Introduction
There is a temptation to look at some of the OT
examples or “types” (1 Cor. 10: 6) as not being particularly
relevant in the modern world (or, at best, viewed as too difficult
to be worthy of study). This sorry attitude is symptomatic of the
infantile ‘Christianity’ that has arisen in recent decades, in which
solid Bible teaching has largely disappeared, even in places where
it was once a key feature. This is very regrettable, as many of the
answers to current problems can be found in the pictures of truth
given to us in the OT. Indeed, in proportion as this side of the
truth has been neglected, so there has been a corresponding decline
of sound Biblical principles among God’s people. The peace offering
(see Lev. 3: 1-17; 7: 11-36), as illustrating the worship and
communion characterising the fellowship of God’s Son (see 1 Cor. 1:
9), is a prime example of this.
The
Meaning of the Peace Offering
It is a misconception that the purpose of the
peace offering is to set out how peace is made with God. However, if
we examine the law of the peace offering (see Lev. 7: 11-36), it
will be found that the peace offering is
preceded by the laws
of both the sin and trespass offerings (see Lev. 6: 24 -7: 10). This
teaches that the offerer of the peace offering approaches God with
the matter of sin already settled (and, for that matter, with any
difficulties with his brethren resolved). Indeed, although the basis
of dealing with sin is clearly implied in the blood, the word
sin is not mentioned in
Lev. 3. Nor do we read anything like ““the priest shall make
atonement for them; and it shall be forgiven them” (Lev. 4: 20; see
Lev. 1: 4). No, for rather than seeking peace with God, in the peace
offering the offerer approaches Jehovah as One with whom he is
already at peace. Thus: “And thou shalt sacrifice peace-offerings,
and shalt eat there, and rejoice before Jehovah thy God” (Deut. 27:
7). That is why when Israel made Saul king, they “rejoiced
exceedingly” and “sacrificed peace-offerings before Jehovah” (1 Sam.
11: 15). Again, when David “brought up the ark of Jehovah with
shouting” he then “offered up burnt-offerings and peace-offerings
before Jehovah” (2 Sam. 6: 15, 17). Later, when the temple was
dedicated, Solomon “sacrificed a sacrifice of peace-offerings, which
he sacrificed to Jehovah”, and after much celebration sent his
people away “joyful and glad of heart” (1 Kings 8: 63, 66). Clearly
the peace offering has a festive character, and you cannot be
festive alone. It typifies a people in happy relationship with their
God and with each other. It does not picture Christ as bearing our
sins but our participation as worshippers in Christ as presented to
God, the matter of our sins having been
already dealt with.
We see something of the character of the peace-offering in the
Lord’s Supper where what is before us is not our sins, but the One
who bore the punishment for them.
All these things are borne out by the three
reasons given for the presentation of the sacrifice of peace
offering, which are “for a thanksgiving” (Lev. 7: 12) or for “a vow,
or voluntary” (v16). This implies an implicit desire to be in active
relationship with Jehovah. What the offerer brings is for God, but
subsequent to that, the offerer also partakes of the offering: he
sits, as it were, at the same table as God, and feeds on the same
food as God. Hence the peace offering really sets out what believers
have been brought into, namely the communion of the altar (or, in NT
language, “[the] fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord”—1 Cor.
1: 9—the circle where Christ and His work are the centre and theme).
Indeed, the apostle draws a direct parallel between the fellowship
of the Lord’s table and “Israel according to flesh” for “are not
they who eat the sacrifices in communion with the altar?” (1 Cor.
10: 18).
A peculiarity of the sacrifice of peace
offering was that it could be “male or female” (Lev. 3: 1, 6). As
might be expected, the majority of the sacrifices involved male
animals, since Christ is God’s chosen
Man. However, there
were exceptions. The red heifer (see Num. 19: 2) was
only ever female and
as such must picture an actual characteristic of Christ—possibly the
Lord’s complete submission to the will of God. Sin in the whole
assembly or a prince or priest called for a male sin offering, but
the common people—those with, it might be said, a weaker spiritual
apprehension of what was due to God—required a female sin offering
(see Lev. 4: 28, 32). The peace offering, by contrast, could always
be male
or female, and
indeed, there is no indication that the male was preferred. Now God
is a communicant (as it were) at the table pictured in the
peace-offering. If He were the only One in view, then it would be as
in the burnt offering (which was wholly for God), where only male
sacrifices were ever allowed. But God is not the only one at His
table.
