Walter Beuttler preaches on the institution of sacrifice, highlighting how the first sacrifice by God provided a covering for sin and restored fellowship between God and man. The principle of sacrifice is rooted in the shedding of blood for atonement, pointing to the need for a life to be given for a life, ultimately foreshadowing the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. The animal sacrifices, while limited in taking away sin, found their efficacy in the perfect Sacrifice preordained before the foundation of the world. The offerings as a whole, including sweet savour and non-sweet savour offerings, present a complete picture of Christ's atoning work and our access to the Father through Him.

A. INSTITUTION OF SACRIFICE The first sacrifice was an act performed by God for the purpose of relieving the conscience from its sense of guilt and shame, Gen. 3:21. This act of providing a covering for the bodies of our first parents constituted the divine institution of sacrifice. It was a provision for the covering of man’s sins and for mending the break of fellowship between God and man caused by sin. Faith in this divine ordinance secured Abel’s acceptance with God, Heb. 11:4. Lack of this faith resulted in Cain’s rejection, Gen. 4:2-7. The principle which underlies sacrifice is found in Lev. .17:11 and Heb. 9:22, i. e., that since the life of the flesh is in the blood, blood must be shed to atone for life. Man is doomed as a sinner and God purposes to save him. The life has been forfeited as a result of sin and, as a debt due to justice, should be returned to him that gave it, i. e., man should die. However, God provides a way of escape and appoints a substitute. A life is given for a life. Thus did God show from the beginning that the way to life w as through death, and that the only way of approach to God was by means of sacrifice and blood. Therefore the sacrifices of the tabernacle were the pivotal point around which the whole service revolved, all centering in, and about, the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ, the “Lamb without blemish and without spot.” B. EFFICACY OF ANIMAL SACRIFICES 1. Their limitation While the animal sacrifices covered sin, they could not take it away, Heb. 10:4. An animal could not provide a perfect atonement for the following reasons: (1) There was a vast difference between a rational creature free to think, will, and act, and an irrational creature incapable of independent thought, a moral sense of responsibility, and deliberate acts. (2) In the case of animal sacrifices, the work of atonement was not performed by the victim, but was done upon it, unconsciously and unwillingly by another. 2. Their efficacy What gave animal sacrifices their efficacy, their power to cover sin, was the perfect Sacrifice foreordained before the foundation of the world. These sacrifices looked forward, as it were, to the cross. Illuminated Israelites would think of the heavenly pattern given to Moses on the mount, Ex. 25:40; Heb. 8:5, and would look forward to the coming of the perfect Sacrifice of which the animal sacrifices were but a type, Heb. 9:23-10:18. C. OFFERINGS AS A WHOLE 1. Reason for five offerings The thought of the offerings as a whole is to present man’s access to the Father through the person and work of our Lord Jesus Christ. Since no one offering could express this, there are five offerings which together bring out a complete picture of Christ in his atoning work. 2. Sweet savour offerings Three of the five offerings are called “sweet savour offerings.” These are the burnt-offering, Lev. 1:17; the meat (or meal) offering, Lev. 2:9; and the peace-offering, Lev. 3:6, 16. They are called “sweet savour” offerings because they typify Christ offering himself without spot to God in delight to do his Father’s will even unto death. This made him a “sweet savour” unto God. In the sweet savour offerings Christ is presented as offering himself to God WITHOUT sin. His work is viewed God-ward, i. e., what the person and work of Christ was to God, namely, a sweet savour. 