Leviticul 3
1 Când cineva va aduce Domnului un dar ca jertfă de mulţămire: Dacă îl va aduce din cireadă, fie parte bărbătească, fie parte femeiască, s-o aducă fără cusur, înaintea Domnului.
2 Să pună mâna pe capul dobitocului, să-l junghie la uşa cortului întâlnirii; şi preoţii, fiii lui Aaron, să stropească sângele pe altar de jur împrejur.
3 Din această jertfă de mulţămire, să aducă drept jertfă mistuită de foc înaintea Domnului: grăsimea care acopere măruntaiele şi toată grăsimea care ţine de măruntae;
4 cei doi rărunchi, şi grăsimea de pe ei şi de pe coapse, şi prapurul de pe ficat, pe care-l va deslipi delângă rărunchi.
5 Fiii lui Aaron să le ardă pe altar, deasupra arderii de tot care va fi pe lemnele de pe foc. Aceasta este o jertfă mistuită de foc, de un miros plăcut Domnului.
6 Dacă darul pe care-l aduce ca jertfă de mulţămire Domnului, va fi din turmă, fie parte bărbătească fie parte femeiască, s-o aducă fără cusur.
7 Dacă va aduce jertfă un miel, să-l aducă înaintea Domnului.
8 Să-şi pună mâna pe capul dobitocului, şi să-l junghie înaintea cortului întâlnirii; fiii lui Aaron să-i stropească sângele pe altar dejur împrejur.
9 Din această jertfă de mulţămire, să aducă o jertfă mistuită de foc înaintea Domnului, şi anume: grăsimea, coada întreagă, pe care o va desface dela osul spinării, grăsimea care acopere măruntaiele şi toată grăsimea care ţine de măruntaie,
10 cei doi rărunchi şi grăsimea de pe ei, de pe coapse, şi prapurul ficatului, pe care-l va deslipi de lângă rărunchi.
11 Preotul să le ardă pe altar. Aceasta este mâncarea unei jertfe mistuite de foc înaintea Domnului.
12 Dacă darul lui va fi o capră, s-o aducă înaintea Domnului.
13 Să-şi pună mâna pe capul vitei, şi s-o junghie înaintea cortului întâlnirii; şi fiii lui Aaron să-i stropească sângele pe altar dejur împrejur.
14 Apoi din ea, să aducă drept jertfă mistuită de foc înaintea Domnului: grăsimea care acopere măruntaiele şi toată grăsimea care ţine de ele,
15 cei doi rărunchi şi grăsimea de pe ei, de pe coapse, şi prapurul ficatului, pe care-l va deslipi de lângă rărunchi.
16 Preotul să le ardă pe altar. Aceasta este mâncarea unei jertfe mistuite de foc, de un miros plăcut Domnului. Toată grăsimea este a Domnului.
17 Aceasta este o lege vecinică pentru urmaşii voştri, în toate locurile unde veţi locui: cu nici un chip să nu mâncaţi nici grăsime, nici sânge.``
{"verseMap":{"1":[{"id":23079,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Book of Leviticus","title_en":"Book of Leviticus","content_ro":"<h3>LEVITICUS, Book of<\/h3>\n<p>Third book of the OT, largely concerned with the duties of the Levitical priests.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Author<\/p>\n<p>• Date<\/p>\n<p>• Background<\/p>\n<p>• Purpose and Theology<\/p>\n<p>• Content<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Author\">Author<\/p>\n<p>A traditional alternative title of Leviticus is the Third Book of Moses, which gives proper credit to the man who most deserves to be called its author. For though the book never says that Moses wrote down any of the material, it repeatedly states that God revealed the contents of Leviticus to Moses. It may be that Leviticus was not put into writing as soon as it was revealed, but there is little to commend the common critical view that it was composed nearly a thousand years after Moses. The spelling and grammar of Leviticus was, like other books of the OT, revised from time to time to make it understandable to later generations of Jewish readers, but that does not mean the essential content of the book was modified.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Date\">Date<\/p>\n<p>God revealed some of the laws in Leviticus by speaking to Moses from the tent of meeting, or tabernacle (Lv 1:1). Other laws were revealed on Mt Sinai (26:46). Such statements show that Moses learned the contents of Leviticus after the tabernacle had been built but before the Israelites left Mt Sinai. This fits in with Exodus 40:17, which says that the tabernacle was erected exactly a year after the Israelites left Egypt. They then spent another month at Sinai, during which time the laws in Leviticus were given to Moses. Then one month later (Nm 1:1) Moses was commanded to prepare the people to leave Sinai to conquer the Promised Land of Canaan.<\/p>\n<p>It is difficult to give an exact date for the Israelite exodus from Egypt. Dates at the end of the 15th century <span>BC<\/span> or early in the 13th century are put forward by different scholars. Whichever view is adopted, the origin of Leviticus must be one year later than the exodus. But certainty about the absolute date of Leviticus is unimportant so long as the religious setting of the book is understood.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Background\">Background<\/p>\n<p>About 400 years before the exodus, God promised Abraham that his descendants would be very numerous and live in the land of Canaan. The family of Abraham multiplied, but as a result of famine they had to go and live in Egypt. Afraid of the Israelites, the rulers of Egypt turned them into slaves.<\/p>\n<p>The book of Exodus tells how God, acting through Moses, brought the Israelites out of Egypt in a miraculous way. Moses led them to Mt Sinai, where God appeared in fire and smoke on the top of the mountain. Moses went up the mountain, and there God gave him the Ten Commandments and explained various laws. Through these acts God showed that he had chosen the nation of Israel to be his special holy people, different from all the other nations because they would show God’s character through their behavior (cf. Ex 19:5-6).<\/p>\n\n<p>God’s revelation at Sinai was unique and unrepeatable. But he disclosed to Moses that he wanted to live among the people of Israel permanently. They were told to build a portable royal palace that would be suitable for the divine King of kings. The building of this portable palace, traditionally called the tabernacle, is described in Exodus 35–40. When it was completed, the fire and cloud that had been seen on Mt Sinai appeared over the tabernacle as a sign that God was now dwelling in it (Ex 40:34-38).<\/p>\n<p>Exodus also tells how Moses was told to appoint his brother, Aaron, and Aaron’s sons to serve in the tabernacle as priests (Ex 28–29). Unfortunately, before the Israelites even began to build the tabernacle, they made a golden calf under Aaron’s leadership and started to worship it instead. The people were spared only as a result of Moses’ prayers. The book of Exodus therefore leaves the reader in suspense. The tabernacle has been built, but no one knows how to worship God in it. Though Aaron and his family are alive, we are left wondering whether they will still be allowed to lead the worship of God after the idolatry of the golden calf. The book of Leviticus answers this question.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PurposeandTheology\">Purpose and Theology<\/p>\n<p>The Ten Commandments explain briefly and simply how God expects his people to behave. The first four commandments explain our duty toward our neighbor. The book of Leviticus follows a similar scheme. Chapters 1–17 show how God wanted Israel to worship him, while chapters 18–27 are mainly concerned with how people should behave toward each other. Whereas the Ten Commandments are general and can be applied quite easily to every society, the book of Leviticus is much more detailed and specifically geared to the special circumstances of ancient Israel. If modern readers are to profit from reading Leviticus, they must look behind the specific regulations to the underlying religious principles that do not change—in other words, to the theology of Leviticus.<\/p>\n<p>Four themes are very important in the theology of Leviticus: (1) the presence of God, (2) holiness, (3) sacrifice, and (4) the Sinai covenant.<\/p>\n<h5>The Presence of God<\/h5>\n<p>God is always present with Israel in a real way. Sometimes his presence becomes visible in fire and smoke. But even when there is no miraculous sign, God is present. He is especially near when people worship him and offer sacrifice. The many animal sacrifices mentioned in the book are all brought to the Lord. When the animals are burnt, God is pleased with the smell (1:9). The priests who offer the sacrifices must be especially careful since they come closer to God than other people do. If they are careless in their duties and break God’s commands, they may die (10:1-2).<\/p>\n<p>God is present not just in worship but in all the ordinary duties of life. The recurring refrain of the later chapters, “I, the <span>Lord<\/span>, am your God” (18:2; 19:3), reminds the Israelites that every aspect of their life—religion (chs 21–24), sex (chs 18, 20), and relations with neighbors (chs 19, 25)—matters to God. The behavior of every Israelite must mirror that of God himself (20:7). The fear of God should prompt persons to help the blind, the deaf, the elderly, and the poor. Though such people may have no redress against unfair treatment, God cares about what happens to them (19:14, 32; 25:17, 36, 43).<\/p>\n<h5>Holiness<\/h5>\n<p>“You must be holy because I am holy” (11:44-45; 19:2; 20:26) could be termed the motto of Leviticus. “Holy,” “clean,” and “unclean” are common words in this book. God is the supremely holy person in the Bible, and holiness is the distinctive feature of his character. But earthly creatures can become holy too. To become holy, a person must be chosen by God and undergo the correct ceremony. Thus, at Sinai all Israel became a holy nation (Ex 19:6). Leviticus 8–9 explains how Aaron and his sons were ordained priests. This made them more holy than ordinary Israelites and therefore able to approach God and offer sacrifice.<\/p>\n<p>Before anyone could become holy, they had to be “clean.” Cleanness in Leviticus means more than just being free of dirt, though this idea is included. It means being free of any abnormality. Whenever a person appears to fall short of perfection, he is described as “unclean.” Thus, the worst uncleanness is death, the very opposite of perfect life. But bleeding and other discharges and patchy skin diseases can make someone unclean. Animals that move in peculiar ways or have strange habits are also called unclean (Lv 11–15).<\/p>\n<p>Holiness and its opposite, uncleanness, can describe behavior as well as outward appearance. To be holy means to obey God and to act like God. Chapters 18–25 explain what holiness means in daily living. It means avoiding illicit sexual relations, caring for the poor, being honest, being fair, and loving your neighbor as yourself. This sort of behavior made Israel different from other peoples. Through their holiness the whole nation was supposed to demonstrate what God was like.<\/p>\n<h5>Sacrifice<\/h5>\n<p>In practice, unfortunately, the nation and the individuals within it rarely lived up to these ideals of holiness. Even if one did not commit a grievous sin, he or she was always liable to become unclean through contact with someone else, touching a dead animal, or in some other way. To maintain contact with a holy God, Israel’s sins and uncleanness had to be removed. This is what the sacrifices were for. They brought the forgiveness of sins and cleansing from uncleanness. Because sin affects relations between God and humans in various ways, Leviticus provides four different types of offerings to cover the different cases (Lv 1–6), and explains which sacrifices must be offered on which occasions (chs 7–17). All these rituals served to underline the seriousness of sin and helped preserve peace and fellowship between God and humanity.<\/p>\n<h5>The Sinai Covenant<\/h5>\n<p>All the laws contained in Leviticus form part of the Sinai covenant. They fill out and apply the principles of the Ten Commandments to the specific circumstances of ancient Israel. But they are more than a set of detailed rules, because they were given as part of the covenant. Three things have to be remembered about this covenant. First, the covenant created a personal relationship. The Lord became Israel’s king, and Israel became his special treasure set apart from the other nations of the world. Second, the covenant was based on God’s grace. He had made a promise to Abraham and, in saving the people from Egyptian slavery, he demonstrated his faithfulness to his promise and his love for Israel. Israel, in turn, was to show its gratitude for salvation by keeping the law. In no way did keeping the law earn them salvation. The law was given to a redeemed people. Finally, there were promises and threats built into the covenant (Lv 26). When the nation keeps the law, God promises they will enjoy good harvests, victory over their enemies, and God walking among them as he did in Eden. But if they reject God’s laws, terrible calamities will befall them: drought, famine, defeat, and even expulsion from the land God had promised to give them. These covenant curses form the background to the prophets’ warnings in later times.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Content\">Content<\/p>\n<h5>Kinds of Sacrifices (1–7)<\/h5>\n<p>These chapters explain how the different kinds of sacrifices were to be offered. Most of these sacrifices also formed part of the regular worship in the tabernacle and later in the temple. But these chapters are concerned with personal offerings made when someone had sinned or made a vow or recovered from an illness. They explain what the offerer must do and what the priest must do, which parts of the animal must be burned, which parts may be eaten by the priest, and what is to be done with the blood of the animal.<\/p>\n<p>First, the offerer brought the animal into the outer court of the tabernacle. In the presence of the priest he put his hand on the head of the animal and explained why he was bringing the sacrifice. Then the worshiper killed the animal and chopped it up. The priest then took over. He caught the blood as it ran out of the dying animal and splashed it over the altar, and burned at least some of the animal on the great altar in the court of the tabernacle. These acts were performed with all the animal sacrifices.<\/p>\n<p>The special feature of the burnt offering (Lv 1) was that the whole animal, which had to be unblemished, was burned on the altar. All that the priest received was the skin. This was the most common sacrifice and was offered on many different occasions. In giving the whole animal to God in the sacrifice, the worshiper dedicated himself or herself totally to God’s service. “Lay your hand on its head so the <span>Lord<\/span> will accept it as your substitute, thus making atonement for you” (1:4, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>Chapter 2 deals with the grain offering that always accompanied the burnt offering, but which could also be offered alone. Only part of this offering was burned; the rest was given to the priests to eat. The sacrifices formed an important part of their income.<\/p>\n<p>The peace (fellowship) offering’s special feature was that it was the only sacrifice where the offerer was allowed to eat part of the meat (Lv 3). Since in the earliest period Israelites were not permitted to kill animals except for sacrifice (ch 17), every meal that included meat had to be preceded by a peace offering. Leviticus 7:11-18 mentions three occasions that might prompt a peace-offering “thanksgiving”: when someone had something to praise God for or some sin to acknowledge; a vow promising a sacrifice if God would help one out of a difficulty; and a voluntary offering, made just because the person felt like it.<\/p>\n<p>Despite its name, the sin offering (Lv 4) was not the only offering dealing with sin. The other sacrifices also made the forgiveness of sin possible. The special significance of this sacrifice is emphasized by its unusual ritual. Instead of the blood being splashed over the altar, as in the other sacrifices, it was carefully smeared over the horns (corners) of the large altar in the courtyard (4:30) or over the small altar inside the holy place (v 18); once a year the blood was sprinkled over the ark in the Holy of Holies (16:14). Sin makes these different parts of the tabernacle unclean, unfit for the presence of God. And if God is not present in the tabernacle, worship has no point. The blood acts as a spiritual disinfectant, making the tabernacle clean and holy again. The sin offering was required whenever a person inadvertently broke one of the commandments or had suffered from a discharge or skin disease that made him or her unclean for a week or more (chs 12, 15).<\/p>\n<p>The guilt offering (5:14–6:7) was for more serious offenses, such as stealing holy property or deliberately using God’s name in a false oath. Such an offense was seen as robbing God. Therefore, a ram had to be offered as a sort of repayment. Whereas the poor person could offer just a bird for the other sacrifices, a ram was always required for a guilt offering.<\/p>\n<p>Chapters 6:8–7:38 contain various other regulations about sacrifice, mainly specifying how much of each sacrifice the priests may eat and how much must be burned. One important rule for those who weren’t priests was that they were not to eat any fat or blood or eat sacrificial meat when they were unclean. If they did, they could be cut off from Israel (7:21-27).<\/p>\n<h5>Beginnings of the Priesthood (8–10)<\/h5>\n<p>Though Leviticus looks like a law book, because it contains so many regulations, it is really a history book describing the events that occurred about a year after the exodus. These chapters remind us of the true character of the book, for they tell how Moses ordained Aaron and his sons to be priests and how they offered their first sacrifices.<\/p>\n<p>Awed by the complexity of the ordination rituals, the modern reader may miss the marvel that Aaron should have been appointed high priest. For it was Aaron who had presided over the making of the golden calf and encouraged its worship (Ex 32). Had not Moses interceded for Israel, the whole nation would have been destroyed in the wilderness. Here the gracious forgiveness of God is most clear. Aaron, the chief sinner, is appointed chief mediator between God and the people. In the NT the career of Peter parallels Aaron’s in some respect.<\/p>\n<p>The greatness of the high priesthood is symbolized by the richly decorated robes Aaron wore. He and his sons were anointed with oil, and then Moses offered the three most common sacrifices on their behalf. They were confined to the court of the tabernacle for a week, and it seems likely that some of the rituals were repeated each day. By this means they were set apart from the rest of the people and entirely consecrated to their holy office.<\/p>\n<p>By the eighth day the process was complete. Now Aaron and his sons could offer sacrifice. This time, Moses only told them what to do; he did not offer sacrifices himself. Chapter 9 concludes by telling that, after they had offered the sacrifices for themselves and the people, fire came out of the tabernacle to burn up the offerings, thereby displaying God’s approval of their actions.<\/p>\n<p>After this, 10:1-2 presents an unexpected turn of events: “Aaron’s sons Nadab and Abihu put coals of fire in their incense burners and sprinkled incense over it. In this way, they disobeyed the <span>Lord<\/span> by burning before him a different kind of fire than he had commanded. So fire blazed forth from the <span>Lord<\/span>’s presence and burned them up, and they died there before the <span>Lord<\/span>” (<span>nlt<\/span>). We do not know exactly what is meant by unholy fire. What is important is that the priests did something that God had not commanded them. The priests were supposed to set an example of total obedience to God’s word: this is the essence of holiness. Instead, they decided to follow their own plans and the consequences were dire.