We too are there,
with our varying degrees of spiritual apprehension, and this is
where the female offering comes in. It did not matter “whether a
male or female” (Lev. 3: 1) was offered, for all were accepted. Why?
Because access to the fellowship of the Lord’s table depends not on
the level of spiritual understanding but on the purity of the
worshipper for “all that are clean may eat” (Lev. 7: 19).
The
Peace Offering of the Herd
To be an offerer implies some knowledge of what
gives pleasure to God. We
cannot enjoy
communion with God without bringing that in which He has found His
eternal delight. Thus “Jehovah looked upon Abel, and on his
offering; and upon Cain, and on his offering, he did not look” (Gen.
4: 4, 5). Now, “if his offering be a sacrifice of peace-offering,—if
he present [it] of the herd, whether a male or female, he shall
present it without blemish before Jehovah” (Lev. 3: 1). Those two
words “without blemish” make clear to the reader that it is Christ
that must be presented (see 1 Pet. 1: 19), the One who was perfect,
holy and without sin. Sadly, many Christians have forgotten this,
and have fallen into idolatry. This assertion might surprise some
readers, but the Bible’s definition of idolatry is wider than the
graven images to which it is often limited: “neither be ye
idolaters, as some of them; as it is written, The people sat down to
eat and to drink, and rose up to play” (1 Cor. 10: 7). Here the
apostle is here referring to the famous incident of the golden calf
(see Exod. 32), but the calf itself does not get a mention. Instead,
what Paul focuses on is the gratification of self (comp. Col. 3: 5).
Now is it not a fact that gratifying man rather than gratifying God
is the mark of much of what is professedly Christian? Believers look
for a ‘church’ that pleases them, and ‘churches’ strive to provide
what pleases their congregations. This, essentially, is idolatry,
and is far removed from the teaching of the peace offering in which
God’s thoughts about Christ are front and central.
Two forms of the peace offering were allowed:
the offering of the herd (see Lev. 3:
1-5) or oxen (see Exod. 24: 5), and the offering of the small cattle
or flock (see Lev. 3: 6-17). The offering of the herd was physically
larger and more valuable, and represents the ability to present a
fuller entering into God’s thoughts as to Christ. Now having brought
his offering, the offerer was to “lay his hand on the head of his
offering” (v2). This means he identified himself with what was
offered, or, in the language of the NT, “The cup of blessing which
we bless, is it not
[the] communion of the blood of the Christ? The bread which
we break, is it not
[the] communion of the body of the Christ?” (1 Cor. 10: 16, my
emphasis). These actions on our part demonstrate our committal. Of
course, another individual may be actually blessing and
administering the emblems, but he acts on behalf of the whole
“because we, [being] many, are one loaf, one body; for
we all partake of
that one loaf” (v17, my emphasis). Next, the offering was to be
slaughtered “at the entrance of the tent of meeting” (Lev. 3: 2),
the place where “every one who sought Jehovah went” (Ex. 33: 7) and
where, therefore, communion with God could be had. The sacrifice was
thus
presented to God.
Christ and His death is therefore both the basis and the subject of
communion. What answers to the “tent of meeting” (or ‘tabernacle of
the congregation’—AV) today? Surely, the Assembly, for it is there
that we “partake of [the] Lord’s table” (1 Cor. 10: 21).
The blood was then sprinkled “on the
altar round about” (Lev. 3: 2) by Aaron and his sons, the priests.
This preparatory work was necessary before there could be any
thought of eating at God’s table. The sprinkled blood was not just
for God but also for the offerer, maintaining his peace of mind that
all was settled. After the slaughter, the offerer was to present
of the sacrifice, “an
offering by fire to Jehovah” (v3). What then was he to burn before
Jehovah? In the burnt offering (which was purely for God) the priest
was to “burn all” (Lev. 1: 9), but the peace offering supposes other
participants. Hence, only the fat that was reserved for God: “And he
shall present of the sacrifice of peace-offering an offering by fire
to Jehovah; the fat that covereth the inwards, and all the fat that
is on the inwards, and the two kidneys, and the fat that is on them,
which is by the flanks, and the net above the liver which he shall
take away as far as the kidneys … an offering by fire to Jehovah of
a sweet odour” (Lev. 3: 3-5)—sweet because it was delightful to God.
This emphasis on the fat explains why birds were never offered since
they avoid storing fat wherever possible in order to maximise their
flying ability. The peace offering also marks the first use of the
word cheleb for
fat in Leviticus.