3. Non-sweet savour offerings The other two of the five offerings, the sin-offering and the trespass offering, constitute the non-sweet savour offerings. The statement “for a sweet savour” is omitted in these because they were making reparation and satisfaction for the offence of sin. Since these two offerings were for the expiation of sin, they are also called expiatory offerings. In these Christ identifies himself with the sinner and offers himself for us to God as our representative FOR sin. SWEET SAVOUR OFFERINGS A. BURNT-OFFERING, Lev. 1:1-17; 6:8-13 1. General typology The burnt-offering, (so called “because of the burning upon the altar all night unto the morning,” Lev. 6:9), typifies Christ as offering himself without spot to God in delight to do his Father’s will even unto death. Only such animals were used as were inoffensive so that they might typify the innocence and gentleness of Christ. In addition to representing various aspects of Christ, the different kinds of animals were chosen to suit the ability of the offerer to bring a gift. No one, therefore, was excluded on the ground of financial inability to bring a sacrifice. These offerings could be: (1) A bullock or ox (1:3-9) This sets forth Christ as the patient and enduring servant, obedient unto death, Isa. 42:1; 52:13-14; Heb. 12:2-3 (2) A lamb (1:10-13) The sheep, or lamb, typifies Christ in unresisting self-surrender to the death of the cross, Isa. 53:7; Matt. 26:62-63; 1 Peter 1:19; Rev. 5:6. (3) A goat, (1:10-13) The goat speaks of Christ numbered with the transgressors, Isa. 53:12; Luke 22:37; Mark 15:27-28; Phil. 2:6-8. (4) Two turtle doves (1:14-17) The turtle-dove, as also the pigeon, is a symbol of innocency and poverty, Lev. 5:7. Because of their abundance in the land, anyone could bring an offering. Typologically they speak of Christ who for our sakes became poor that we might be made rich, Luke 2:7, 9:58; 2 Cor. 8:9. 2. Detailed typology (1) An offering of the herd (1:3-9) a. “He shall offer it of his own voluntary will” (1:3) Christ is here seen as performing the will of the Father voluntarily, John 10:17-18. b. “He shall flay the burnt offering” (1:6) The flaying of the burnt offering represents the brutalities undergone by Christ, Isa. 52:14; Matt. 26:67; 27:30; Luke 22:63-64. c. “And cut it into pieces” (1:6) This was done to insure the complete consumption of the sacrifice by fire. It speaks of the completeness of the sacrifice of Christ which left nothing that was not consumed, John 19:30. d. “His inwards . .. shall he wash in water” (1:9) This represents the purity of Christ’s inner life in the sight of God. e. “His legs shall he wash in water” (1:9) This speaks of the purity of Christ’s outward walk before man, 1 Peter 2:22 f. “A sweet savour unto the Lord” (1:9) This speaks of the Father’s satisfaction with the laid-down life of His son, Matt. 17:5. (2) An offering of fowls (1:14-17) a. “He shall pluck away his crop” (1:16) The crop was not used in the offering because it was the place of undigested food. It speaks of Christ who rejected nothing which the Father offered him, John 4:34; Matt. 26:39. b. “He shall pluck away . . . his feathers” (1:16) This speaks of Christ being devoid of any worldly show, John 6:15; Isa. 42:2. (3) “The lawr of the burnt-offering (6:8-13) a. “Take up the ashes” (6:10) The ashes signify the completion of Christ’s sacrifice, John 19:30. b. “Carry forth the ashes without the camp” (6:11) This was the place of reproach, Nu. 15:35, and speaks of Christ bearing our reproach, Heb. 13:12-14. c. “Unto a clean place” (6:11) This points to the new tomb of Christ, “wherein never man was laid,” Luke 23:63. d. “The fire shall . . . never go out” (6:13) This points to the perpetual efficacy of Christ’s atonement made by the sacrifice of himself. B. MEAT OFFERING, Lev. 2:1-16; 6:14-23 1. General typology The meat (or meal) offering represents Christ in his human perfections tested by suffering. This offering was not so much a sacrifice as an oblation of praise, a gift brought by the worshipper to God in recognition of his sovereignty and his ownership of all things. Being a bloodless offering, it generally accompanied altar sacrifices in which atoning blood was shed, for at every approach to God the unworthiness and sin of the offerer must be atoned. 2. Detailed typology (1) Fine flour (2:1) The fine flour speaks of the evenness and balance in character of Christ. He had that perfection in which no quality was in excess and none lacking, nothing coarse to mar his life. (2) First fruits of “grain,” R. V. (2:12-16) These first fruits speak of the very best of Christ’s life and service offered to God for a “sweet savour.” The corn (grain) was to be: a. “Of full ears” (2:14) This shows that there was no shortcoming in the life of Christ, nor anything which he held back from the Father. b. “Beaten” (2:14) This speaks of Christ as bruised for our iniquities and striped for our healing, Isa. 53:5. (3) Salt (2:13) Salt, a type of grace, Col. 4:6, speaks of the divine grace