<\/p>\n<p>“Aaron was silent” (10:3). He was warned not even to mourn his sons’ deaths, lest he be suspected of condoning their sin (vv 6-7). Yet, despite his sons’ actions, Aaron and his surviving sons were confirmed as priests. They were reminded that their job was “to distinguish between what is holy and what is ordinary, what is ceremonially unclean and what is clean. And you must teach the Israelites all the laws that the <span>Lord<\/span> has given through Moses” (vv 10-11, <span>nlt<\/span>). The chapter closes on another note of grace. Although the priests made a mistake in offering one of the sin offerings, God would overlook it on this occasion.<\/p>\n<h5>Cleanness and Uncleanness (11–16)<\/h5>\n<p>Distinguishing between the unclean and the clean is the theme of chapters 11–15, which prepare for the great Day of Atonement ceremonies of chapter 16. These are designed to cleanse the tabernacle from the uncleannesses of the people of Israel, thereby ensuring that God would continue to dwell among them (16:16, 19).<\/p>\n<p>Chapter 11 discusses unclean animals, that is, animals that may not be eaten. Land animals are dealt with first, then fish and birds, and finally various miscellaneous creatures such as locusts and reptiles. To be clean, a land animal must have cloven hooves and chew the cud; that covers sheep and cattle but excludes pigs and camels. Fish must have fins and scales to be edible; without them, they count as unclean. Birds are clean unless they are birds of prey or scavengers that eat carrion. Insects that resemble birds in having wings and two large legs to hop with—for example, locusts—are clean. Other flying insects are unclean. All squirming creatures that dart hither and thither, such as lizards, are unclean.<\/p>\n<p>The reasons for declaring some animals clean and others unclean has long been a great puzzle. One suggestion is that the unclean animals were used in sacrifice by pagan worshipers or were thought to represent pagan deities. Certainly some unclean animals were used in pagan worship, but so were some clean ones, and that fact makes this explanation unsatisfactory. A second possibility is that the rules were hygienic: the clean animals were safe to eat whereas the unclean were not. There may be some truth in this explanation, but it is not completely adequate, for some clean animals can be harmful while some unclean ones are all right to eat.<\/p>\n<p>Unclean animals could not be eaten, but there was no harm in touching them. Israelites could ride camels, for example. However, all dead animals, unless killed for sacrifice, were unclean. Anyone who touched the carcass of a dead creature became unclean himself and therefore could not enter the tabernacle that day (11:39-40).<\/p>\n<p>The following chapters deal with other conditions that make people unclean. Chapter 12 states that childbirth, or more precisely the bloody discharge that follows childbirth, makes a woman unclean. In OT theology death is the ultimate uncleanness, and conditions that are abnormal or threaten to lead to death are also unclean. When the discharge has ceased, after a fixed period the mother must bring a burnt offering and a sin offering to atone for any sin she may have committed, and to purify the tabernacle that may have been polluted through her uncleanness.<\/p>\n<p>Chapters 13–14 deal with the uncleanness caused by skin diseases. Detailed regulations are given to distinguish between different diseases so that the priests can decide whether people are unclean or not. If they are unclean, they must live outside the camp until their skin heals. Traditionally the unclean skin disease has been called leprosy. But this is unlikely to be correct, since leprosy was unknown in the Middle East in OT times. Rather, it was any disease that led to the skin peeling off in patches, such as psoriasis. This explains why the disease might spontaneously get better.<\/p>\n<p>If the disease did retreat sufficiently, the sufferer could call the priest, and if the priest was satisfied with the cure, the sufferer could be readmitted to the community after following the rituals prescribed in chapter 14. This also explains what is to be done if patches of mold are found in pieces of cloth or house walls.<\/p>\n<p>Chapter 15 explains how men can become unclean through discharges from their sexual organs, due to gonorrhea or sexual intercourse, while women become unclean through menstruation or a long-term discharge. Part of the purpose of these regulations is to prevent the sacred prostitution that was common in the ancient world. Since sexual intercourse made people unclean, they could not go to worship immediately afterward. Further, the uncleanness of menstruation should have discouraged men from being overfamiliar with unmarried girls.<\/p>\n<p>The broad scope of these uncleanness regulations meant that nearly every Israelite would be unclean at some time in his or her life. This uncleanness could contaminate God’s dwelling place, the tabernacle, making it impossible for God to continue to live there. To avert this catastrophe, a Day of Atonement was held once a year. This is the most solemn day in the Jewish calendar, and the ceremonies for it are described in detail in Leviticus 16.<\/p>\n<p>There are three acts on the Day of Atonement that are described in this chapter. There was first the special sin offering offered by the high priest, in the course of which the outer altar of burnt offering, the incense altar inside the Holy Place, and finally the ark itself in the Holy of Holies were sprinkled with blood to purify each part of the tabernacle. This was the one occasion in the year when the high priest entered the presence of God in the Holy of Holies, and elaborate precautions were taken to screen the high priest from God’s holiness (16:2-4, 11-17). There was another public act that pictured the sins of Israel being taken away. A goat was chosen by lot. Then the high priest placed his hands on its head and recited over it the nation’s sin. This goat was then led away and driven into a solitary place; in later times it was pushed over a precipice. These actions pictured Israel’s sins being carried away, so that they could not disturb the peace between God and his people. The third important feature of the Day of Atonement was public prayer and fasting. This showed that sin could not be eliminated without effort, but only through a complete change of heart by every person in Israel.<\/p>\n<h5>Rules for Daily Life (17–25)<\/h5>\n<p>Whereas the opening chapters of Leviticus are entirely concerned with the Godward side of religion, the later chapters are more concerned with practical religious duties toward other persons. However, chapter 17 repeats some of the rules about sacrifice and makes one new one: that all sacrifice must be offered in the tabernacle courtyard. This was to prevent people from secretly worshiping heathen gods.<\/p>\n<p>Chapters 18 and 20 spell out the rules governing sexual relations in ancient Israel. Chapter 19 gives further examples of what holiness means in everyday life. Positively, it means helping the poor by leaving some grain behind in the fields at harvesttime (19:9-10); paying people promptly (v 13); avoiding gossip (v 16); honoring the elderly, helping the immigrant, and being honest in business (vv 32-36). But holiness goes beyond deeds and words. It should transform thoughts: “Never seek revenge or bear a grudge against anyone, but love your neighbor as yourself” (v 18, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>Chapters 21 and 22 discuss how the holy men of Israel, the priests, are to demonstrate their holiness in their lives. First, they must avoid approaching dead bodies unless the dead are very close relatives. Second, they must marry women of known moral uprightness. Third, deformed priests—for example, a blind or lame priest—may never offer sacrifices. Here the principle is plain that men who represent God must reflect the perfection of God in normal, healthy bodies. However, those who are temporarily unclean, through skin disease or a discharge, may resume their duties as soon as their uncleanness is cured.<\/p>\n<p>Chapter 23 lists the main holy days and the sacrifices that had to be offered on each one. Chapter 24 deals with the lamp and special bread kept within the tabernacle. A case of blasphemy that occurred in the wilderness is mentioned. Because the man actually used the sacred name of God in a curse, he was sentenced to death.<\/p>\n<p>Chapter 25 deals with the jubilee year. In every society people fall into debt. Today the effects of debt are somewhat cushioned by state welfare payments and bank overdrafts, but ancient societies did not have such aid available. People in debt had to sell off their family land, on which they depended for their living, or in more serious situations, they could sell themselves into slavery. Once impoverished in this way, it was exceedingly difficult ever to recover one’s land or one’s freedom. But this law in Leviticus provided an escape. Every 50 years was a jubilee. In this year every slave was released from bondage, and everyone who had sold his land was given it back free. Thus, everyone who fell into debt was given a chance to make a fresh start. Though this law was primarily designed to help the poor, it also served to prevent the accumulation of too much wealth in the hands of a few rich men.<\/p>\n<h5>Blessings, Curses, and Vows (26–27)<\/h5>\n<p>Chapter 26 contains the blessings and curses that traditionally concluded a covenant. Israel is promised great material and spiritual prosperity if she keeps the law but is warned that tragedy will befall if she is disobedient.<\/p>\n<p>Chapter 27 is an appendix dealing with vows and other gifts made to God. When a person promises to give something to God, it becomes holy and cannot be retracted unless a suitable payment is made instead. This chapter sets out the rules about such dedications.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Aaron; Moses; Offerings and Sacrifices; Priests and Levites; Tabernacle; Temple.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>LEVITICUS, Book of<\/h3>\n<p>Third book of the OT, largely concerned with the duties of the Levitical priests.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Author<\/p>\n<p>• Date<\/p>\n<p>• Background<\/p>\n<p>• Purpose and Theology<\/p>\n<p>• Content<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Author\">Author<\/p>\n<p>A traditional alternative title of Leviticus is the Third Book of Moses, which gives proper credit to the man who most deserves to be called its author. For though the book never says that Moses wrote down any of the material, it repeatedly states that God revealed the contents of Leviticus to Moses. It may be that Leviticus was not put into writing as soon as it was revealed, but there is little to commend the common critical view that it was composed nearly a thousand years after Moses. The spelling and grammar of Leviticus was, like other books of the OT, revised from time to time to make it understandable to later generations of Jewish readers, but that does not mean the essential content of the book was modified.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Date\">Date<\/p>\n<p>God revealed some of the laws in Leviticus by speaking to Moses from the tent of meeting, or tabernacle (Lv 1:1). Other laws were revealed on Mt Sinai (26:46). Such statements show that Moses learned the contents of Leviticus after the tabernacle had been built but before the Israelites left Mt Sinai. This fits in with Exodus 40:17, which says that the tabernacle was erected exactly a year after the Israelites left Egypt. They then spent another month at Sinai, during which time the laws in Leviticus were given to Moses. Then one month later (Nm 1:1) Moses was commanded to prepare the people to leave Sinai to conquer the Promised Land of Canaan.<\/p>\n<p>It is difficult to give an exact date for the Israelite exodus from Egypt. Dates at the end of the 15th century <span>BC<\/span> or early in the 13th century are put forward by different scholars. Whichever view is adopted, the origin of Leviticus must be one year later than the exodus. But certainty about the absolute date of Leviticus is unimportant so long as the religious setting of the book is understood.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Background\">Background<\/p>\n<p>About 400 years before the exodus, God promised Abraham that his descendants would be very numerous and live in the land of Canaan. The family of Abraham multiplied, but as a result of famine they had to go and live in Egypt. Afraid of the Israelites, the rulers of Egypt turned them into slaves.<\/p>\n<p>The book of Exodus tells how God, acting through Moses, brought the Israelites out of Egypt in a miraculous way. Moses led them to Mt Sinai, where God appeared in fire and smoke on the top of the mountain. Moses went up the mountain, and there God gave him the Ten Commandments and explained various laws. Through these acts God showed that he had chosen the nation of Israel to be his special holy people, different from all the other nations because they would show God’s character through their behavior (cf. Ex 19:5-6).<\/p>\n\n<p>God’s revelation at Sinai was unique and unrepeatable. But he disclosed to Moses that he wanted to live among the people of Israel permanently. They were told to build a portable royal palace that would be suitable for the divine King of kings. The building of this portable palace, traditionally called the tabernacle, is described in Exodus 35–40. When it was completed, the fire and cloud that had been seen on Mt Sinai appeared over the tabernacle as a sign that God was now dwelling in it (Ex 40:34-38).<\/p>\n<p>Exodus also tells how Moses was told to appoint his brother, Aaron, and Aaron’s sons to serve in the tabernacle as priests (Ex 28–29). Unfortunately, before the Israelites even began to build the tabernacle, they made a golden calf under Aaron’s leadership and started to worship it instead. The people were spared only as a result of Moses’ prayers. The book of Exodus therefore leaves the reader in suspense. The tabernacle has been built, but no one knows how to worship God in it. Though Aaron and his family are alive, we are left wondering whether they will still be allowed to lead the worship of God after the idolatry of the golden calf. The book of Leviticus answers this question.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PurposeandTheology\">Purpose and Theology<\/p>\n<p>The Ten Commandments explain briefly and simply how God expects his people to behave. The first four commandments explain our duty toward our neighbor. The book of Leviticus follows a similar scheme. Chapters 1–17 show how God wanted Israel to worship him, while chapters 18–27 are mainly concerned with how people should behave toward each other. Whereas the Ten Commandments are general and can be applied quite easily to every society, the book of Leviticus is much more detailed and specifically geared to the special circumstances of ancient Israel. If modern readers are to profit from reading Leviticus, they must look behind the specific regulations to the underlying religious principles that do not change—in other words, to the theology of Leviticus.<\/p>\n<p>Four themes are very important in the theology of Leviticus: (1) the presence of God, (2) holiness, (3) sacrifice, and (4) the Sinai covenant.<\/p>\n<h5>The Presence of God<\/h5>\n<p>God is always present with Israel in a real way. Sometimes his presence becomes visible in fire and smoke. But even when there is no miraculous sign, God is present. He is especially near when people worship him and offer sacrifice. The many animal sacrifices mentioned in the book are all brought to the Lord. When the animals are burnt, God is pleased with the smell (1:9). The priests who offer the sacrifices must be especially careful since they come closer to God than other people do. If they are careless in their duties and break God’s commands, they may die (10:1-2).<\/p>\n<p>God is present not just in worship but in all the ordinary duties of life. The recurring refrain of the later chapters, “I, the <span>Lord<\/span>, am your God” (18:2; 19:3), reminds the Israelites that every aspect of their life—religion (chs 21–24), sex (chs 18, 20), and relations with neighbors (chs 19, 25)—matters to God. The behavior of every Israelite must mirror that of God himself (20:7). The fear of God should prompt persons to help the blind, the deaf, the elderly, and the poor. Though such people may have no redress against unfair treatment, God cares about what happens to them (19:14, 32; 25:17, 36, 43).<\/p>\n<h5>Holiness<\/h5>\n<p>“You must be holy because I am holy” (11:44-45; 19:2; 20:26) could be termed the motto of Leviticus. “Holy,” “clean,” and “unclean” are common words in this book. God is the supremely holy person in the Bible, and holiness is the distinctive feature of his character. But earthly creatures can become holy too. To become holy, a person must be chosen by God and undergo the correct ceremony. Thus, at Sinai all Israel became a holy nation (Ex 19:6). Leviticus 8–9 explains how Aaron and his sons were ordained priests. This made them more holy than ordinary Israelites and therefore able to approach God and offer sacrifice.<\/p>\n<p>Before anyone could become holy, they had to be “clean.” Cleanness in Leviticus means more than just being free of dirt, though this idea is included. It means being free of any abnormality. Whenever a person appears to fall short of perfection, he is described as “unclean.” Thus, the worst uncleanness is death, the very opposite of perfect life. But bleeding and other discharges and patchy skin diseases can make someone unclean. Animals that move in peculiar ways or have strange habits are also called unclean (Lv 11–15).<\/p>\n<p>Holiness and its opposite, uncleanness, can describe behavior as well as outward appearance. To be holy means to obey God and to act like God. Chapters 18–25 explain what holiness means in daily living. It means avoiding illicit sexual relations, caring for the poor, being honest, being fair, and loving your neighbor as yourself. This sort of behavior made Israel different from other peoples. Through their holiness the whole nation was supposed to demonstrate what God was like.<\/p>\n<h5>Sacrifice<\/h5>\n<p>In practice, unfortunately, the nation and the individuals within it rarely lived up to these ideals of holiness. Even if one did not commit a grievous sin, he or she was always liable to become unclean through contact with someone else, touching a dead animal, or in some other way. To maintain contact with a holy God, Israel’s sins and uncleanness had to be removed. This is what the sacrifices were for. They brought the forgiveness of sins and cleansing from uncleanness. Because sin affects relations between God and humans in various ways, Leviticus provides four different types of offerings to cover the different cases (Lv 1–6), and explains which sacrifices must be offered on which occasions (chs 7–17). All these rituals served to underline the seriousness of sin and helped preserve peace and fellowship between God and humanity.