Cheleb means the best
part, and (being the body’s energy store), speaks of Christ’s
exhaustive devotion
to the will of God even unto death. It is that which Aaron’s sons,
the priests—typifying believers engaged in worship—burn “on the
altar upon the burnt offering” (v5).
The fact that the fat is burned
upon the burnt
offering reminds us that God’s satisfaction and delight in Christ
underlies our communion with His table. Before we can approach in
worship, God must have found His own delight in Christ, and we then
come as having found, in measure, our own delight in the Lord. It is
our happy service, if true worshippers, to be occupied with
presenting the excellencies of Christ to God.
The
Peace Offering of the Flock
A second, lesser category of peace offering was
permitted: “And if his offering for a sacrifice of peace-offering to
Jehovah be of small cattle, male or female, he shall present it
without blemish” (v6). The offering still had to be perfect but its
smaller size suggests feebler spiritual resources. Here, there was a
choice of animal which could be offered, namely a sheep (see v7), or
a goat (see v12). Both were acceptable, although the fact that the
sheep is placed first, and also that it uniquely had a “fat tail”
(v9), seem to suggest that the sheep was the preferred form. Much of
the procedural detail is a repeat of what was given in relation to
the offering of the herd but a new expression is introduced: “[it
is] the food of the offering by fire to Jehovah” (v11; see v16). The
burning of the fat is therefore presented as the food or bread (lechem)
that God consumes. Elsewhere we read how Jehovah complained to
Israel that they profaned His house “when ye offered my bread” (lechem)
“the fat and the blood” (Ezek. 44: 7; see also Lev. 22: 25). Along
with the blood, the fat was reserved for God: “All the fat [shall
be] Jehovah’s. [It is] an everlasting statute for your generations
throughout all your dwellings: no fat and no blood shall ye eat”
(Lev. 3: 16, 17). This was understood very early on, for Abel
“brought of the firstlings of his flock, and of their fat” (Gen. 4:
4). The fact that the offerer was to bring the fat with “his own
hands” (Lev. 7: 30), suggests that when we come before God in
worship, we cannot just depend on others, but must have some
personal appreciation
to bring.
Lev. 7: 22-27 reinforces the idea that the fat
was for Jehovah. Even in the exceptions of a “dead carcase” or “that
which is torn”, where the fat could be put to practical use, “ye
shall in no wise eat it” (v24). If fat was to be food, it was to be
food for God alone. However, Jehovah did not eat by Himself. Thus,
when the offerer brought “Jehovah’s offerings by fire, the fat with
the breast shall he bring: the breast, that it may be waved as a
wave-offering before Jehovah. And the priest shall burn the fat on
the altar; and the breast shall be Aaron and his sons’. And the
right shoulder of the sacrifices of your peace-offerings shall ye
give as a heave-offering unto the priest” (vs. 30-32). Aaron and his
sons, representing those occupied (as all Christians should be) in
the service of praise, are given a portion of the offering—the
breast, speaking of the heart and thus the love that lay behind
Christ offering Himself. Note, however, that it is waved before God
before being eaten, meaning that it was eaten in the knowledge of
how delightful it was to God. However, “he of the sons of Aaron that
presenteth the blood” had his own distinct portion, for he “shall
have the right shoulder for [his] part” (v33). Who can this priest
typify but Christ Himself, for He alone presents the blood? Does the
Lord not have His own portion (for example) when His own gather in
worship at the Lord’s Supper? But if Christ, why then the right
shoulder? It is true that “shoulder” could be translated
leg, but ‘the
right leg’ is meaningless in a four-legged animal, and so “shoulder
is clearly the correct rendering. The shoulder was the choicest cut
of meat (see 1 Sam. 9: 24), and the right side is the place of
honour and authority (see Matt. 20: 21; 26: 64; Acts 2: 33 etc.).
However, being a heave offering it is first lifted up in
presentation to God. A heave offering differs from a wave offering
in that it implies a residue from which it is lifted up (see Lev. 7:
14). Surely God takes a peculiar delight in the right shoulder as
Christ’s own distinct portion?
Although it is not explicitly stated, the rest
of the flesh of the sacrifice (that is, excluding the fat, the
breast and the right shoulder) was eaten by the offerer, for he was
not to “let any of it remain until the morning” (Lev. 7: 15) and “it
shall be eaten the same day that he presented his sacrifice; on the
morrow also the remainder of it shall be eaten” (v16). The whole
scene therefore is one of happy fellowship, in which many are
engaged in eating, thus expressing their great interest and delight
in all of which the offering speaks.