in Christ which made his life savoury to both God and man, Luke 2:52. (4) Oil (2:15) Oil, a type of the Holy Spirit, Acts 10:38, was used, in a three-fold way, namely: a. “He shall pour oil upon it” (2:1) The oil was POURED upon the offering of “fine flour.” This speaks of the Spirit given to Christ without measure, John 3:34. b. “Mingled with oil” (2:4) Unleavened cakes of fine flour were mingled with oil. This typifies the permeating presence of the Holy Spirit in Christ’s inner life, Psa. 45:7. c. “Anointed with oil” (2:4) Unleavened wafers were to be anointed with oil, speaking of the anointing of Christ in service, Acts 10:38. (5) Frankincense (2:15) Frankincense gives forth a fragrant odor when burned and speaks of the fragrance of Christ’s devotional life. All the frankincense was burned, showing that worship belongs only to God. Matt. 4:10. (6) Excluded materials a. Leaven (2:4, 11) The exclusion of leaven which is a type of evil, 1 Cor. 5:6-8, signifies that there was nothing sour, nothing evil in the life and service of Christ, 1 Peter 2:22-23. b. Honey (2:11) Honey, type of natural sweetness, S. S. 4:11, was excluded. This exclusion shows that the natural sweetness of our disposition is insufficient to satisfy God and can therefore not be accepted. 3. The peace-offering, Lev. 3:1-17; 7:11-21 (1) General typology The peace-offering speaks of Christ our peace. It was the most joyous of all offerings and sets forth the whole work of God relative to the believer’s peace with God, Eph. 2:14; Col. 1:20. This is the only offering in which the offerer himself partakes of his own offering and shows that he is not only brought into peace WITH God, Rom. 5:1, but that he has also been made a partaker of the peace OF God, Col. 3:15. (2) Detailed typology a. “Whether it be a male or female” (3:1) The offerer could bring an offering of the herd, a lamb, or a goat, whether male or female. This shows that, besides the various aspects of Christ in the various offerings, in God’s plan of redemption there is acceptance and peace for all without regard to sex, Rev. 22:17. b. “He (“his own hands” Lev. 7:30) shall offer it” (3:1) The offerer was not allowed to delegate someone else to bring his thank-offering. The really thankful person wants to bring his own offering to God. c. “He shall lay his hand upon the head of his offering” (3:2) The offerer identifies himself with his offering and so acknowledges his guilt for the state of enmity existing between himself and God, Col. 1:21; Rom. 5:10. d. “The fat thereof and the whole rump” (3:9) God deserves and desires the richest and best for himself. The fat and the rump were offered as “the food of the offering made by fire unto the Lord.” Being described as “food” shows the Father’s satisfaction and appreciation of Christ our peace-offering and the believer’s praise and thanksgiving. (3) Typology of “the law of the offerings” (7:11-21) a. “If he offer it for a thanksgiving” (7:12) As such the peace-offering was offered in gratitude to God. It was made for mercies received, such as preservation in a journey, recovery from sickness, redemption from captivity, etc. This offering for a thanksgiving required: (a) Leavened bread (7:13) Where the aspect of the offering represents only Christ, no leaven is used. But since peace is something which the believer shares with God and gives God thanks for his participation in this peace, leaven is used to show that, although the believer has peace with God, there is still evil in him. (b) It had to be eaten the same day (7:15) The flesh of the peace-offering had to be eaten the same day to show that we must be prompt with our praise, Luke 17:11-18. b. “He shall offer … an heave offering” (7:14) The breast and the shoulder were the two parts of the peace-offering especially belonging to the priest, Ex. 29:27, which they were to eat in the holy place. This provision shows that God has ordained that His servants are to be supported from the offerings of God’s people, Ex. 29:28; 1 Cor. 9:13-14. But in order that neither priest nor people should imagine that these were a gift from his fellow-man, they were first given to God by the offerer, Ex. 29:28. Then the priest received them from God as the servant fed from His table. (a) The breast was to be waved (Ex. 29:26) The waving of the breast (seat of the affections) to the four quarters of the earth was an acknowledgment that God had condescended to hold communion and fellowship with his people wherever they may be. (b) The shoulder was to be heaved (Ex. 29:27) The right