<\/p>\n<h5>The Sinai Covenant<\/h5>\n<p>All the laws contained in Leviticus form part of the Sinai covenant. They fill out and apply the principles of the Ten Commandments to the specific circumstances of ancient Israel. But they are more than a set of detailed rules, because they were given as part of the covenant. Three things have to be remembered about this covenant. First, the covenant created a personal relationship. The Lord became Israel’s king, and Israel became his special treasure set apart from the other nations of the world. Second, the covenant was based on God’s grace. He had made a promise to Abraham and, in saving the people from Egyptian slavery, he demonstrated his faithfulness to his promise and his love for Israel. Israel, in turn, was to show its gratitude for salvation by keeping the law. In no way did keeping the law earn them salvation. The law was given to a redeemed people. Finally, there were promises and threats built into the covenant (Lv 26). When the nation keeps the law, God promises they will enjoy good harvests, victory over their enemies, and God walking among them as he did in Eden. But if they reject God’s laws, terrible calamities will befall them: drought, famine, defeat, and even expulsion from the land God had promised to give them. These covenant curses form the background to the prophets’ warnings in later times.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Content\">Content<\/p>\n<h5>Kinds of Sacrifices (1–7)<\/h5>\n<p>These chapters explain how the different kinds of sacrifices were to be offered. Most of these sacrifices also formed part of the regular worship in the tabernacle and later in the temple. But these chapters are concerned with personal offerings made when someone had sinned or made a vow or recovered from an illness. They explain what the offerer must do and what the priest must do, which parts of the animal must be burned, which parts may be eaten by the priest, and what is to be done with the blood of the animal.<\/p>\n<p>First, the offerer brought the animal into the outer court of the tabernacle. In the presence of the priest he put his hand on the head of the animal and explained why he was bringing the sacrifice. Then the worshiper killed the animal and chopped it up. The priest then took over. He caught the blood as it ran out of the dying animal and splashed it over the altar, and burned at least some of the animal on the great altar in the court of the tabernacle. These acts were performed with all the animal sacrifices.<\/p>\n<p>The special feature of the burnt offering (Lv 1) was that the whole animal, which had to be unblemished, was burned on the altar. All that the priest received was the skin. This was the most common sacrifice and was offered on many different occasions. In giving the whole animal to God in the sacrifice, the worshiper dedicated himself or herself totally to God’s service. “Lay your hand on its head so the <span>Lord<\/span> will accept it as your substitute, thus making atonement for you” (1:4, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>Chapter 2 deals with the grain offering that always accompanied the burnt offering, but which could also be offered alone. Only part of this offering was burned; the rest was given to the priests to eat. The sacrifices formed an important part of their income.<\/p>\n<p>The peace (fellowship) offering’s special feature was that it was the only sacrifice where the offerer was allowed to eat part of the meat (Lv 3). Since in the earliest period Israelites were not permitted to kill animals except for sacrifice (ch 17), every meal that included meat had to be preceded by a peace offering. Leviticus 7:11-18 mentions three occasions that might prompt a peace-offering “thanksgiving”: when someone had something to praise God for or some sin to acknowledge; a vow promising a sacrifice if God would help one out of a difficulty; and a voluntary offering, made just because the person felt like it.<\/p>\n<p>Despite its name, the sin offering (Lv 4) was not the only offering dealing with sin. The other sacrifices also made the forgiveness of sin possible. The special significance of this sacrifice is emphasized by its unusual ritual. Instead of the blood being splashed over the altar, as in the other sacrifices, it was carefully smeared over the horns (corners) of the large altar in the courtyard (4:30) or over the small altar inside the holy place (v 18); once a year the blood was sprinkled over the ark in the Holy of Holies (16:14). Sin makes these different parts of the tabernacle unclean, unfit for the presence of God. And if God is not present in the tabernacle, worship has no point. The blood acts as a spiritual disinfectant, making the tabernacle clean and holy again. The sin offering was required whenever a person inadvertently broke one of the commandments or had suffered from a discharge or skin disease that made him or her unclean for a week or more (chs 12, 15).<\/p>\n<p>The guilt offering (5:14–6:7) was for more serious offenses, such as stealing holy property or deliberately using God’s name in a false oath. Such an offense was seen as robbing God. Therefore, a ram had to be offered as a sort of repayment. Whereas the poor person could offer just a bird for the other sacrifices, a ram was always required for a guilt offering.<\/p>\n<p>Chapters 6:8–7:38 contain various other regulations about sacrifice, mainly specifying how much of each sacrifice the priests may eat and how much must be burned. One important rule for those who weren’t priests was that they were not to eat any fat or blood or eat sacrificial meat when they were unclean. If they did, they could be cut off from Israel (7:21-27).<\/p>\n<h5>Beginnings of the Priesthood (8–10)<\/h5>\n<p>Though Leviticus looks like a law book, because it contains so many regulations, it is really a history book describing the events that occurred about a year after the exodus. These chapters remind us of the true character of the book, for they tell how Moses ordained Aaron and his sons to be priests and how they offered their first sacrifices.<\/p>\n<p>Awed by the complexity of the ordination rituals, the modern reader may miss the marvel that Aaron should have been appointed high priest. For it was Aaron who had presided over the making of the golden calf and encouraged its worship (Ex 32). Had not Moses interceded for Israel, the whole nation would have been destroyed in the wilderness. Here the gracious forgiveness of God is most clear. Aaron, the chief sinner, is appointed chief mediator between God and the people. In the NT the career of Peter parallels Aaron’s in some respect.<\/p>\n<p>The greatness of the high priesthood is symbolized by the richly decorated robes Aaron wore. He and his sons were anointed with oil, and then Moses offered the three most common sacrifices on their behalf. They were confined to the court of the tabernacle for a week, and it seems likely that some of the rituals were repeated each day. By this means they were set apart from the rest of the people and entirely consecrated to their holy office.<\/p>\n<p>By the eighth day the process was complete. Now Aaron and his sons could offer sacrifice. This time, Moses only told them what to do; he did not offer sacrifices himself. Chapter 9 concludes by telling that, after they had offered the sacrifices for themselves and the people, fire came out of the tabernacle to burn up the offerings, thereby displaying God’s approval of their actions.<\/p>\n<p>After this, 10:1-2 presents an unexpected turn of events: “Aaron’s sons Nadab and Abihu put coals of fire in their incense burners and sprinkled incense over it. In this way, they disobeyed the <span>Lord<\/span> by burning before him a different kind of fire than he had commanded. So fire blazed forth from the <span>Lord<\/span>’s presence and burned them up, and they died there before the <span>Lord<\/span>” (<span>nlt<\/span>). We do not know exactly what is meant by unholy fire. What is important is that the priests did something that God had not commanded them. The priests were supposed to set an example of total obedience to God’s word: this is the essence of holiness. Instead, they decided to follow their own plans and the consequences were dire.<\/p>\n<p>“Aaron was silent” (10:3). He was warned not even to mourn his sons’ deaths, lest he be suspected of condoning their sin (vv 6-7). Yet, despite his sons’ actions, Aaron and his surviving sons were confirmed as priests. They were reminded that their job was “to distinguish between what is holy and what is ordinary, what is ceremonially unclean and what is clean. And you must teach the Israelites all the laws that the <span>Lord<\/span> has given through Moses” (vv 10-11, <span>nlt<\/span>). The chapter closes on another note of grace. Although the priests made a mistake in offering one of the sin offerings, God would overlook it on this occasion.<\/p>\n<h5>Cleanness and Uncleanness (11–16)<\/h5>\n<p>Distinguishing between the unclean and the clean is the theme of chapters 11–15, which prepare for the great Day of Atonement ceremonies of chapter 16. These are designed to cleanse the tabernacle from the uncleannesses of the people of Israel, thereby ensuring that God would continue to dwell among them (16:16, 19).<\/p>\n<p>Chapter 11 discusses unclean animals, that is, animals that may not be eaten. Land animals are dealt with first, then fish and birds, and finally various miscellaneous creatures such as locusts and reptiles. To be clean, a land animal must have cloven hooves and chew the cud; that covers sheep and cattle but excludes pigs and camels. Fish must have fins and scales to be edible; without them, they count as unclean. Birds are clean unless they are birds of prey or scavengers that eat carrion. Insects that resemble birds in having wings and two large legs to hop with—for example, locusts—are clean. Other flying insects are unclean. All squirming creatures that dart hither and thither, such as lizards, are unclean.<\/p>\n<p>The reasons for declaring some animals clean and others unclean has long been a great puzzle. One suggestion is that the unclean animals were used in sacrifice by pagan worshipers or were thought to represent pagan deities. Certainly some unclean animals were used in pagan worship, but so were some clean ones, and that fact makes this explanation unsatisfactory. A second possibility is that the rules were hygienic: the clean animals were safe to eat whereas the unclean were not. There may be some truth in this explanation, but it is not completely adequate, for some clean animals can be harmful while some unclean ones are all right to eat.<\/p>\n<p>Unclean animals could not be eaten, but there was no harm in touching them. Israelites could ride camels, for example. However, all dead animals, unless killed for sacrifice, were unclean. Anyone who touched the carcass of a dead creature became unclean himself and therefore could not enter the tabernacle that day (11:39-40).<\/p>\n<p>The following chapters deal with other conditions that make people unclean. Chapter 12 states that childbirth, or more precisely the bloody discharge that follows childbirth, makes a woman unclean. In OT theology death is the ultimate uncleanness, and conditions that are abnormal or threaten to lead to death are also unclean. When the discharge has ceased, after a fixed period the mother must bring a burnt offering and a sin offering to atone for any sin she may have committed, and to purify the tabernacle that may have been polluted through her uncleanness.<\/p>\n<p>Chapters 13–14 deal with the uncleanness caused by skin diseases. Detailed regulations are given to distinguish between different diseases so that the priests can decide whether people are unclean or not. If they are unclean, they must live outside the camp until their skin heals. Traditionally the unclean skin disease has been called leprosy. But this is unlikely to be correct, since leprosy was unknown in the Middle East in OT times. Rather, it was any disease that led to the skin peeling off in patches, such as psoriasis. This explains why the disease might spontaneously get better.<\/p>\n<p>If the disease did retreat sufficiently, the sufferer could call the priest, and if the priest was satisfied with the cure, the sufferer could be readmitted to the community after following the rituals prescribed in chapter 14. This also explains what is to be done if patches of mold are found in pieces of cloth or house walls.<\/p>\n<p>Chapter 15 explains how men can become unclean through discharges from their sexual organs, due to gonorrhea or sexual intercourse, while women become unclean through menstruation or a long-term discharge. Part of the purpose of these regulations is to prevent the sacred prostitution that was common in the ancient world. Since sexual intercourse made people unclean, they could not go to worship immediately afterward. Further, the uncleanness of menstruation should have discouraged men from being overfamiliar with unmarried girls.<\/p>\n<p>The broad scope of these uncleanness regulations meant that nearly every Israelite would be unclean at some time in his or her life. This uncleanness could contaminate God’s dwelling place, the tabernacle, making it impossible for God to continue to live there. To avert this catastrophe, a Day of Atonement was held once a year. This is the most solemn day in the Jewish calendar, and the ceremonies for it are described in detail in Leviticus 16.<\/p>\n<p>There are three acts on the Day of Atonement that are described in this chapter. There was first the special sin offering offered by the high priest, in the course of which the outer altar of burnt offering, the incense altar inside the Holy Place, and finally the ark itself in the Holy of Holies were sprinkled with blood to purify each part of the tabernacle. This was the one occasion in the year when the high priest entered the presence of God in the Holy of Holies, and elaborate precautions were taken to screen the high priest from God’s holiness (16:2-4, 11-17). There was another public act that pictured the sins of Israel being taken away. A goat was chosen by lot. Then the high priest placed his hands on its head and recited over it the nation’s sin. This goat was then led away and driven into a solitary place; in later times it was pushed over a precipice. These actions pictured Israel’s sins being carried away, so that they could not disturb the peace between God and his people. The third important feature of the Day of Atonement was public prayer and fasting. This showed that sin could not be eliminated without effort, but only through a complete change of heart by every person in Israel.<\/p>\n<h5>Rules for Daily Life (17–25)<\/h5>\n<p>Whereas the opening chapters of Leviticus are entirely concerned with the Godward side of religion, the later chapters are more concerned with practical religious duties toward other persons. However, chapter 17 repeats some of the rules about sacrifice and makes one new one: that all sacrifice must be offered in the tabernacle courtyard. This was to prevent people from secretly worshiping heathen gods.<\/p>\n<p>Chapters 18 and 20 spell out the rules governing sexual relations in ancient Israel. Chapter 19 gives further examples of what holiness means in everyday life. Positively, it means helping the poor by leaving some grain behind in the fields at harvesttime (19:9-10); paying people promptly (v 13); avoiding gossip (v 16); honoring the elderly, helping the immigrant, and being honest in business (vv 32-36). But holiness goes beyond deeds and words. It should transform thoughts: “Never seek revenge or bear a grudge against anyone, but love your neighbor as yourself” (v 18, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>Chapters 21 and 22 discuss how the holy men of Israel, the priests, are to demonstrate their holiness in their lives. First, they must avoid approaching dead bodies unless the dead are very close relatives. Second, they must marry women of known moral uprightness. Third, deformed priests—for example, a blind or lame priest—may never offer sacrifices. Here the principle is plain that men who represent God must reflect the perfection of God in normal, healthy bodies. However, those who are temporarily unclean, through skin disease or a discharge, may resume their duties as soon as their uncleanness is cured.<\/p>\n<p>Chapter 23 lists the main holy days and the sacrifices that had to be offered on each one. Chapter 24 deals with the lamp and special bread kept within the tabernacle. A case of blasphemy that occurred in the wilderness is mentioned. Because the man actually used the sacred name of God in a curse, he was sentenced to death.<\/p>\n<p>Chapter 25 deals with the jubilee year. In every society people fall into debt. Today the effects of debt are somewhat cushioned by state welfare payments and bank overdrafts, but ancient societies did not have such aid available. People in debt had to sell off their family land, on which they depended for their living, or in more serious situations, they could sell themselves into slavery. Once impoverished in this way, it was exceedingly difficult ever to recover one’s land or one’s freedom. But this law in Leviticus provided an escape. Every 50 years was a jubilee. In this year every slave was released from bondage, and everyone who had sold his land was given it back free. Thus, everyone who fell into debt was given a chance to make a fresh start. Though this law was primarily designed to help the poor, it also served to prevent the accumulation of too much wealth in the hands of a few rich men.<\/p>\n<h5>Blessings, Curses, and Vows (26–27)<\/h5>\n<p>Chapter 26 contains the blessings and curses that traditionally concluded a covenant. Israel is promised great material and spiritual prosperity if she keeps the law but is warned that tragedy will befall if she is disobedient.<\/p>\n<p>Chapter 27 is an appendix dealing with vows and other gifts made to God. When a person promises to give something to God, it becomes holy and cannot be retracted unless a suitable payment is made instead. This chapter sets out the rules about such dedications.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Aaron; Moses; Offerings and Sacrifices; Priests and Levites; Tabernacle; Temple.<\/p>","summary_ro":"LEVITICUS, Book of Third book of the OT, largely concerned with the duties of the Levitical priests. Preview • Author • Date • Background • Purpose and Theology • Content Author A traditional alternative title of Leviticus is the Third Book of Moses, which gives proper credit to the man who most deserves to be called its author. For though the book never says that Moses wrote down any of the material, it repeatedly states that God revealed the contents of Leviticus to Moses. It may be that Le...","summary_en":"LEVITICUS, Book of Third book of the OT, largely concerned with the duties of the Levitical priests. Preview • Author • Date • Background • Purpose and Theology • Content Author A traditional alternative title of Leviticus is the Third Book of Moses, which gives proper credit to the man who most deserves to be called its author. For though the book never says that Moses wrote down any of the material, it repeatedly states that God revealed the contents of Leviticus to Moses. It may be that Le...","source":"Articles\/L.