The
Offering of Thanksgiving
The law of the peace offering also divides the
offering another way apart from its size or value. In this division,
it is the
purpose of the
offering that is in view, namely thanksgiving, or a vow, or
voluntary.
Of course, in the language of the type,
all Christians ought to be able to “present to Jehovah … for a
thanksgiving” (Lev. 7: 11, 12), for we have much to give thanks to
God for. Thus, this aspect of the peace offering is the most basic
and should characterise every believer, even those whose
appreciation of the blessings into which they have been brought is
less than it should be. The apostle Paul’s life was almost
proverbial in its hardship and yet he could exhort the young
Christians in Thessalonica to “rejoice always; pray unceasingly; in
every give thanks” (1 Thess. 5: 17). The Lord’s Supper itself is
characteristically a service of thanksgiving, for the loaf and the
cup are always to be taken accompanied by the giving of thanks (see
Luke 22: 19). It is
abnormal for a
Christian to absent himself from such an occasion or, if there, to
not partake of the emblems.
When we approach God in thanksgiving, He does
not expect us to come empty-handed. In addition to the animal
sacrifice itself, the offerer was expected to “present with the
sacrifice of thanksgiving unleavened cakes mingled with oil, and
unleavened wafers anointed with oil, and fine flour saturated with
oil, cakes mingled with oil” (Lev. 7: 12). This is no momentary
audience with Jehovah, but a veritable feast. The details in the
verse recall the oblation (see Lev. 2) and speak of Christ as Man
walking here below to the delight of His Father and God—his
sinlessness being typified by what has no leaven in it, and the
evenness and perfection of his character being pictured in the fine
flour. All is anointed, mingled and saturated with the oil—referring
to the Holy Spirit (elsewhere we read of “the holy anointing
oil”—Ex. 30: 25; comp. Acts 10: 38). Thus, when we give thanks, we
must advance beyond what Christ has done for us and enter in measure
into the delight that God has found in the Man Christ Jesus. This
necessitates some prior occupation with the Scriptures (particularly
those that deal with the Lord’s Manhood), so that I might have
something to bring into the presence of God.
Yet there is something else that the offerer
brings: “Besides the cakes, he shall present his offering of
leavened bread with the sacrifice of his peace-offering of
thanksgiving” (Lev. 7: 13). Leaven speaks of the corruption of sin,
and therefore what is presented here speaks of fallen man rather
than Christ. This is unique to the peace offering, but totally in
keeping with its character as being an expression of the communion
that exists between the saints and their God. We are called to the
Lord’s table—wonderful grace—called into the fellowship of God’s
Son, Jesus Christ our Lord. One is reminded of how a “dead dog”
could be so elevated as to “eat continually at the king’s table” (2
Sam. 9: 8, 13). We come with the knowledge of what we are as fallen
creatures but that does not alter the fact that we are most
perfectly accepted. However, the communion of the worshipper could
only be sustained if it was not detached from the sacrifice: “the
flesh of the sacrifice of his peace-offering of thanksgiving shall
be eaten the same day that it is presented; he shall not let any of
it remain until the morning” (Lev. 7: 15). This is immensely
practical for we often commence some expression of worship with our
hearts in immediate occupation with Christ and before long we are
taken up with what we are doing or with the persons who are
listening to us. There is no way back into communion except by
freshly presenting Christ, and communion is only sustained with
fresh presentations of Christ.
The
Offering of a Vow
Besides the offering of thanksgiving, there were
also two other sort of peace offerings: “and if the sacrifice of his
offering be a vow, or voluntary” (Lev. 7: 16). A “vow” was a binding
obligation imposed upon oneself to provide a sacrifice, whereas a
“voluntary” was a weaker form of dedication which could, in certain
circumstances, cease to apply. Now thanksgiving should characterise
the Christian—he is the recipient of grace, and continues to receive
blessings from God that ought to elicit a ready response. However, a
“vow, or voluntary” offering implies giving that is prompted simply
by love and reverence without any direct occasion of gratitude to
draw it out. It is a level of committal and devotion above the
offering of thanksgiving.
