall throw its blood against the sides of the altar.

The principle of killing remains. We humans have no choice to "convert" something to God on the "other side" other than to destroy that thing.
If there were an elevator to heaven, sacrifices would be easier. This way we can only give up the cause and hope that the Lord will take it up on the other side.
But it is not the whole answer as to why the sacrifices were killed. Another reason (besides "being converted to God's side") was that a substitutionary death had to take place, blood had to be shed. As we shall see, there are also sacrifices in which nothing is killed, things are merely burned.
Blood is important, it's the blood that everything was made for. Blood is the "magical" fluid that "secures" forgiveness. If an animal were sacrificed with blood, it would not be accepted by God and the blood would not be obtained for sprinkling.
It was only by the act of sprinkling that the sacrifice was fulfilled - God accepted the blood of the animal as satisfaction for the sin of man. Man was absolved of his sin and could begin again, he could continue to live.
However, the cleaning was not permanent and had to be repeated regularly (usually once a year). A year was judged by God to be a reasonable interval - not that we would not be able to get "dirty" with sin more quickly, but with a shorter interval we would do nothing but gather sacrifices. With a longer one, we would grow dull and sins would accumulate disproportionately.

12 And he shall cut it into pieces "I have , with its head and its fat, and the priest shall arrange them on the wood "I have that is on the fire on the altar, 13 but the entrails and the legs he shall wash with water. And the priest shall offer all of it and burn it on the altar; it is a burnt offering, a food offering with a pleasing aroma to the LORD

The "technological procedure" is identical. Everything was done only on a much smaller scale - easier preparation, smaller fire, etc.
We have not yet addressed the fact that such sacrifices are for God a pleasing aroma.
Staying with the symbolism used, we can assume that God sees sin as a "stench," a foul odor. Here the opposite is spoken of, a pleasant smell. It is probably not that the smell of burning animal carcasses is pleasing to God, but that God likes the human attitude associated with sacrifice: I admit my guilt, I want to do something about it. I want to have an unclouded relationship with God. I'm giving something up for God, etc.
If I had to prepare enough wood to burn a bull or a sheep completely, it would be an arduous job with an axe and a saw for half a day.

14 7 Andoffering to the LORD is a burnt offering of birds, then he shall bring his offering of turtledoves or pigeons.

[the sacrifice of birds was allowed to the poor;
It is also meant for the downright poor who cannot afford cattle or cows. It is important that people of all social groups have access to God.
It was apparently up to each individual to decide what animal to sacrifice. Everyone weighed their options. Apparently he had to take public opinion into account? If a well-known rich man went to the temple with a pigeon, he'd be embarrassed.
And would the priests accept him or would they expel him with shame? Probably they would have accepted his sacrifice; it was not their business to inquire into the fortunes of the sacrificers.
To bring a bird was to make a public statement of one's poverty, to say clearly, "I can't afford a lamb," which is certainly not easy.
We know that the rich (noblemen, kings) showed their wealth by offering multiple sacrifices - hundreds or thousands of cattle. Certainly there were many borderline cases where a poor man would give of his money to buy a lamb and not have to come up with a bird. Or, conversely, someone preferred to save money.
God leaves such decisions to the discretion of each person. God, of course, is the only one who sees to the heart and is able to judge these decisions correctly. He can reassure some: Feel free to take the pigeon, disregard public opinion, and buy the kids new clothes instead. For someone else, like Jesus with the poor widow, he may appreciate the willingness to give up the last thing. For some, he may be saddened by avarice. etc. The possibilities are thousands and as varied as life itself.
We Christians make similar decisions routinely in handling our money - what gift "in the basket" is appropriate and right in God's eyes? We know that God loves the giver, but only the cheerful ones (1 Cor. 9 God loves a cheerful giver). Rather than giving with gnashing of teeth, it is better not to give. In this case: Rather than a reluctant sheep, a willing bird.
As a side note: Tithing is a handy and fair principle that can guide decision making. (But tithing is trickier - it probably doesn't belong to us at all, we are merely returning His property to God. And it doesn't "count" as a gift. We'll get to that in the appropriate places).

15 And the priest shall bring it to the altar and wring off its head and burn it on the altar. Its blood shall be drained out on the side of the altar.

You don't use a knife on a bird, you use a fingernail. Also not pretty. It's said that decapitation and cutting the carotid arteries is a humane and quick way to kil. It's hard to say.
In any case, the animal is got rid of blood and the blood is what it is all about. Firstly, it is needed to sprinkle on the altar, and secondly, the animal with blood insidce must not be eaten.

16 He shall remove its crop with its contents Callcast "I have t beside the altar on the east side, in the place for ashes.

h.: fat; [the ashes of sacrificed fat;
The crop is a "pocket" on bird´s neck where the bird hoards food before releasing it into his stomach. It and its contents should not have been sacrificed. It was to be thrown on the refuse pile that was on the east side of the altar where everything that was not burned was piled.
It was sacrificed on the north side, so the waste (anything that didn't burn) was dumped on the left.
It's hard to say why. The sheep, goats and cattle don't have crops (a cow has three stomachs). The entrails of animals were "normally" burned.

17 He shall tear it open by its wings, they And the priest .shall burn it on the altar, on the wood "I have na ohni. To "I have that is on the fire on the altar, 13 but the entrails and the legs he shall wash with water. And the priest shall offer all of it and burn it on the altar; it is a burnt offering, a food offering with a pleasing aroma to the LORD

The priest was to "tear" the bird by its wings, perhaps so that the bird's belly would open (He shall tear it open by its wings,)? But merely "plucking" the bird by the wings will not "open" it.
It's hard to say what it was about. However, the bird did not burn intact.
Again we read that all this was to God pleasing. How is that possible? Only by the fact that a sacrifice made from the right motives, with the right motive, shows the attitude of the heart of the sacrificer - an attitude of humility, an awareness of one's own sinfulness and unworthiness, an awareness of the gravity of sin and the need for punishment, a willingness to do something for one's purification, to give up something for God, and more.
The sacrifice itself is horrible, bloody, nothing attractive to anyone, certainly not to God.
It is better to "sit in an armchair and drink coffee" than to trudge with cattle to the slaughterhouse and crematorium in the heat. If I'm going to do it, I need to know why I'm doing it and that it's important.
Even the Lord could surely imagine more pleasant activities than watching work in the slaughterhouse.
(God actually "takes over" the sacrificed animals, takes them over from humans. Is it possible that he is resurrect them again on the other side?

The wages of sin is death - death does indeed solve sin. Death is punishment enough. God does not require repeated death for sin. The death of the sinner really erases the sin. ↩︎

Vít Šmajstrla

Vit.Smajstrla@bormed.cz