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":28160,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Offerings and Sacrifices","title_en":"Offerings and Sacrifices","content_ro":"<h3>OFFERINGS AND SACRIFICES<\/h3>\n<p>Major ritual expressions of religious life with accompanying rites, such as libations, effusions, and sacred meals. The ideology expressed in Israel’s ritual complex made its religion unique in the ancient Near East. The concepts of OT ritual also underlie NT theology with regard to sin and reconciliation to God through the atoning death of Jesus Christ.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PerformanceandOrderofSacrifices\">Performance and Order of Sacrifices<\/p>\n<p>The main source for a description of the correct performance of sacrificial ritual is the opening section of Leviticus (Lv 1–7). It consists of two separate parts. The first (1:1–6:7) is didactic, dealing with two categories of sacrifice: those of a “pleasing odor,” namely, the burnt (1:1-17), the grain (2:1-16), and the peace offerings (3:1-17); and the expiatory sacrifices, namely, the sin (4:1–5:13) and the guilt or trespass offerings (5:14–6:7). Attention is paid to the minute details of each ritual, and they are grouped according to their logical or conceptual associations.<\/p>\n<p>The grain (or cereal) offering follows the burnt offering because it always accompanied it in actual practice (Nm 15:1-21; chs 28–29); it also went with the peace offering (Lv 7:12-14; Nm 15:3-4). Special emphasis is placed on burning the inward parts of a sacrifice on the altar to make a “pleasing odor to the Lord” (Lv 1:9, 17; 2:2, 9, 12; 3:5, 11, 16). When the Lord smelled the pleasing odor (Gn 8:21), it was a sign of divine favor; refusal indicated God’s displeasure (Lv 26:31). The officiating priest evidently knew how to read the signs and would tell the offerer whether his sacrifice had been accepted (1 Sm 26:19; cf. Am 5:21-23).<\/p>\n<p>The sin and guilt offerings were expiatory (Lv 4:1–6:7, 20). The situations requiring such offerings are listed, and special emphasis is laid on the handling of the blood in the ritual.<\/p>\n<p>The second major section in this passage (Lv 6:8–7:38) stresses the administrative details for the various offerings. This section consists of a series of “instructions” for each type of offering pertaining to the distribution of the sacrificial materials. Some went to the priest(s), some went to the offerer, and others were burned on the altar or disposed of outside the camp. Those sacrifices designated as “most holy” were to be eaten only by qualified members of the priesthood (Lv 2:3, 10; 10:12-17; 14:13; Nm 18:9).<\/p>\n<p>The burnt offering is discussed first because it was entirely consumed on the altar (and thus not eaten by anyone). After it, there follow the sacrifices distributed to the officiants (Lv 6:17, 26, 29; 7:1, 6), and at the end come the peace offerings, a significant portion of which was returned to the offender.<\/p>\n<p>The order in which the sacrifices are treated in this passage also corresponds to their relative frequency in the rituals of the sacred calendar (Nm 28:19; 2 Chr 31:3; Ez 45:17). This would be particularly important for the priests and Levites on duty at the temple because they were responsible for the logistics of the daily sacrificial ritual, especially on the high holidays; management of the temple storehouse was a formidable task (1 Chr 23:28-32; 26:15, 20-22; 2 Chr 13:10-11; 30:3-19; 34:9-11).<\/p>\n<p>Each section concerning a particular offering concludes with the logistic or administrative details peculiar to it. There then follows a summary of the matters treated thus far (Lv 7:7-10), and the section concludes with a treatment of the peace offerings (vv 11-36). The latter did not play a role in the sacred calendar except during the Feast of Weeks (23:19-20); on all other occasions, with the two exceptions of the Nazirite vow and the installation of the priesthood, peace offerings were purely voluntary sacrifices and thus not subject to any fixed bookkeeping.<\/p>\n<p>In other biblical contexts, the sacrifices are listed according to the same “bookkeeping” or “administrative” order: burnt, grain, and drink; sin (or guilt); and sometimes peace offerings. An example is the roster of donations made by the tribal leaders for dedication of the altar (Nm 7). The information is organized like an everyday ledger from the temple storehouse; the summary classifies the animals as burnt, grain, sin, and peace offerings (vv 87-88) in accordance with the respective entries from each donor (vv 15-17). The Levitical scribe had two purposes for such a record: to credit the offerers and to record the treasures and food supplies coming in. Much of the foodstuffs being given as offerings was actually apportioned to the officiating priests (Nm 18:8-11; 2 Chr 31:4-19).<\/p>\n<p>When prescriptions were made as to the type and number of offerings to be brought (e.g., Nm 15:24), the “bookkeeping” order is generally followed. This was true of the calendarial sacrifices; burnt and grain offerings and libations were listed, followed by a sin offering for each of the following: New Moon (Nm 28:11-15), each day of Passover (vv 19-22), the Festival of Weeks (Lv 23:18-19; Nm 28:27-30), Trumpets (29:2-5), Day of Atonement (vv 8-11), and each day of the Feast of Tabernacles (vv 12-16).<\/p>\n<p>For sacrifices required in specific cases, the instructions as to what offerings to bring follow this sequence (e.g., the purification of a woman after giving birth, Lv 12:6-8). Note also the offerings given at the successful termination of a Nazirite vow; the Nazirite brought burnt, sin, and peace offerings (with some special grain offerings, Nm 6:14-15). However, the priest conducted the actual ritual according to a different order; the sin offering was made first, followed by the burnt offering and finally the peace offering (vv 16-17). In the case of an incomplete vow, the first step was to offer a sin offering and then a burnt offering to renew the vow (v 11). The reconsecration of the Nazirite required a separate guilt offering—a distinct ritual act (v 12).<\/p>\n<p>The description of the offerings made by the prince of Israel in the latter days presents the same contrast between the two orders of sacrifices. On festival holidays the prince brought burnt, grain, and drink offerings, but he offered them as sin, grain, burnt, and peace offerings (Ez 45:17). This second order of sacrifices in which the sin offering precedes the burnt offering was also followed in the rededication of the altar (43:18-27).<\/p>\n<p>The same “procedural” sequence of sacrifices appears in other instances: the purification of the leper—guilt and sin offerings (Lv 14:19), followed by a burnt offering (vv 12-20); the man with a discharge—sin and burnt offerings (15:15); likewise the woman with a discharge (v 30). The same order is followed for the sacrifices on the Day of Atonement (16:3-6, 11, 15, 24).<\/p>\n<p>The book of Leviticus furnishes two examples of the proper order in which sacrifices were offered. One is the ordination of Aaron and his sons. The sin offering came first and then the burnt offering (Ex 29:10-18; Lv 8:14-21). The focal point in this ritual was the sacrifice of ordination, or literally “installation,” a special form of peace offering (Ex 29:19-34; Lv 8:22-29). The second passage is the formal inauguration of the sacrificial system at the tabernacle (Lv 9). The sacrifices for Aaron were sin and burnt offerings, followed by those for the people: sin, burnt, grain, and peace offerings (9:7-22).<\/p>\n<p>The same sequence is followed at the cleansing and restoration of the temple in Jerusalem conducted by King Hezekiah (2 Chr 29:20-36). A great sin offering was first, followed by the burnt offerings accompanied by music and song. Then the king proclaimed that the people had committed themselves to the Lord; in this new state of purity they could now share in the sacrifices of devotion (burnt offerings) and thanksgiving (peace offerings).<\/p>\n<p>The procedural order of the sacrifices embodies the OT ideology of how God may be approached. First, atonement for sin had to be made and then total consecration of self; these are symbolized by the sin and\/or guilt offerings and the burnt and grain offerings, respectively. When these conditions were met, the offerer could express his continued devotion by more burnt offerings and also take part in the fellowship sacrifices (peace offerings) in which he himself got a large portion of the slaughtered animal (to share with his friends and the poor in his community; Dt 12:17-19).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"DescriptionofSacrifices\">Description of Sacrifices<\/p>\n<p>The ensuing description of the different types of sacrifice will treat them in accordance with the “procedural” order, that is, as symbolic stages in one’s approach to God.<\/p>\n<h5>Expiation<\/h5>\n<p>These two offerings were required for making atonement for sins and trespasses:<\/p>\n<p>1. Sin offering (Lv 4:1–5:13; 6:24-30). Different animals were specified in accordance with the rank of the offerer. A high priest had to bring a young bull (4:3), as did the congregation as a whole (v 14), except when the matter was a ritual infraction (Nm 15:24). A ruler would bring a male goat (Lv 4:23), but a commoner could provide a female goat (v 28; Nm 15:27) or a lamb (Lv 4:32). If he was indigent, he could offer two turtledoves or two young pigeons (one of which would be a burnt offering; 5:7), or if he was extremely poor, he might even substitute a tenth of an ephah of fine flour (Lv 5:11-13; cf. Heb 9:22).<\/p>\n\n<p>The offerer brought the animal to the entrance of the temple court and laid his hand on it (Lv 4:4). He did not confess his sin in this act because the animal was not being sent away (cf. the goat for Azazel, 16:21); rather, he was identifying himself with the sacrifice. The offerer had to kill the animal on the north side of the altar (4:24, 29). The animals were never slaughtered on the altar proper. The officiating priest collected the blood; when it was a bull for himself or for the congregation, he sprinkled some of the blood before the veil inside the tent of meeting and put some on the horns of the incense altar (vv 5-7, 16-18). On the Day of Atonement he brought the sacrificial blood for himself and for the people into the Holy of Holies (16:14-15). From all other animals, the blood was applied to the horns of the altar of burnt offering (4:25, 30, 34); the blood of fowl was sprinkled on the side of the altar (5:9). Finally, the remaining blood from any offering was poured or drained out at the base of the altar (4:7).<\/p>\n<p>The choicest of the internal organs, namely, the fatty tissue over and on the entrails, the two kidneys and their fat, and the appendage to the liver, were all offered to the Lord on the altar (Lv 4:8-10). The carcass and the other entrails were burned outside the camp when it was a bull for the priest or for the people. This was also true of the bull for the ordination of the priests (Ex 29:10-14; Lv 8:14-17). Otherwise, the priest who conducted the rites received the edible flesh as his portion. He had to eat it within the temple area, and its preparation was governed by strict rules of ritual purity (Lv 6:25-30; cf. 10:16-20). A sin offering of one male goat was presented at each of the sacred holidays: the New Moon (Nm 28:15), each day of Passover (vv 22-24), the Festival of Weeks (v 30), the Festival of Trumpets (29:5), the Day of Atonement (v 11), and each day of the Feast of Tabernacles (vv 16, 19). The high priest also offered a bull for himself and then sacrificed one of the two goats on the Day of Atonement. Certain purification rites required lesser sin offerings, namely, lambs or birds: childbirth (Lv 12:6-8), cleansing from leprosy (14:12-14, 19-22), and abscesses and hemorrhages (15:14-15, 29-30) or after defilement while under a vow (Nm 6:10-11).<\/p>\n<li>2. Guilt offering (Lv 5:14–6:7; 7:1-7). The guilt or trespass offering was a special kind of sin offering (cf. 5:7) required whenever someone had been denied his rightful due. Reparation of the valued amount that had been defrauded had to be made, plus a fine of one-fifth (5:16; 6:5). The animal was usually a ram (5:15, 18; 6:6). The cleansed leper and the defiled Nazirite had to bring a male lamb (Lv 14:12, 21; Nm 6:12). The offerer apparently handled the sacrifice as he would a sin offering, but the priest had to sprinkle the blood around the altar (Lv 7:2). Viscera were burned on the altar as usual (vv 3-5). Some of the blood was then applied to the tip of the cleansed leper’s right ear and to his right thumb and big toe (14:14). Again the priest received most of the animal’s flesh for food (7:6-7; 14:13). A guilt offering was required whenever another party had suffered some loss. Ritual infractions, such as eating the “holy things” without proper authorization (5:14-19; 22:14), called for payment of the sum that should have gone to the Lord plus the fine of one-fifth that went to the priest (Lv 5:16; 2 Kgs 12:16). The leper belongs in this category, since during the time of his infection he was unable to render service to God (Lv 14:12-18). The same applies to the Nazirite who had suffered defilement while he was set apart to God by the vow; thus a guilt offering was required (Nm 6:12). Violation of another person’s property rights could be expiated only by the guilt offering and its additional one-fifth. Such matters included cheating on deposits or security, robbery or oppression, failing to report the find of some lost property, or false swearing or failing to testify (Lv 6:1-5). Intercourse with a betrothed slave girl was also a violation of property rights (19:20-22). If the offended party was no longer living and had no surviving kinsmen, the payment went to the priest (Nm 5:5-10).<\/li>\n<h5>Consecration Offerings<\/h5>\n<p>These rituals usually come to mind when one hears the word “offering.” They represent acts of personal commitment that must accompany the repentance expressed in the sin and guilt offerings. They were also a prerequisite for the fellowship or communal sacrifices that might follow.<\/p>\n<p>1. Burnt offering (Lv 1:3-17; 6:8-13). The burnt offering could be a bull, a sheep, or a bird. The offerer presented the animal, laid his hand on it, and killed it on the north side of the altar. The bird was simply given to the priest. The latter collected the blood, presented it before God, and then sprinkled it around the altar. When the offering was a bird, he wrung off its head and drained the blood at the side of the altar. Though the slaughtering and sprinkling of the blood relates the burnt offering to the expiatory sacrifices of the previous section, the main emphasis here is on killing the animal, washing its unclean parts, and then carefully arranging all of the pieces on the altar. All of this was then consumed on the altar as a pleasing odor to the Lord. Since burnt offerings were offered morning and evening, a good supply of wood by the altar was necessary. The officiating priest, dressed in proper garments, had to keep the fire burning continuously (6:8-13).<\/p>\n<p>Burnt offerings played a prominent role in the sacrifices of the ritual calendar. The continual burnt offering was made twice a day, a male lamb morning and evening (Ex 29:38-42; Nm 28:1-8). Two additional lambs were sacrificed each Sabbath (Nm 28:9-10).<\/p>\n<p>Except for these daily offerings, a sin offering of one goat was usually made along with the burnt offerings on the following holidays: For the New Moon at the beginning of each month, two young bulls, one ram, and seven male lambs were offered (Nm 28:11-14). The same were required for each day of the Passover festival (vv 19-24) and again on the Feast of Weeks (vv 6-29). On the Festival of Trumpets and the Day of Atonement, the requirement was one bull, one ram, and seven lambs (29:2-4).<\/p>\n<p>The great Feast of Tabernacles was characterized by a series of elaborate burnt offerings, plus one goat per day as a sin offering. On the first day, 13 young bulls, 2 rams, and 14 male lambs were offered (Nm 29:12-16). Each successive day, the number of bulls was decreased by one until on the seventh day there were only seven (the rams and lambs remained the same; 29:17-25). On the eighth day the animals required for Trumpets and Atonement were offered, namely, one bull, one ram, and seven lambs.<\/p>\n<p>Certain rituals of purification also required burnt offerings in addition to sin offerings: after childbirth (Lv 12:6-8), abscesses (15:14-15), and discharges (vv 29-30); or after defilement while under a Nazirite vow (Nm 6:10-11). Though it is not stated that grain offerings were required in these cases, they certainly were for the cleansing from leprosy (Lv 14:10, 19-22, 31) and the completion of the Nazirite vow (Nm 6:14-16).<\/p>\n<li>2. Grain (Cereal) offering (Lv 2; 6:14-23). The Hebrew term referring to this particular offering means “gift,” or “offering,” including animals (Gn 4:3-5; Jgs 6:18; 1 Sm 2:17). But in the specific sacrificial context it signifies a combination of fine flour, olive oil, and frankincense that could be made up in the form of baked loaves, wafers, or morsels. The offering of firstfruits was to be crushed heads of new grain (Lv 2:14). No leaven or honey was permitted on the cakes, although those same commodities could be accepted as a firstfruit offering. They would not go to the altar but were given to the priest. The offerer had to bring the prepared loaves or wafers to the temple. The priest would burn one handful on the altar as its “memorial portion” (v 2), keeping the remainder for his own food (6:16; 7:9). But when the priest was making a grain offering on his own behalf, he burnt it all on the altar (6:22-23).<\/li>\n<p>A grain offering was usually given with every burnt offering, especially those pertaining to the sacred calendar (Nm 28–29). The amounts of flour and oil were set according to the animal being sacrificed: three-tenths of an ephah of flour and one-half a hin of oil for a bull, two-tenths ephah and one-third hin for a ram, and one-tenth ephah plus one-fourth hin for a lamb (15:2-10). Other happy occasions for a grain offering included the cleansing of a leper (Lv 14:10, 20-21, 31; unspecified quantity of grain with a bird) and the successful consummation of a Nazirite vow (Nm 6:13-15).<\/p>\n<p>Peace offerings were invariably followed by grain offerings (Lv 7:12-14; Nm 15:4). The priest received one of each pair of cakes or wafers. The remainder was returned to the offerer to be eaten with the flesh of the sacrificial animal at a place of his choice.<\/p>\n<p>A special case where such offering was used was the one-tenth of an ephah of barley meal required in the jealousy ritual. It was to have no oil or frankincense (Nm 5:15, 18, 25-26). A very poor individual was permitted to bring one-tenth of an ephah of fine flour without oil or frankincense as a sin offering (Lv 5:11-13).<\/p>\n<li>3. Drink offering (Nm 15:1-10). The standard libation was one-fourth of a hin of wine for a lamb, one-third for a ram, and one-half for a bull. The wine (Ex 29:40), also called “strong drink” (Nm 28:7), is probably an intentional substitute for the blood used by other nations (Ps 16:4). The libation was classed as a “pleasing odor” offering (Nm 15:7). As with the burnt offering, the entire drink offering was expended; nothing was given to the priest (28:7).