There is also another difference: whereas the
offering of thanksgiving had to be eaten the same day, with the
offering of the vow or voluntary, some could be eaten on the second
day. Thus: “it shall be eaten the same day that he presented his
sacrifice; on the morrow also the remainder of it shall be eaten;
and the remainder of the flesh of the sacrifice on the third day
shall be burned with fire. And if [any] of the flesh of the
sacrifice of his peace-offering be eaten at all on the third day, it
shall not be accepted, it shall not be reckoned to him that hath
presented it; it shall be an unclean thing, and the soul that eateth
of it shall bear his iniquity” (Lev. 7: 16-18). Now if I have been
blessed with some favour from the Lord, my heart immediately breaks
out in thanksgiving. In this case, the worship is awakened by and
connected with that favour and there it often ends. However, where
the heart is led by the Holy Spirit in some voluntary or deliberate
expression of worship, it will be of a more enduring character, and,
in the type, it is sustained until next day. It must not go beyond
that though, for there is a harshness of dealing with the one who
broke this rule that is not given with the offering of thanksgiving.
Why? Because the more advanced our response in praise and worship,
then the greater the responsibility to be maintained in freshness.
Thus, on the third day, the offerer ought not to eat, for God would
not accept it, but not only that, his offering was now an unclean
thing, and the offerer guilty of iniquity. This is most serious! Old
impressions will not sustain communion, and if persisted in, are
looked on by God as the exact opposite of what the offerer presumed.
It is not devotion, but dishonour. What was acceptable to God on the
first day, by the third day was to be regarded in the same light as
an anything
inherently unclean.
Take something as simple as hymn-singing. Is my singing livingly
connected with Christ’s acceptableness to God or am I just enjoying
the singing? All this must be watched against by those who desire to
remember that “God [is] a spirit, and they who worship him must
worship [him] in spirit and truth” (John 4: 24).
Next, “the flesh that toucheth anything unclean
shall not be eaten; it shall be burned with fire” (Lev. 7: 19). What
does this mean? Simply that Christ cannot be appropriated if mixed
what is defiling. Sadly, many believers delude themselves that there
is food in what attempts to combine Christ and the world. Adding the
prefix ‘Christian’ to something worldly does not make it clean!
Again, some seem to think that if sin was a
hindrance in the sinner, it is no hindrance in the saint, but this
is false doctrine. The Bible says that “the soul that eateth the
flesh of the sacrifice of peace-offering which is for Jehovah,
having his uncleanness upon him, that soul shall be cut off from his
peoples” (Lev. 7: 20). To eat of the flesh of the sacrifice is to
take a position of being in “communion with the altar” (1 Cor. 10:
18), and to partake of the same things that God partakes of. To
attempt to do so, however, when personally unclean (that is, with
defilement unremoved) is insult the holiness of God. Communion is
not possible with unconfessed sin. Leaven is permitted, but not
uncleanness—there should be no sin on the believer’s conscience. The
offering of “leavened bread with the sacrifice” (Lev. 7: 13) is
simply recognition of what we are by nature, for “if we say that we
have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us” (1
John 1: 8). However, if we do sin, then we
must “confess our
sins” and the Lord “is faithful and righteous to forgive us” (v 9).
To come to the Lord’s Supper (for example) with unconfessed sin is
not only wrong but offensive, and the one who persists in such a
course is to be “cut off from his peoples” (Lev. 7: 20)—put out of
fellowship.
What is called “his uncleanness” (Lev. 7: 20)
clearly refers to defilement that arises from
within a man such as
“evil thoughts” (Matt. 15: 19), but the next section refers to
contamination from
association: “And if
any one touch anything unclean, the uncleanness of man, or unclean
beast, or any unclean abomination, and eat of the flesh of the
sacrifice of peace-offering, which is for Jehovah, that soul shall
be cut off from his peoples” (Lev. 7: 21). The result is the same
however, and the wicked man is no longer to be part of the
worshipping company. Why? Because he has eaten unworthily, quite
forgetting that if the sacrifice is “for Jehovah” (v21) then he must
take care to examine himself before he takes his place, as it were,
at the table with God. True Christian fellowship is very simple for
“all that are clean may eat [the] flesh” (v19). Thus, the simple
believer has just as much right at the Lord’s table as the
spiritually wealthy. This is often forgotten, but access is a
question of cleanliness not intelligence.
Conclusion
This rapid sketch of the teaching of the
peace-offering cannot hope to do justice to its subject. If there is
one lesson to be drawn it is the importance of our relationship with
God. Fellowship is often looked at solely in terms of our
relationships with one another. Indeed, we are often found agonizing
over why those relationships are so fraught when what we really need
to think about is our relationship with the Lord. If we are right in
terms of communion with God then we will be right in terms of
communion with our brethren. We must always remember that it is the
“Lord’s
table” (1 Cor. 10: 21, my emphasis).