shoulder was to be raised heavenward to acknowledge the dependence of the priest upon God and to express his thankfulness for provision received. c. “If his offering be a vow,” (7:16) This aspect of the peace-offering implies some vow which man had made in distress, or in supplication for some special mercy. Therefore it is called a “voluntary offering” and had the following provisions: (a) It had to be eaten the first and second dav (7:16-18) Two days were allowed for the eating of the peace offering in fulfillment of a vow. After that time the offerer was no longer accepted. The implication is that, if payment of a vow is delayed too long, it is equivalent to breaking it, as then it is done as a matter of compulsion rather than as a voluntary act. (b) The offering must be clean (7:19) “The flesh that toucheth any unclean thing shall not be eaten.” In order to make it acceptable to God, there must be nothing unclean connected with it. (c) The offerer must be clean (7:20-21) Those who enjoy this feast must be careful to depart from iniquity, to forsake all known sin, for “there is no peace saith my God, to the wicked.” Isa. 57:21. NON-SWEET SAVOUR OFFERINGS A. SIN-OFFERING, Lev. 4:1-35; 6:24-30 1. General typology The sin-offering represents Christ as our sin bearer, taking the sinner’s place for sins “through ignorance.” This could include sin through ignorance in either not knowing the law, or being surprised with a sinful act. The sin-offering atones for the sinner’s condition, rather than for an act of sin. That none is exempt from this sin is evidenced by the provision made for every class of people. 2. Gradation of the sin-offering (4:3, 23, 32) There was a diversity in victims and a gradation in value. This teaches a graded responsibility. The guilt of sin was proportioned to the rank and status of the offender, 4:3, 13-14, 22-23, 27-31. 3. Detailed typology The blood of the young bullock which was offered for the priest and the whole congregation was sprinkled in three different ways, namely: (1) “Before the Lord” (4:6) The sprinkling of the blood “seven times before the Lord, before the vail of the sanctuary,” shows that sin affects our fellowship with God. (2) Upon the altar of incense (4:7) The sprinkling of “some of the blood upon the horns of the altar of sweet incense” shows that sin affects our worship. (3) At the altar of burnt-offering (4:7) The pouring of the blood at the bottom of the altar of burntoffering shows that sin affects our conscience. B. TRESPASS-OFFERING, Lev. 5:1-19; 6:1-7; 7:1-7 1. General typology The trespass-offering typifies Christ atoning for our acts of sin, rather than for sin in our nature. This offering has two distinct forms, namely: (1) Trespass against God, Lev. 5:14-19 Such trespass involved sins in the holy things of God, such as eating of the flesh of the offering and the personal use of the tithe belonging to God, Lev. 27:30. (2) Trespass against man, Lev. 6:1-7 Trespass against man is also called a “trespass against the Lord” because sins against man are also sins against God. 2. Detailed typology (1) Lying in case of a trust (6:2) “And lie unto his neighbor in that which was delivered him to keep,” e. g., if that which is committed to one’s care is claimed as one’s own. (2) Cheating in a bargain (6:2) “And lie unto his neighbor … in fellowship,” e. g., a sale represented as better than is the case, or asking more than an item is worth. (3) Robbery by violence (6:2) “In a thing taken away by violence,” e. g., acquiring an article by force which belongs to someone else. (4) Deception of a neighbor (6:2) “Or hath deceived his neighbor,” e. g., withholding by misrepresentation that which belongs to another, such as the rightful share of a business partner. (5) Keeping a found item (6:3) “Or have found that which was lost, and lieth concerning it,” e. g., taking a found item as one’s own and denying that it has been found, or failure to make any effort to find the owner. (6) Making a false oath (6:5) “About which he hath sworn falsely,” e. g., swearing falsely during judicial proceedings. 3. Restitution for unrighteous gain, Lev. 6:4-7 Before the sinner could obtain forgiveness, he had to make restitution to: (1) Man (6:4-6) Whatever gain was obtained, by whatever unrighteous means, was to be brought with the trespass offering, plus a fifth part of the value, to be restored to the rightful owner. (2) God (6:6-7) The trespass-offering had validity only in connection with restitution when such was involved and upon which forgiveness was contingent.