<\/li>\n<p>Drink offerings accompanied the daily offering (Ex 29:40-41; Nm 28:7) and the Sabbath offering (Nm 28:9), as well as the New Moon festival. Reference is also made to them in connection with the second and following days of the Feast of Tabernacles (29:18, 21); for the first day their absence is probably unintentional. The same might hold true for the Passover, Firstfruits, and Feast of Trumpets (Nm 28:16–29:11; cf. Ez 45:11). A libation was required for the rites concluding a Nazirite vow (Nm 6:17) but not for cleansing a leper (Lv 14:10-20).<\/p>\n<h5>Fellowship Offerings<\/h5>\n<p>These sacrifices were voluntary on the part of the offerer and generally not imposed by regulations except for the Nazirite (Nm 6:17) and the Feast of Weeks (Lv 23:19-20). An offerer who had already fulfilled the ritual requirements for atonement and personal consecration was permitted to make a fellowship offering. Burnt offerings often accompanied the fellowship sacrifices as a further expression of devotion.<\/p>\n<p>1. Peace offering (Lv 3; 7:11-36; Am 5:22). This is the basic class of all fellowship or communal offerings; the others are simply subclasses of the peace offering. In terms of holiness, or restrictedness, they were not so rigidly confined as the other offerings. Animals from the herd or flock, male or female (Lv 3:1, 6, 12), were permitted. The usual stipulation of freedom from blemish was in force, except in the case of the freewill offering, in which the animal could have one limb longer than the other (22:23). Unleavened cakes were also required, at least for the thank (7:12-13) and Nazirite (Nm 6:15-19) offerings. Each of these three types of peace offerings will be discussed below, with their special features.<\/p>\n<p>The first parts of the ritual—the presentation and laying on of the hand—were identical to those of the other sacrifices. However, the animal was slaughtered at the door of the sanctuary courtyard and not on the north side of the altar (Lv 3:1-2, 7-8, 12-13; 7:29-30). The priest collected the blood and tossed it against the altar as he did with the burnt offering (3:2, 8, 13). The choice viscera were offered up as a “pleasing odor” (3:3-5, 6-11, 14-16).<\/p>\n<p>The priest also received a certain portion of the offering. He was allowed to eat it in any ritually clean place and to share it with his family (Lv 7:14, 30-36; Nm 6:20), in contrast to his portion of other sacrifices, which he had to eat somewhere in the temple compound (Nm 18:10-11). He received one of the cakes and the breast as a wave offering and the right thigh as a contribution for the offerer. This latter is the so-called “heave offering”; the technical term developed from a root signifying “to be high” and meaning “that which is lifted up.” The heave offering did not really represent a special kind of ritual ceremony.<\/p>\n<p>The ritual act of the peace offering culminated with a fellowship meal. Except for those parts on the altar or given to the priest, the body of the animal was returned to the man who offered it. He had to prepare it as a communal meal for himself, for his family, and for the Levite in his community (Dt 12:12, 18-19). This would have to be at the official sanctuary (Dt 12:6-7, 11-12, 15-19; cf. 1 Sm 1:3-4) and the participants had to observe strict rules of purity (Lv 7:19-21; 19:5-8). It may be contrasted with the ritual slaughtering of animals for a banquet that was permitted at any local altar (Dt 12:16, 20-22). The flesh of the thank offering had to be eaten on the same day of the sacrifice (Lv 7:15), while that of the votive or freewill offerings could be finished off on the following day (vv 16-18). Whatever remained then had to be burned before the time limit expired.<\/p>\n<p>Only three times is there a specific demand for a peace offering: in the Feast of Weeks (Lv 23:19-20), upon completion of a Nazirite vow (Nm 6:17-20), and at the installation of the priesthood (Ex 29:19-22, 28). Other public ritual occasions included the inauguration of the temple (1 Kgs 8:63; 2 Chr 7:5). Events on a national level that evoked the peace offering were the successful conclusion of a military campaign (1 Sm 11:15), the end of a famine or pestilence (2 Sm 24:25), confirmation of a candidate to the throne (1 Kgs 1:9, 19), or a time of religious revival (2 Chr 29:31-36). On the local level, they were offered at the annual family reunion (1 Sm 20:6) or other festive occasions, such as the harvest of the firstfruits (Ex 22:29-31; 1 Sm 9:11-14, 22-24; 16:4-5).<\/p>\n<li>2. Wave offering. The first portion of the peace offering was “waved” before the Lord to signify that the priest was eating it as a representative of God (the actual motion evidently resembled the wielding of a saw or a staff, Is 10:15). The same technical term, “wave offering,” was also used for other kinds of offering: precious metals donated for making the cultic artifacts (Ex 35:22; 38:29) and the guilt offering of the cleansed leper (Lv 14:12).<\/li>\n<li>3. Freewill offering. These gifts, brought to the holy convocations that took place three times per year (Ex 23:16; 34:20; Dt 16:10, 16-17; 2 Chr 35:8; Ezr 3:5), were voluntary (Lv 7:16; 22:18, 21-23; 23:28; Nm 15:3; 29:39; Dt 12:6, 17). Like the voluntary offering, the freewill offering could be a burnt rather than a peace offering (Lv 22:17-24; Ez 46:12). If it was the latter, the flesh could be eaten on the second day but must be burned before the third (Lv 7:16-17). Unlike some other peace offerings, the animal being sacrificed could have one limb longer than the other (22:23).<\/li>\n<li>4. Installation offering. This Hebrew term refers to the settings of precious stones (Ex 25:7; 35:9, 27; 1 Chr 29:2), so “installation” seems an appropriate translation. It had to do with “filling the hand,” a ritual act that consecrated someone to divine service (Ex 28:41; cf. 32:29) and required ritual purity and spiritual devotion (2 Chr 29:31). The details of the original ceremony at the installation of the first priest is described in two passages (Ex 29:19-34; Lv 8:22-32).<\/li>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Atonement; Cleanness and Uncleanness, Regulations Concerning; Feasts and Festivals of Israel; Tabernacle; Temple.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>OFFERINGS AND SACRIFICES<\/h3>\n<p>Major ritual expressions of religious life with accompanying rites, such as libations, effusions, and sacred meals. The ideology expressed in Israel’s ritual complex made its religion unique in the ancient Near East. The concepts of OT ritual also underlie NT theology with regard to sin and reconciliation to God through the atoning death of Jesus Christ.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PerformanceandOrderofSacrifices\">Performance and Order of Sacrifices<\/p>\n<p>The main source for a description of the correct performance of sacrificial ritual is the opening section of Leviticus (Lv 1–7). It consists of two separate parts. The first (1:1–6:7) is didactic, dealing with two categories of sacrifice: those of a “pleasing odor,” namely, the burnt (1:1-17), the grain (2:1-16), and the peace offerings (3:1-17); and the expiatory sacrifices, namely, the sin (4:1–5:13) and the guilt or trespass offerings (5:14–6:7). Attention is paid to the minute details of each ritual, and they are grouped according to their logical or conceptual associations.<\/p>\n<p>The grain (or cereal) offering follows the burnt offering because it always accompanied it in actual practice (Nm 15:1-21; chs 28–29); it also went with the peace offering (Lv 7:12-14; Nm 15:3-4). Special emphasis is placed on burning the inward parts of a sacrifice on the altar to make a “pleasing odor to the Lord” (Lv 1:9, 17; 2:2, 9, 12; 3:5, 11, 16). When the Lord smelled the pleasing odor (Gn 8:21), it was a sign of divine favor; refusal indicated God’s displeasure (Lv 26:31). The officiating priest evidently knew how to read the signs and would tell the offerer whether his sacrifice had been accepted (1 Sm 26:19; cf. Am 5:21-23).<\/p>\n<p>The sin and guilt offerings were expiatory (Lv 4:1–6:7, 20). The situations requiring such offerings are listed, and special emphasis is laid on the handling of the blood in the ritual.<\/p>\n<p>The second major section in this passage (Lv 6:8–7:38) stresses the administrative details for the various offerings. This section consists of a series of “instructions” for each type of offering pertaining to the distribution of the sacrificial materials. Some went to the priest(s), some went to the offerer, and others were burned on the altar or disposed of outside the camp. Those sacrifices designated as “most holy” were to be eaten only by qualified members of the priesthood (Lv 2:3, 10; 10:12-17; 14:13; Nm 18:9).<\/p>\n<p>The burnt offering is discussed first because it was entirely consumed on the altar (and thus not eaten by anyone). After it, there follow the sacrifices distributed to the officiants (Lv 6:17, 26, 29; 7:1, 6), and at the end come the peace offerings, a significant portion of which was returned to the offender.<\/p>\n<p>The order in which the sacrifices are treated in this passage also corresponds to their relative frequency in the rituals of the sacred calendar (Nm 28:19; 2 Chr 31:3; Ez 45:17). This would be particularly important for the priests and Levites on duty at the temple because they were responsible for the logistics of the daily sacrificial ritual, especially on the high holidays; management of the temple storehouse was a formidable task (1 Chr 23:28-32; 26:15, 20-22; 2 Chr 13:10-11; 30:3-19; 34:9-11).<\/p>\n<p>Each section concerning a particular offering concludes with the logistic or administrative details peculiar to it. There then follows a summary of the matters treated thus far (Lv 7:7-10), and the section concludes with a treatment of the peace offerings (vv 11-36). The latter did not play a role in the sacred calendar except during the Feast of Weeks (23:19-20); on all other occasions, with the two exceptions of the Nazirite vow and the installation of the priesthood, peace offerings were purely voluntary sacrifices and thus not subject to any fixed bookkeeping.<\/p>\n<p>In other biblical contexts, the sacrifices are listed according to the same “bookkeeping” or “administrative” order: burnt, grain, and drink; sin (or guilt); and sometimes peace offerings. An example is the roster of donations made by the tribal leaders for dedication of the altar (Nm 7). The information is organized like an everyday ledger from the temple storehouse; the summary classifies the animals as burnt, grain, sin, and peace offerings (vv 87-88) in accordance with the respective entries from each donor (vv 15-17). The Levitical scribe had two purposes for such a record: to credit the offerers and to record the treasures and food supplies coming in. Much of the foodstuffs being given as offerings was actually apportioned to the officiating priests (Nm 18:8-11; 2 Chr 31:4-19).<\/p>\n<p>When prescriptions were made as to the type and number of offerings to be brought (e.g., Nm 15:24), the “bookkeeping” order is generally followed. This was true of the calendarial sacrifices; burnt and grain offerings and libations were listed, followed by a sin offering for each of the following: New Moon (Nm 28:11-15), each day of Passover (vv 19-22), the Festival of Weeks (Lv 23:18-19; Nm 28:27-30), Trumpets (29:2-5), Day of Atonement (vv 8-11), and each day of the Feast of Tabernacles (vv 12-16).<\/p>\n<p>For sacrifices required in specific cases, the instructions as to what offerings to bring follow this sequence (e.g., the purification of a woman after giving birth, Lv 12:6-8). Note also the offerings given at the successful termination of a Nazirite vow; the Nazirite brought burnt, sin, and peace offerings (with some special grain offerings, Nm 6:14-15). However, the priest conducted the actual ritual according to a different order; the sin offering was made first, followed by the burnt offering and finally the peace offering (vv 16-17). In the case of an incomplete vow, the first step was to offer a sin offering and then a burnt offering to renew the vow (v 11). The reconsecration of the Nazirite required a separate guilt offering—a distinct ritual act (v 12).<\/p>\n<p>The description of the offerings made by the prince of Israel in the latter days presents the same contrast between the two orders of sacrifices. On festival holidays the prince brought burnt, grain, and drink offerings, but he offered them as sin, grain, burnt, and peace offerings (Ez 45:17). This second order of sacrifices in which the sin offering precedes the burnt offering was also followed in the rededication of the altar (43:18-27).<\/p>\n<p>The same “procedural” sequence of sacrifices appears in other instances: the purification of the leper—guilt and sin offerings (Lv 14:19), followed by a burnt offering (vv 12-20); the man with a discharge—sin and burnt offerings (15:15); likewise the woman with a discharge (v 30). The same order is followed for the sacrifices on the Day of Atonement (16:3-6, 11, 15, 24).<\/p>\n<p>The book of Leviticus furnishes two examples of the proper order in which sacrifices were offered. One is the ordination of Aaron and his sons. The sin offering came first and then the burnt offering (Ex 29:10-18; Lv 8:14-21). The focal point in this ritual was the sacrifice of ordination, or literally “installation,” a special form of peace offering (Ex 29:19-34; Lv 8:22-29). The second passage is the formal inauguration of the sacrificial system at the tabernacle (Lv 9). The sacrifices for Aaron were sin and burnt offerings, followed by those for the people: sin, burnt, grain, and peace offerings (9:7-22).<\/p>\n<p>The same sequence is followed at the cleansing and restoration of the temple in Jerusalem conducted by King Hezekiah (2 Chr 29:20-36). A great sin offering was first, followed by the burnt offerings accompanied by music and song. Then the king proclaimed that the people had committed themselves to the Lord; in this new state of purity they could now share in the sacrifices of devotion (burnt offerings) and thanksgiving (peace offerings).<\/p>\n<p>The procedural order of the sacrifices embodies the OT ideology of how God may be approached. First, atonement for sin had to be made and then total consecration of self; these are symbolized by the sin and\/or guilt offerings and the burnt and grain offerings, respectively. When these conditions were met, the offerer could express his continued devotion by more burnt offerings and also take part in the fellowship sacrifices (peace offerings) in which he himself got a large portion of the slaughtered animal (to share with his friends and the poor in his community; Dt 12:17-19).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"DescriptionofSacrifices\">Description of Sacrifices<\/p>\n<p>The ensuing description of the different types of sacrifice will treat them in accordance with the “procedural” order, that is, as symbolic stages in one’s approach to God.<\/p>\n<h5>Expiation<\/h5>\n<p>These two offerings were required for making atonement for sins and trespasses:<\/p>\n<p>1. Sin offering (Lv 4:1–5:13; 6:24-30). Different animals were specified in accordance with the rank of the offerer. A high priest had to bring a young bull (4:3), as did the congregation as a whole (v 14), except when the matter was a ritual infraction (Nm 15:24). A ruler would bring a male goat (Lv 4:23), but a commoner could provide a female goat (v 28; Nm 15:27) or a lamb (Lv 4:32). If he was indigent, he could offer two turtledoves or two young pigeons (one of which would be a burnt offering; 5:7), or if he was extremely poor, he might even substitute a tenth of an ephah of fine flour (Lv 5:11-13; cf. Heb 9:22).<\/p>\n\n<p>The offerer brought the animal to the entrance of the temple court and laid his hand on it (Lv 4:4). He did not confess his sin in this act because the animal was not being sent away (cf. the goat for Azazel, 16:21); rather, he was identifying himself with the sacrifice. The offerer had to kill the animal on the north side of the altar (4:24, 29). The animals were never slaughtered on the altar proper. The officiating priest collected the blood; when it was a bull for himself or for the congregation, he sprinkled some of the blood before the veil inside the tent of meeting and put some on the horns of the incense altar (vv 5-7, 16-18). On the Day of Atonement he brought the sacrificial blood for himself and for the people into the Holy of Holies (16:14-15). From all other animals, the blood was applied to the horns of the altar of burnt offering (4:25, 30, 34); the blood of fowl was sprinkled on the side of the altar (5:9). Finally, the remaining blood from any offering was poured or drained out at the base of the altar (4:7).<\/p>\n<p>The choicest of the internal organs, namely, the fatty tissue over and on the entrails, the two kidneys and their fat, and the appendage to the liver, were all offered to the Lord on the altar (Lv 4:8-10). The carcass and the other entrails were burned outside the camp when it was a bull for the priest or for the people. This was also true of the bull for the ordination of the priests (Ex 29:10-14; Lv 8:14-17). Otherwise, the priest who conducted the rites received the edible flesh as his portion. He had to eat it within the temple area, and its preparation was governed by strict rules of ritual purity (Lv 6:25-30; cf. 10:16-20). A sin offering of one male goat was presented at each of the sacred holidays: the New Moon (Nm 28:15), each day of Passover (vv 22-24), the Festival of Weeks (v 30), the Festival of Trumpets (29:5), the Day of Atonement (v 11), and each day of the Feast of Tabernacles (vv 16, 19). The high priest also offered a bull for himself and then sacrificed one of the two goats on the Day of Atonement. Certain purification rites required lesser sin offerings, namely, lambs or birds: childbirth (Lv 12:6-8), cleansing from leprosy (14:12-14, 19-22), and abscesses and hemorrhages (15:14-15, 29-30) or after defilement while under a vow (Nm 6:10-11).<\/p>\n<li>2. Guilt offering (Lv 5:14–6:7; 7:1-7). The guilt or trespass offering was a special kind of sin offering (cf. 5:7) required whenever someone had been denied his rightful due. Reparation of the valued amount that had been defrauded had to be made, plus a fine of one-fifth (5:16; 6:5). The animal was usually a ram (5:15, 18; 6:6). The cleansed leper and the defiled Nazirite had to bring a male lamb (Lv 14:12, 21; Nm 6:12). The offerer apparently handled the sacrifice as he would a sin offering, but the priest had to sprinkle the blood around the altar (Lv 7:2). Viscera were burned on the altar as usual (vv 3-5). Some of the blood was then applied to the tip of the cleansed leper’s right ear and to his right thumb and big toe (14:14). Again the priest received most of the animal’s flesh for food (7:6-7; 14:13). A guilt offering was required whenever another party had suffered some loss. Ritual infractions, such as eating the “holy things” without proper authorization (5:14-19; 22:14), called for payment of the sum that should have gone to the Lord plus the fine of one-fifth that went to the priest (Lv 5:16; 2 Kgs 12:16). The leper belongs in this category, since during the time of his infection he was unable to render service to God (Lv 14:12-18). The same applies to the Nazirite who had suffered defilement while he was set apart to God by the vow; thus a guilt offering was required (Nm 6:12). Violation of another person’s property rights could be expiated only by the guilt offering and its additional one-fifth. Such matters included cheating on deposits or security, robbery or oppression, failing to report the find of some lost property, or false swearing or failing to testify (Lv 6:1-5). Intercourse with a betrothed slave girl was also a violation of property rights (19:20-22). If the offended party was no longer living and had no surviving kinsmen, the payment went to the priest (Nm 5:5-10).<\/li>\n<h5>Consecration Offerings<\/h5>\n<p>These rituals usually come to mind when one hears the word “offering.” They represent acts of personal commitment that must accompany the repentance expressed in the sin and guilt offerings. They were also a prerequisite for the fellowship or communal sacrifices that might follow.<\/p>\n<p>1. Burnt offering (Lv 1:3-17; 6:8-13). The burnt offering could be a bull, a sheep, or a bird. The offerer presented the animal, laid his hand on it, and killed it on the north side of the altar. The bird was simply given to the priest. The latter collected the blood, presented it before God, and then sprinkled it around the altar. When the offering was a bird, he wrung off its head and drained the blood at the side of the altar. Though the slaughtering and sprinkling of the blood relates the burnt offering to the expiatory sacrifices of the previous section, the main emphasis here is on killing the animal, washing its unclean parts, and then carefully arranging all of the pieces on the altar. All of this was then consumed on the altar as a pleasing odor to the Lord. Since burnt offerings were offered morning and evening, a good supply of wood by the altar was necessary. The officiating priest, dressed in proper garments, had to keep the fire burning continuously (6:8-13).<\/p>\n<p>Burnt offerings played a prominent role in the sacrifices of the ritual calendar. The continual burnt offering was made twice a day, a male lamb morning and evening (Ex 29:38-42; Nm 28:1-8). Two additional lambs were sacrificed each Sabbath (Nm 28:9-10).<\/p>\n<p>Except for these daily offerings, a sin offering of one goat was usually made along with the burnt offerings on the following holidays: For the New Moon at the beginning of each month, two young bulls, one ram, and seven male lambs were offered (Nm 28:11-14). The same were required for each day of the Passover festival (vv 19-24) and again on the Feast of Weeks (vv 6-29). On the Festival of Trumpets and the Day of Atonement, the requirement was one bull, one ram, and seven lambs (29:2-4).<\/p>\n<p>The great Feast of Tabernacles was characterized by a series of elaborate burnt offerings, plus one goat per day as a sin offering. On the first day, 13 young bulls, 2 rams, and 14 male lambs were offered (Nm 29:12-16). Each successive day, the number of bulls was decreased by one until on the seventh day there were only seven (the rams and lambs remained the same; 29:17-25). On the eighth day the animals required for Trumpets and Atonement were offered, namely, one bull, one ram, and seven lambs.<\/p>\n<p>Certain rituals of purification also required burnt offerings in addition to sin offerings: after childbirth (Lv 12:6-8), abscesses (15:14-15), and discharges (vv 29-30); or after defilement while under a Nazirite vow (Nm 6:10-11). Though it is not stated that grain offerings were required in these cases, they certainly were for the cleansing from leprosy (Lv 14:10, 19-22, 31) and the completion of the Nazirite vow (Nm 6:14-16).<\/p>\n<li>2. Grain (Cereal) offering (Lv 2; 6:14-23). The Hebrew term referring to this particular offering means “gift,” or “offering,” including animals (Gn 4:3-5; Jgs 6:18; 1 Sm 2:17). But in the specific sacrificial context it signifies a combination of fine flour, olive oil, and frankincense that could be made up in the form of baked loaves, wafers, or morsels. The offering of firstfruits was to be crushed heads of new grain (Lv 2:14). No leaven or honey was permitted on the cakes, although those same commodities could be accepted as a firstfruit offering. They would not go to the altar but were given to the priest. The offerer had to bring the prepared loaves or wafers to the temple. The priest would burn one handful on the altar as its “memorial portion” (v 2), keeping the remainder for his own food (6:16; 7:9). But when the priest was making a grain offering on his own behalf, he burnt it all on the altar (6:22-23).<\/li>\n<p>A grain offering was usually given with every burnt offering, especially those pertaining to the sacred calendar (Nm 28–29). The amounts of flour and oil were set according to the animal being sacrificed: three-tenths of an ephah of flour and one-half a hin of oil for a bull, two-tenths ephah and one-third hin for a ram, and one-tenth ephah plus one-fourth hin for a lamb (15:2-10). Other happy occasions for a grain offering included the cleansing of a leper (Lv 14:10, 20-21, 31; unspecified quantity of grain with a bird) and the successful consummation of a Nazirite vow (Nm 6:13-15).<\/p>\n<p>Peace offerings were invariably followed by grain offerings (Lv 7:12-14; Nm 15:4). The priest received one of each pair of cakes or wafers. The remainder was returned to the offerer to be eaten with the flesh of the sacrificial animal at a place of his choice.<\/p>\n<p>A special case where such offering was used was the one-tenth of an ephah of barley meal required in the jealousy ritual. It was to have no oil or frankincense (Nm 5:15, 18, 25-26). A very poor individual was permitted to bring one-tenth of an ephah of fine flour without oil or frankincense as a sin offering (Lv 5:11-13).<\/p>\n<li>3. Drink offering (Nm 15:1-10). The standard libation was one-fourth of a hin of wine for a lamb, one-third for a ram, and one-half for a bull. The wine (Ex 29:40), also called “strong drink” (Nm 28:7), is probably an intentional substitute for the blood used by other nations (Ps 16:4). The libation was classed as a “pleasing odor” offering (Nm 15:7). As with the burnt offering, the entire drink offering was expended; nothing was given to the priest (28:7).<\/li>\n<p>Drink offerings accompanied the daily offering (Ex 29:40-41; Nm 28:7) and the Sabbath offering (Nm 28:9), as well as the New Moon festival. Reference is also made to them in connection with the second and following days of the Feast of Tabernacles (29:18, 21); for the first day their absence is probably unintentional. The same might hold true for the Passover, Firstfruits, and Feast of Trumpets (Nm 28:16–29:11; cf. Ez 45:11). A libation was required for the rites concluding a Nazirite vow (Nm 6:17) but not for cleansing a leper (Lv 14:10-20).<\/p>\n<h5>Fellowship Offerings<\/h5>\n<p>These sacrifices were voluntary on the part of the offerer and generally not imposed by regulations except for the Nazirite (Nm 6:17) and the Feast of Weeks (Lv 23:19-20). An offerer who had already fulfilled the ritual requirements for atonement and personal consecration was permitted to make a fellowship offering. Burnt offerings often accompanied the fellowship sacrifices as a further expression of devotion.<\/p>\n<p>1. Peace offering (Lv 3; 7:11-36; Am 5:22). This is the basic class of all fellowship or communal offerings; the others are simply subclasses of the peace offering. In terms of holiness, or restrictedness, they were not so rigidly confined as the other offerings. Animals from the herd or flock, male or female (Lv 3:1, 6, 12), were permitted. The usual stipulation of freedom from blemish was in force, except in the case of the freewill offering, in which the animal could have one limb longer than the other (22:23). Unleavened cakes were also required, at least for the thank (7:12-13) and Nazirite (Nm 6:15-19) offerings. Each of these three types of peace offerings will be discussed below, with their special features.<\/p>\n<p>The first parts of the ritual—the presentation and laying on of the hand—were identical to those of the other sacrifices. However, the animal was slaughtered at the door of the sanctuary courtyard and not on the north side of the altar (Lv 3:1-2, 7-8, 12-13; 7:29-30). The priest collected the blood and tossed it against the altar as he did with the burnt offering (3:2, 8, 13). The choice viscera were offered up as a “pleasing odor” (3:3-5, 6-11, 14-16).<\/p>\n<p>The priest also received a certain portion of the offering. He was allowed to eat it in any ritually clean place and to share it with his family (Lv 7:14, 30-36; Nm 6:20), in contrast to his portion of other sacrifices, which he had to eat somewhere in the temple compound (Nm 18:10-11). He received one of the cakes and the breast as a wave offering and the right thigh as a contribution for the offerer. This latter is the so-called “heave offering”; the technical term developed from a root signifying “to be high” and meaning “that which is lifted up.” The heave offering did not really represent a special kind of ritual ceremony.<\/p>\n<p>The ritual act of the peace offering culminated with a fellowship meal. Except for those parts on the altar or given to the priest, the body of the animal was returned to the man who offered it. He had to prepare it as a communal meal for himself, for his family, and for the Levite in his community (Dt 12:12, 18-19). This would have to be at the official sanctuary (Dt 12:6-7, 11-12, 15-19; cf. 1 Sm 1:3-4) and the participants had to observe strict rules of purity (Lv 7:19-21; 19:5-8). It may be contrasted with the ritual slaughtering of animals for a banquet that was permitted at any local altar (Dt 12:16, 20-22). The flesh of the thank offering had to be eaten on the same day of the sacrifice (Lv 7:15), while that of the votive or freewill offerings could be finished off on the following day (vv 16-18). Whatever remained then had to be burned before the time limit expired.<\/p>\n<p>Only three times is there a specific demand for a peace offering: in the Feast of Weeks (Lv 23:19-20), upon completion of a Nazirite vow (Nm 6:17-20), and at the installation of the priesthood (Ex 29:19-22, 28). Other public ritual occasions included the inauguration of the temple (1 Kgs 8:63; 2 Chr 7:5). Events on a national level that evoked the peace offering were the successful conclusion of a military campaign (1 Sm 11:15), the end of a famine or pestilence (2 Sm 24:25), confirmation of a candidate to the throne (1 Kgs 1:9, 19), or a time of religious revival (2 Chr 29:31-36). On the local level, they were offered at the annual family reunion (1 Sm 20:6) or other festive occasions, such as the harvest of the firstfruits (Ex 22:29-31; 1 Sm 9:11-14, 22-24; 16:4-5).<\/p>\n<li>2. Wave offering. The first portion of the peace offering was “waved” before the Lord to signify that the priest was eating it as a representative of God (the actual motion evidently resembled the wielding of a saw or a staff, Is 10:15). The same technical term, “wave offering,” was also used for other kinds of offering: precious metals donated for making the cultic artifacts (Ex 35:22; 38:29) and the guilt offering of the cleansed leper (Lv 14:12).<\/li>\n<li>3. Freewill offering. These gifts, brought to the holy convocations that took place three times per year (Ex 23:16; 34:20; Dt 16:10, 16-17; 2 Chr 35:8; Ezr 3:5), were voluntary (Lv 7:16; 22:18, 21-23; 23:28; Nm 15:3; 29:39; Dt 12:6, 17). Like the voluntary offering, the freewill offering could be a burnt rather than a peace offering (Lv 22:17-24; Ez 46:12). If it was the latter, the flesh could be eaten on the second day but must be burned before the third (Lv 7:16-17). Unlike some other peace offerings, the animal being sacrificed could have one limb longer than the other (22:23).<\/li>\n<li>4. Installation offering. This Hebrew term refers to the settings of precious stones (Ex 25:7; 35:9, 27; 1 Chr 29:2), so “installation” seems an appropriate translation. It had to do with “filling the hand,” a ritual act that consecrated someone to divine service (Ex 28:41; cf. 32:29) and required ritual purity and spiritual devotion (2 Chr 29:31). The details of the original ceremony at the installation of the first priest is described in two passages (Ex 29:19-34; Lv 8:22-32).<\/li>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Atonement; Cleanness and Uncleanness, Regulations Concerning; Feasts and Festivals of Israel; Tabernacle; Temple.<\/p>","summary_ro":"OFFERINGS AND SACRIFICES Major ritual expressions of religious life with accompanying rites, such as libations, effusions, and sacred meals. The ideology expressed in Israel’s ritual complex made its religion unique in the ancient Near East. The concepts of OT ritual also underlie NT theology with regard to sin and reconciliation to God through the atoning death of Jesus Christ. Performance and Order of Sacrifices The main source for a description of the correct performance of sacrificial rit...","summary_en":"OFFERINGS AND SACRIFICES Major ritual expressions of religious life with accompanying rites, such as libations, effusions, and sacred meals. The ideology expressed in Israel’s ritual complex made its religion unique in the ancient Near East. The concepts of OT ritual also underlie NT theology with regard to sin and reconciliation to God through the atoning death of Jesus Christ. Performance and Order of Sacrifices The main source for a description of the correct performance of sacrificial rit...","source":"Articles\/O.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":44077,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Leviticul 3:1","title_en":"Study Note: Leviticul 3:1","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:1-17<\/strong> The <em>peace offering<\/em> (Hebrew <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">shelem<\/span>) expressed worship through fellowship with the Lord and with others. The Hebrew word is from the same root as <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">shalom<\/span><em>,<\/em> which speaks of wholeness, well-being, harmony, and peace. <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">Shalom<\/span> means more than a cessation of hostilities between God and the worshiper; it implies a bond of harmonious fellowship. The peace offering was therefore a shared meal celebrating fellowship with God and others (cp. Exod 18:12; 24:9-11; 1 Sam 9:15-24). It could be presented as an expression of thanks (Lev 7:12-15), as a voluntary offering, or in fulfillment of a vow (7:16-18; 22:21). Peace offerings often followed whole burnt offerings (e.g., 1 Kgs 9:25), showing that fellowship with God follows atonement. When we have experienced atonement through Christ, we are able to be at peace with God and with each other (see Acts 2:42; 10:36; Rom 5:1; 1 Cor 10:16; 11:17-34; 2 Cor 5:18-21).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:1-17<\/strong> The <em>peace offering<\/em> (Hebrew <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">shelem<\/span>) expressed worship through fellowship with the Lord and with others. The Hebrew word is from the same root as <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">shalom<\/span><em>,<\/em> which speaks of wholeness, well-being, harmony, and peace. <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">Shalom<\/span> means more than a cessation of hostilities between God and the worshiper; it implies a bond of harmonious fellowship. The peace offering was therefore a shared meal celebrating fellowship with God and others (cp. Exod 18:12; 24:9-11; 1 Sam 9:15-24). It could be presented as an expression of thanks (Lev 7:12-15), as a voluntary offering, or in fulfillment of a vow (7:16-18; 22:21). Peace offerings often followed whole burnt offerings (e.g., 1 Kgs 9:25), showing that fellowship with God follows atonement. When we have experienced atonement through Christ, we are able to be at peace with God and with each other (see Acts 2:42; 10:36; Rom 5:1; 1 Cor 10:16; 11:17-34; 2 Cor 5:18-21).<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:1-17 The peace offering (Hebrew shelem) expressed worship through fellowship with the Lord and with others. The Hebrew word is from the same root as shalom, which speaks of wholeness, well-being, harmony, and peace. Shalom means more than a cessation of hostilities between God and the worshiper; it implies a bond of harmonious fellowship. The peace offering was therefore a shared meal celebrating fellowship with God and others (cp. Exod 18:12; 24:9-11; 1 Sam 9:15-24). It could be presented ...","summary_en":"3:1-17 The peace offering (Hebrew shelem) expressed worship through fellowship with the Lord and with others. The Hebrew word is from the same root as shalom, which speaks of wholeness, well-being, harmony, and peace. Shalom means more than a cessation of hostilities between God and the worshiper; it implies a bond of harmonious fellowship. The peace offering was therefore a shared meal celebrating fellowship with God and others (cp. Exod 18:12; 24:9-11; 1 Sam 9:15-24). It could be presented ...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":44078,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Leviticul 3:1","title_en":"Study Note: Leviticul 3:1","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:1<\/strong> <em>a male or a female:<\/em> The whole burnt offering allowed only the use of male animals because it made atonement (1:3, 10). The less formal peace offering permitted both male and female animals (see also 4:28, 32). • <em>no defects:<\/em> The sacrificial animals had to be healthy. The only exception was the voluntary offering, for which a slight blemish was permissible (22:23).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:1<\/strong> <em>a male or a female:<\/em> The whole burnt offering allowed only the use of male animals because it made atonement (1:3, 10). The less formal peace offering permitted both male and female animals (see also 4:28, 32). • <em>no defects:<\/em> The sacrificial animals had to be healthy. The only exception was the voluntary offering, for which a slight blemish was permissible (22:23).<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:1 a male or a female: The whole burnt offering allowed only the use of male animals because it made atonement (1:3, 10). The less formal peace offering permitted both male and female animals (see also 4:28, 32). • no defects: The sacrificial animals had to be healthy. The only exception was the voluntary offering, for which a slight blemish was permissible (22:23).","summary_en":"3:1 a male or a female: The whole burnt offering allowed only the use of male animals because it made atonement (1:3, 10). The less formal peace offering permitted both male and female animals (see also 4:28, 32). • no defects: The sacrificial animals had to be healthy. The only exception was the voluntary offering, for which a slight blemish was permissible (22:23).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":71703,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Leviticul 3:1","title_en":"Study Note: Leviticul 3:1","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:1-17<\/strong> The <em>peace offering<\/em> (Hebrew <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">shelem<\/span>) expressed worship through fellowship with the Lord and with others. The Hebrew word is from the same root as <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">shalom<\/span><em>,<\/em> which speaks of wholeness, well-being, harmony, and peace. <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">Shalom<\/span> means more than a cessation of hostilities between God and the worshiper; it implies a bond of harmonious fellowship. The peace offering was therefore a shared meal celebrating fellowship with God and others (cp. Exod 18:12; 24:9-11; 1 Sam 9:15-24). It could be presented as an expression of thanks (Lev 7:12-15), as a voluntary offering, or in fulfillment of a vow (7:16-18; 22:21). Peace offerings often followed whole burnt offerings (e.g., 1 Kgs 9:25), showing that fellowship with God follows atonement. When we have experienced atonement through Christ, we are able to be at peace with God and with each other (see Acts 2:42; 10:36; Rom 5:1; 1 Cor 10:16; 11:17-34; 2 Cor 5:18-21).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:1-17<\/strong> The <em>peace offering<\/em> (Hebrew <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">shelem<\/span>) expressed worship through fellowship with the Lord and with others. The Hebrew word is from the same root as <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">shalom<\/span><em>,<\/em> which speaks of wholeness, well-being, harmony, and peace. <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">Shalom<\/span> means more than a cessation of hostilities between God and the worshiper; it implies a bond of harmonious fellowship. The peace offering was therefore a shared meal celebrating fellowship with God and others (cp. Exod 18:12; 24:9-11; 1 Sam 9:15-24). It could be presented as an expression of thanks (Lev 7:12-15), as a voluntary offering, or in fulfillment of a vow (7:16-18; 22:21). Peace offerings often followed whole burnt offerings (e.g., 1 Kgs 9:25), showing that fellowship with God follows atonement. When we have experienced atonement through Christ, we are able to be at peace with God and with each other (see Acts 2:42; 10:36; Rom 5:1; 1 Cor 10:16; 11:17-34; 2 Cor 5:18-21).<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:1-17 The peace offering (Hebrew shelem) expressed worship through fellowship with the Lord and with others. The Hebrew word is from the same root as shalom, which speaks of wholeness, well-being, harmony, and peace. Shalom means more than a cessation of hostilities between God and the worshiper; it implies a bond of harmonious fellowship. The peace offering was therefore a shared meal celebrating fellowship with God and others (cp. Exod 18:12; 24:9-11; 1 Sam 9:15-24). It could be presented ...","summary_en":"3:1-17 The peace offering (Hebrew shelem) expressed worship through fellowship with the Lord and with others. The Hebrew word is from the same root as shalom, which speaks of wholeness, well-being, harmony, and peace. Shalom means more than a cessation of hostilities between God and the worshiper; it implies a bond of harmonious fellowship. The peace offering was therefore a shared meal celebrating fellowship with God and others (cp. Exod 18:12; 24:9-11; 1 Sam 9:15-24). It could be presented ...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":71704,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Leviticul 3:1","title_en":"Study Note: Leviticul 3:1","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:1<\/strong> <em>a male or a female:<\/em> The whole burnt offering allowed only the use of male animals because it made atonement (1:3, 10). The less formal peace offering permitted both male and female animals (see also 4:28, 32). • <em>no defects:<\/em> The sacrificial animals had to be healthy. The only exception was the voluntary offering, for which a slight blemish was permissible (22:23).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:1<\/strong> <em>a male or a female:<\/em> The whole burnt offering allowed only the use of male animals because it made atonement (1:3, 10). The less formal peace offering permitted both male and female animals (see also 4:28, 32). • <em>no defects:<\/em> The sacrificial animals had to be healthy. The only exception was the voluntary offering, for which a slight blemish was permissible (22:23).<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:1 a male or a female: The whole burnt offering allowed only the use of male animals because it made atonement (1:3, 10). The less formal peace offering permitted both male and female animals (see also 4:28, 32). • no defects: The sacrificial animals had to be healthy. The only exception was the voluntary offering, for which a slight blemish was permissible (22:23).","summary_en":"3:1 a male or a female: The whole burnt offering allowed only the use of male animals because it made atonement (1:3, 10). The less formal peace offering permitted both male and female animals (see also 4:28, 32). • no defects: The sacrificial animals had to be healthy. The only exception was the voluntary offering, for which a slight blemish was permissible (22:23).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":99329,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Leviticul 3:1","title_en":"Study Note: Leviticul 3:1","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:1-17<\/strong> The <em>peace offering<\/em> (Hebrew <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">shelem<\/span>) expressed worship through fellowship with the Lord and with others. The Hebrew word is from the same root as <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">shalom<\/span><em>,<\/em> which speaks of wholeness, well-being, harmony, and peace. <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">Shalom<\/span> means more than a cessation of hostilities between God and the worshiper; it implies a bond of harmonious fellowship. The peace offering was therefore a shared meal celebrating fellowship with God and others (cp. Exod 18:12; 24:9-11; 1 Sam 9:15-24). It could be presented as an expression of thanks (Lev 7:12-15), as a voluntary offering, or in fulfillment of a vow (7:16-18; 22:21). Peace offerings often followed whole burnt offerings (e.g., 1 Kgs 9:25), showing that fellowship with God follows atonement. When we have experienced atonement through Christ, we are able to be at peace with God and with each other (see Acts 2:42; 10:36; Rom 5:1; 1 Cor 10:16; 11:17-34; 2 Cor 5:18-21).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:1-17<\/strong> The <em>peace offering<\/em> (Hebrew <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">shelem<\/span>) expressed worship through fellowship with the Lord and with others. The Hebrew word is from the same root as <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">shalom<\/span><em>,<\/em> which speaks of wholeness, well-being, harmony, and peace. <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">Shalom<\/span> means more than a cessation of hostilities between God and the worshiper; it implies a bond of harmonious fellowship. The peace offering was therefore a shared meal celebrating fellowship with God and others (cp. Exod 18:12; 24:9-11; 1 Sam 9:15-24). It could be presented as an expression of thanks (Lev 7:12-15), as a voluntary offering, or in fulfillment of a vow (7:16-18; 22:21). Peace offerings often followed whole burnt offerings (e.g., 1 Kgs 9:25), showing that fellowship with God follows atonement. When we have experienced atonement through Christ, we are able to be at peace with God and with each other (see Acts 2:42; 10:36; Rom 5:1; 1 Cor 10:16; 11:17-34; 2 Cor 5:18-21).<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:1-17 The peace offering (Hebrew shelem) expressed worship through fellowship with the Lord and with others. The Hebrew word is from the same root as shalom, which speaks of wholeness, well-being, harmony, and peace. Shalom means more than a cessation of hostilities between God and the worshiper; it implies a bond of harmonious fellowship. The peace offering was therefore a shared meal celebrating fellowship with God and others (cp. Exod 18:12; 24:9-11; 1 Sam 9:15-24). It could be presented ...","summary_en":"3:1-17 The peace offering (Hebrew shelem) expressed worship through fellowship with the Lord and with others. The Hebrew word is from the same root as shalom, which speaks of wholeness, well-being, harmony, and peace. Shalom means more than a cessation of hostilities between God and the worshiper; it implies a bond of harmonious fellowship. The peace offering was therefore a shared meal celebrating fellowship with God and others (cp. Exod 18:12; 24:9-11; 1 Sam 9:15-24). It could be presented ...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":99330,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Leviticul 3:1","title_en":"Study Note: Leviticul 3:1","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:1<\/strong> <em>a male or a female:<\/em> The whole burnt offering allowed only the use of male animals because it made atonement (1:3, 10). The less formal peace offering permitted both male and female animals (see also 4:28, 32). • <em>no defects:<\/em> The sacrificial animals had to be healthy. The only exception was the voluntary offering, for which a slight blemish was permissible (22:23).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:1<\/strong> <em>a male or a female:<\/em> The whole burnt offering allowed only the use of male animals because it made atonement (1:3, 10). The less formal peace offering permitted both male and female animals (see also 4:28, 32). • <em>no defects:<\/em> The sacrificial animals had to be healthy. The only exception was the voluntary offering, for which a slight blemish was permissible (22:23).<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:1 a male or a female: The whole burnt offering allowed only the use of male animals because it made atonement (1:3, 10). The less formal peace offering permitted both male and female animals (see also 4:28, 32). • no defects: The sacrificial animals had to be healthy. The only exception was the voluntary offering, for which a slight blemish was permissible (22:23).","summary_en":"3:1 a male or a female: The whole burnt offering allowed only the use of male animals because it made atonement (1:3, 10). The less formal peace offering permitted both male and female animals (see also 4:28, 32). • no defects: The sacrificial animals had to be healthy. The only exception was the voluntary offering, for which a slight blemish was permissible (22:23).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":126955,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Leviticul 3:1","title_en":"Study Note: Leviticul 3:1","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:1-17<\/strong> The <em>peace offering<\/em> (Hebrew <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">shelem<\/span>) expressed worship through fellowship with the Lord and with others. The Hebrew word is from the same root as <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">shalom<\/span><em>,<\/em> which speaks of wholeness, well-being, harmony, and peace. <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">Shalom<\/span> means more than a cessation of hostilities between God and the worshiper; it implies a bond of harmonious fellowship. The peace offering was therefore a shared meal celebrating fellowship with God and others (cp. Exod 18:12; 24:9-11; 1 Sam 9:15-24). It could be presented as an expression of thanks (Lev 7:12-15), as a voluntary offering, or in fulfillment of a vow (7:16-18; 22:21). Peace offerings often followed whole burnt offerings (e.g., 1 Kgs 9:25), showing that fellowship with God follows atonement. When we have experienced atonement through Christ, we are able to be at peace with God and with each other (see Acts 2:42; 10:36; Rom 5:1; 1 Cor 10:16; 11:17-34; 2 Cor 5:18-21).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:1-17<\/strong> The <em>peace offering<\/em> (Hebrew <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">shelem<\/span>) expressed worship through fellowship with the Lord and with others. The Hebrew word is from the same root as <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">shalom<\/span><em>,<\/em> which speaks of wholeness, well-being, harmony, and peace. <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">Shalom<\/span> means more than a cessation of hostilities between God and the worshiper; it implies a bond of harmonious fellowship. The peace offering was therefore a shared meal celebrating fellowship with God and others (cp. Exod 18:12; 24:9-11; 1 Sam 9:15-24). It could be presented as an expression of thanks (Lev 7:12-15), as a voluntary offering, or in fulfillment of a vow (7:16-18; 22:21). Peace offerings often followed whole burnt offerings (e.g., 1 Kgs 9:25), showing that fellowship with God follows atonement. When we have experienced atonement through Christ, we are able to be at peace with God and with each other (see Acts 2:42; 10:36; Rom 5:1; 1 Cor 10:16; 11:17-34; 2 Cor 5:18-21).<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:1-17 The peace offering (Hebrew shelem) expressed worship through fellowship with the Lord and with others. The Hebrew word is from the same root as shalom, which speaks of wholeness, well-being, harmony, and peace. Shalom means more than a cessation of hostilities between God and the worshiper; it implies a bond of harmonious fellowship. The peace offering was therefore a shared meal celebrating fellowship with God and others (cp. Exod 18:12; 24:9-11; 1 Sam 9:15-24). It could be presented ...","summary_en":"3:1-17 The peace offering (Hebrew shelem) expressed worship through fellowship with the Lord and with others. The Hebrew word is from the same root as shalom, which speaks of wholeness, well-being, harmony, and peace. Shalom means more than a cessation of hostilities between God and the worshiper; it implies a bond of harmonious fellowship. The peace offering was therefore a shared meal celebrating fellowship with God and others (cp. Exod 18:12; 24:9-11; 1 Sam 9:15-24). It could be presented ...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":126956,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Leviticul 3:1","title_en":"Study Note: Leviticul 3:1","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:1<\/strong> <em>a male or a female:<\/em> The whole burnt offering allowed only the use of male animals because it made atonement (1:3, 10). The less formal peace offering permitted both male and female animals (see also 4:28, 32). • <em>no defects:<\/em> The sacrificial animals had to be healthy. The only exception was the voluntary offering, for which a slight blemish was permissible (22:23).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:1<\/strong> <em>a male or a female:<\/em> The whole burnt offering allowed only the use of male animals because it made atonement (1:3, 10). The less formal peace offering permitted both male and female animals (see also 4:28, 32). • <em>no defects:<\/em> The sacrificial animals had to be healthy. The only exception was the voluntary offering, for which a slight blemish was permissible (22:23).<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:1 a male or a female: The whole burnt offering allowed only the use of male animals because it made atonement (1:3, 10). The less formal peace offering permitted both male and female animals (see also 4:28, 32). • no defects: The sacrificial animals had to be healthy. The only exception was the voluntary offering, for which a slight blemish was permissible (22:23).","summary_en":"3:1 a male or a female: The whole burnt offering allowed only the use of male animals because it made atonement (1:3, 10). The less formal peace offering permitted both male and female animals (see also 4:28, 32). • no defects: The sacrificial animals had to be healthy. The only exception was the voluntary offering, for which a slight blemish was permissible (22:23).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"2":[{"id":28298,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Offerings and Sacrifices","title_en":"Offerings and Sacrifices","content_ro":"<h3>OFFERINGS AND SACRIFICES<\/h3>\n<p>Major ritual expressions of religious life with accompanying rites, such as libations, effusions, and sacred meals. The ideology expressed in Israel’s ritual complex made its religion unique in the ancient Near East. The concepts of OT ritual also underlie NT theology with regard to sin and reconciliation to God through the atoning death of Jesus Christ.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PerformanceandOrderofSacrifices\">Performance and Order of Sacrifices<\/p>\n<p>The main source for a description of the correct performance of sacrificial ritual is the opening section of Leviticus (Lv 1–7). It consists of two separate parts. The first (1:1–6:7) is didactic, dealing with two categories of sacrifice: those of a “pleasing odor,” namely, the burnt (1:1-17), the grain (2:1-16), and the peace offerings (3:1-17); and the expiatory sacrifices, namely, the sin (4:1–5:13) and the guilt or trespass offerings (5:14–6:7). Attention is paid to the minute details of each ritual, and they are grouped according to their logical or conceptual associations.<\/p>\n<p>The grain (or cereal) offering follows the burnt offering because it always accompanied it in actual practice (Nm 15:1-21; chs 28–29); it also went with the peace offering (Lv 7:12-14; Nm 15:3-4). Special emphasis is placed on burning the inward parts of a sacrifice on the altar to make a “pleasing odor to the Lord” (Lv 1:9, 17; 2:2, 9, 12; 3:5, 11, 16). When the Lord smelled the pleasing odor (Gn 8:21), it was a sign of divine favor; refusal indicated God’s displeasure (Lv 26:31). The officiating priest evidently knew how to read the signs and would tell the offerer whether his sacrifice had been accepted (1 Sm 26:19; cf. Am 5:21-23).<\/p>\n<p>The sin and guilt offerings were expiatory (Lv 4:1–6:7, 20). The situations requiring such offerings are listed, and special emphasis is laid on the handling of the blood in the ritual.<\/p>\n<p>The second major section in this passage (Lv 6:8–7:38) stresses the administrative details for the various offerings. This section consists of a series of “instructions” for each type of offering pertaining to the distribution of the sacrificial materials. Some went to the priest(s), some went to the offerer, and others were burned on the altar or disposed of outside the camp. Those sacrifices designated as “most holy” were to be eaten only by qualified members of the priesthood (Lv 2:3, 10; 10:12-17; 14:13; Nm 18:9).<\/p>\n<p>The burnt offering is discussed first because it was entirely consumed on the altar (and thus not eaten by anyone). After it, there follow the sacrifices distributed to the officiants (Lv 6:17, 26, 29; 7:1, 6), and at the end come the peace offerings, a significant portion of which was returned to the offender.<\/p>\n<p>The order in which the sacrifices are treated in this passage also corresponds to their relative frequency in the rituals of the sacred calendar (Nm 28:19; 2 Chr 31:3; Ez 45:17). This would be particularly important for the priests and Levites on duty at the temple because they were responsible for the logistics of the daily sacrificial ritual, especially on the high holidays; management of the temple storehouse was a formidable task (1 Chr 23:28-32; 26:15, 20-22; 2 Chr 13:10-11; 30:3-19; 34:9-11).<\/p>\n<p>Each section concerning a particular offering concludes with the logistic or administrative details peculiar to it. There then follows a summary of the matters treated thus far (Lv 7:7-10), and the section concludes with a treatment of the peace offerings (vv 11-36). The latter did not play a role in the sacred calendar except during the Feast of Weeks (23:19-20); on all other occasions, with the two exceptions of the Nazirite vow and the installation of the priesthood, peace offerings were purely voluntary sacrifices and thus not subject to any fixed bookkeeping.<\/p>\n<p>In other biblical contexts, the sacrifices are listed according to the same “bookkeeping” or “administrative” order: burnt, grain, and drink; sin (or guilt); and sometimes peace offerings. An example is the roster of donations made by the tribal leaders for dedication of the altar (Nm 7). The information is organized like an everyday ledger from the temple storehouse; the summary classifies the animals as burnt, grain, sin, and peace offerings (vv 87-88) in accordance with the respective entries from each donor (vv 15-17). The Levitical scribe had two purposes for such a record: to credit the offerers and to record the treasures and food supplies coming in. Much of the foodstuffs being given as offerings was actually apportioned to the officiating priests (Nm 18:8-11; 2 Chr 31:4-19).<\/p>\n<p>When prescriptions were made as to the type and number of offerings to be brought (e.g., Nm 15:24), the “bookkeeping” order is generally followed. This was true of the calendarial sacrifices; burnt and grain offerings and libations were listed, followed by a sin offering for each of the following: New Moon (Nm 28:11-15), each day of Passover (vv 19-22), the Festival of Weeks (Lv 23:18-19; Nm 28:27-30), Trumpets (29:2-5), Day of Atonement (vv 8-11), and each day of the Feast of Tabernacles (vv 12-16).<\/p>\n<p>For sacrifices required in specific cases, the instructions as to what offerings to bring follow this sequence (e.g., the purification of a woman after giving birth, Lv 12:6-8). Note also the offerings given at the successful termination of a Nazirite vow; the Nazirite brought burnt, sin, and peace offerings (with some special grain offerings, Nm 6:14-15). However, the priest conducted the actual ritual according to a different order; the sin offering was made first, followed by the burnt offering and finally the peace offering (vv 16-17). In the case of an incomplete vow, the first step was to offer a sin offering and then a burnt offering to renew the vow (v 11). The reconsecration of the Nazirite required a separate guilt offering—a distinct ritual act (v 12).<\/p>\n<p>The description of the offerings made by the prince of Israel in the latter days presents the same contrast between the two orders of sacrifices. On festival holidays the prince brought burnt, grain, and drink offerings, but he offered them as sin, grain, burnt, and peace offerings (Ez 45:17). This second order of sacrifices in which the sin offering precedes the burnt offering was also followed in the rededication of the altar (43:18-27).<\/p>\n<p>The same “procedural” sequence of sacrifices appears in other instances: the purification of the leper—guilt and sin offerings (Lv 14:19), followed by a burnt offering (vv 12-20); the man with a discharge—sin and burnt offerings (15:15); likewise the woman with a discharge (v 30). The same order is followed for the sacrifices on the Day of Atonement (16:3-6, 11, 15, 24).<\/p>\n<p>The book of Leviticus furnishes two examples of the proper order in which sacrifices were offered. One is the ordination of Aaron and his sons. The sin offering came first and then the burnt offering (Ex 29:10-18; Lv 8:14-21). The focal point in this ritual was the sacrifice of ordination, or literally “installation,” a special form of peace offering (Ex 29:19-34; Lv 8:22-29). The second passage is the formal inauguration of the sacrificial system at the tabernacle (Lv 9). The sacrifices for Aaron were sin and burnt offerings, followed by those for the people: sin, burnt, grain, and peace offerings (9:7-22).<\/p>\n<p>The same sequence is followed at the cleansing and restoration of the temple in Jerusalem conducted by King Hezekiah (2 Chr 29:20-36). A great sin offering was first, followed by the burnt offerings accompanied by music and song. Then the king proclaimed that the people had committed themselves to the Lord; in this new state of purity they could now share in the sacrifices of devotion (burnt offerings) and thanksgiving (peace offerings).<\/p>\n<p>The procedural order of the sacrifices embodies the OT ideology of how God may be approached. First, atonement for sin had to be made and then total consecration of self; these are symbolized by the sin and\/or guilt offerings and the burnt and grain offerings, respectively. When these conditions were met, the offerer could express his continued devotion by more burnt offerings and also take part in the fellowship sacrifices (peace offerings) in which he himself got a large portion of the slaughtered animal (to share with his friends and the poor in his community; Dt 12:17-19).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"DescriptionofSacrifices\">Description of Sacrifices<\/p>\n<p>The ensuing description of the different types of sacrifice will treat them in accordance with the “procedural” order, that is, as symbolic stages in one’s approach to God.<\/p>\n<h5>Expiation<\/h5>\n<p>These two offerings were required for making atonement for sins and trespasses:<\/p>\n<p>1. Sin offering (Lv 4:1–5:13; 6:24-30). Different animals were specified in accordance with the rank of the offerer. A high priest had to bring a young bull (4:3), as did the congregation as a whole (v 14), except when the matter was a ritual infraction (Nm 15:24). A ruler would bring a male goat (Lv 4:23), but a commoner could provide a female goat (v 28; Nm 15:27) or a lamb (Lv 4:32). If he was indigent, he could offer two turtledoves or two young pigeons (one of which would be a burnt offering; 5:7), or if he was extremely poor, he might even substitute a tenth of an ephah of fine flour (Lv 5:11-13; cf. Heb 9:22).<\/p>\n\n<p>The offerer brought the animal to the entrance of the temple court and laid his hand on it (Lv 4:4). He did not confess his sin in this act because the animal was not being sent away (cf. the goat for Azazel, 16:21); rather, he was identifying himself with the sacrifice. The offerer had to kill the animal on the north side of the altar (4:24, 29). The animals were never slaughtered on the altar proper. The officiating priest collected the blood; when it was a bull for himself or for the congregation, he sprinkled some of the blood before the veil inside the tent of meeting and put some on the horns of the incense altar (vv 5-7, 16-18). On the Day of Atonement he brought the sacrificial blood for himself and for the people into the Holy of Holies (16:14-15). From all other animals, the blood was applied to the horns of the altar of burnt offering (4:25, 30, 34); the blood of fowl was sprinkled on the side of the altar (5:9). Finally, the remaining blood from any offering was poured or drained out at the base of the altar (4:7).<\/p>\n<p>The choicest of the internal organs, namely, the fatty tissue over and on the entrails, the two kidneys and their fat, and the appendage to the liver, were all offered to the Lord on the altar (Lv 4:8-10). The carcass and the other entrails were burned outside the camp when it was a bull for the priest or for the people. This was also true of the bull for the ordination of the priests (Ex 29:10-14; Lv 8:14-17). Otherwise, the priest who conducted the rites received the edible flesh as his portion. He had to eat it within the temple area, and its preparation was governed by strict rules of ritual purity (Lv 6:25-30; cf. 10:16-20). A sin offering of one male goat was presented at each of the sacred holidays: the New Moon (Nm 28:15), each day of Passover (vv 22-24), the Festival of Weeks (v 30), the Festival of Trumpets (29:5), the Day of Atonement (v 11), and each day of the Feast of Tabernacles (vv 16, 19). The high priest also offered a bull for himself and then sacrificed one of the two goats on the Day of Atonement. Certain purification rites required lesser sin offerings, namely, lambs or birds: childbirth (Lv 12:6-8), cleansing from leprosy (14:12-14, 19-22), and abscesses and hemorrhages (15:14-15, 29-30) or after defilement while under a vow (Nm 6:10-11).<\/p>\n<li>2. Guilt offering (Lv 5:14–6:7; 7:1-7). The guilt or trespass offering was a special kind of sin offering (cf. 5:7) required whenever someone had been denied his rightful due. Reparation of the valued amount that had been defrauded had to be made, plus a fine of one-fifth (5:16; 6:5). The animal was usually a ram (5:15, 18; 6:6). The cleansed leper and the defiled Nazirite had to bring a male lamb (Lv 14:12, 21; Nm 6:12). The offerer apparently handled the sacrifice as he would a sin offering, but the priest had to sprinkle the blood around the altar (Lv 7:2). Viscera were burned on the altar as usual (vv 3-5). Some of the blood was then applied to the tip of the cleansed leper’s right ear and to his right thumb and big toe (14:14). Again the priest received most of the animal’s flesh for food (7:6-7; 14:13). A guilt offering was required whenever another party had suffered some loss. Ritual infractions, such as eating the “holy things” without proper authorization (5:14-19; 22:14), called for payment of the sum that should have gone to the Lord plus the fine of one-fifth that went to the priest (Lv 5:16; 2 Kgs 12:16). The leper belongs in this category, since during the time of his infection he was unable to render service to God (Lv 14:12-18). The same applies to the Nazirite who had suffered defilement while he was set apart to God by the vow; thus a guilt offering was required (Nm 6:12). Violation of another person’s property rights could be expiated only by the guilt offering and its additional one-fifth. Such matters included cheating on deposits or security, robbery or oppression, failing to report the find of some lost property, or false swearing or failing to testify (Lv 6:1-5). Intercourse with a betrothed slave girl was also a violation of property rights (19:20-22). If the offended party was no longer living and had no surviving kinsmen, the payment went to the priest (Nm 5:5-10).<\/li>\n<h5>Consecration Offerings<\/h5>\n<p>These rituals usually come to mind when one hears the word “offering.” They represent acts of personal commitment that must accompany the repentance expressed in the sin and guilt offerings. They were also a prerequisite for the fellowship or communal sacrifices that might follow.<\/p>\n<p>1. Burnt offering (Lv 1:3-17; 6:8-13). The burnt offering could be a bull, a sheep, or a bird. The offerer presented the animal, laid his hand on it, and killed it on the north side of the altar. The bird was simply given to the priest. The latter collected the blood, presented it before God, and then sprinkled it around the altar. When the offering was a bird, he wrung off its head and drained the blood at the side of the altar. Though the slaughtering and sprinkling of the blood relates the burnt offering to the expiatory sacrifices of the previous section, the main emphasis here is on killing the animal, washing its unclean parts, and then carefully arranging all of the pieces on the altar. All of this was then consumed on the altar as a pleasing odor to the Lord. Since burnt offerings were offered morning and evening, a good supply of wood by the altar was necessary. The officiating priest, dressed in proper garments, had to keep the fire burning continuously (6:8-13).<\/p>\n<p>Burnt offerings played a prominent role in the sacrifices of the ritual calendar. The continual burnt offering was made twice a day, a male lamb morning and evening (Ex 29:38-42; Nm 28:1-8). Two additional lambs were sacrificed each Sabbath (Nm 28:9-10).<\/p>\n<p>Except for these daily offerings, a sin offering of one goat was usually made along with the burnt offerings on the following holidays: For the New Moon at the beginning of each month, two young bulls, one ram, and seven male lambs were offered (Nm 28:11-14). The same were required for each day of the Passover festival (vv 19-24) and again on the Feast of Weeks (vv 6-29). On the Festival of Trumpets and the Day of Atonement, the requirement was one bull, one ram, and seven lambs (29:2-4).<\/p>\n<p>The great Feast of Tabernacles was characterized by a series of elaborate burnt offerings, plus one goat per day as a sin offering. On the first day, 13 young bulls, 2 rams, and 14 male lambs were offered (Nm 29:12-16). Each successive day, the number of bulls was decreased by one until on the seventh day there were only seven (the rams and lambs remained the same; 29:17-25). On the eighth day the animals required for Trumpets and Atonement were offered, namely, one bull, one ram, and seven lambs.<\/p>\n<p>Certain rituals of purification also required burnt offerings in addition to sin offerings: after childbirth (Lv 12:6-8), abscesses (15:14-15), and discharges (vv 29-30); or after defilement while under a Nazirite vow (Nm 6:10-11). Though it is not stated that grain offerings were required in these cases, they certainly were for the cleansing from leprosy (Lv 14:10, 19-22, 31) and the completion of the Nazirite vow (Nm 6:14-16).<\/p>\n<li>2. Grain (Cereal) offering (Lv 2; 6:14-23). The Hebrew term referring to this particular offering means “gift,” or “offering,” including animals (Gn 4:3-5; Jgs 6:18; 1 Sm 2:17). But in the specific sacrificial context it signifies a combination of fine flour, olive oil, and frankincense that could be made up in the form of baked loaves, wafers, or morsels. The offering of firstfruits was to be crushed heads of new grain (Lv 2:14). No leaven or honey was permitted on the cakes, although those same commodities could be accepted as a firstfruit offering. They would not go to the altar but were given to the priest. The offerer had to bring the prepared loaves or wafers to the temple. The priest would burn one handful on the altar as its “memorial portion” (v 2), keeping the remainder for his own food (6:16; 7:9). But when the priest was making a grain offering on his own behalf, he burnt it all on the altar (6:22-23).<\/li>\n<p>A grain offering was usually given with every burnt offering, especially those pertaining to the sacred calendar (Nm 28–29). The amounts of flour and oil were set according to the animal being sacrificed: three-tenths of an ephah of flour and one-half a hin of oil for a bull, two-tenths ephah and one-third hin for a ram, and one-tenth ephah plus one-fourth hin for a lamb (15:2-10). Other happy occasions for a grain offering included the cleansing of a leper (Lv 14:10, 20-21, 31; unspecified quantity of grain with a bird) and the successful consummation of a Nazirite vow (Nm 6:13-15).<\/p>\n<p>Peace offerings were invariably followed by grain offerings (Lv 7:12-14; Nm 15:4). The priest received one of each pair of cakes or wafers. The remainder was returned to the offerer to be eaten with the flesh of the sacrificial animal at a place of his choice.<\/p>\n<p>A special case where such offering was used was the one-tenth of an ephah of barley meal required in the jealousy ritual. It was to have no oil or frankincense (Nm 5:15, 18, 25-26). A very poor individual was permitted to bring one-tenth of an ephah of fine flour without oil or frankincense as a sin offering (Lv 5:11-13).<\/p>\n<li>3. Drink offering (Nm 15:1-10). The standard libation was one-fourth of a hin of wine for a lamb, one-third for a ram, and one-half for a bull. The wine (Ex 29:40), also called “strong drink” (Nm 28:7), is probably an intentional substitute for the blood used by other nations (Ps 16:4). The libation was classed as a “pleasing odor” offering (Nm 15:7). As with the burnt offering, the entire drink offering was expended; nothing was given to the priest (28:7).<\/li>\n<p>Drink offerings accompanied the daily offering (Ex 29:40-41; Nm 28:7) and the Sabbath offering (Nm 28:9), as well as the New Moon festival. Reference is also made to them in connection with the second and following days of the Feast of Tabernacles (29:18, 21); for the first day their absence is probably unintentional. The same might hold true for the Passover, Firstfruits, and Feast of Trumpets (Nm 28:16–29:11; cf. Ez 45:11). A libation was required for the rites concluding a Nazirite vow (Nm 6:17) but not for cleansing a leper (Lv 14:10-20).<\/p>\n<h5>Fellowship Offerings<\/h5>\n<p>These sacrifices were voluntary on the part of the offerer and generally not imposed by regulations except for the Nazirite (Nm 6:17) and the Feast of Weeks (Lv 23:19-20). An offerer who had already fulfilled the ritual requirements for atonement and personal consecration was permitted to make a fellowship offering. Burnt offerings often accompanied the fellowship sacrifices as a further expression of devotion.<\/p>\n<p>1. Peace offering (Lv 3; 7:11-36; Am 5:22). This is the basic class of all fellowship or communal offerings; the others are simply subclasses of the peace offering. In terms of holiness, or restrictedness, they were not so rigidly confined as the other offerings. Animals from the herd or flock, male or female (Lv 3:1, 6, 12), were permitted. The usual stipulation of freedom from blemish was in force, except in the case of the freewill offering, in which the animal could have one limb longer than the other (22:23). Unleavened cakes were also required, at least for the thank (7:12-13) and Nazirite (Nm 6:15-19) offerings. Each of these three types of peace offerings will be discussed below, with their special features.<\/p>\n<p>The first parts of the ritual—the presentation and laying on of the hand—were identical to those of the other sacrifices. However, the animal was slaughtered at the door of the sanctuary courtyard and not on the north side of the altar (Lv 3:1-2, 7-8, 12-13; 7:29-30). The priest collected the blood and tossed it against the altar as he did with the burnt offering (3:2, 8, 13). The choice viscera were offered up as a “pleasing odor” (3:3-5, 6-11, 14-16).<\/p>\n<p>The priest also received a certain portion of the offering. He was allowed to eat it in any ritually clean place and to share it with his family (Lv 7:14, 30-36; Nm 6:20), in contrast to his portion of other sacrifices, which he had to eat somewhere in the temple compound (Nm 18:10-11). He received one of the cakes and the breast as a wave offering and the right thigh as a contribution for the offerer. This latter is the so-called “heave offering”; the technical term developed from a root signifying “to be high” and meaning “that which is lifted up.” The heave offering did not really represent a special kind of ritual ceremony.<\/p>\n<p>The ritual act of the peace offering culminated with a fellowship meal. Except for those parts on the altar or given to the priest, the body of the animal was returned to the man who offered it. He had to prepare it as a communal meal for himself, for his family, and for the Levite in his community (Dt 12:12, 18-19). This would have to be at the official sanctuary (Dt 12:6-7, 11-12, 15-19; cf. 1 Sm 1:3-4) and the participants had to observe strict rules of purity (Lv 7:19-21; 19:5-8). It may be contrasted with the ritual slaughtering of animals for a banquet that was permitted at any local altar (Dt 12:16, 20-22). The flesh of the thank offering had to be eaten on the same day of the sacrifice (Lv 7:15), while that of the votive or freewill offerings could be finished off on the following day (vv 16-18). Whatever remained then had to be burned before the time limit expired.<\/p>\n<p>Only three times is there a specific demand for a peace offering: in the Feast of Weeks (Lv 23:19-20), upon completion of a Nazirite vow (Nm 6:17-20), and at the installation of the priesthood (Ex 29:19-22, 28). Other public ritual occasions included the inauguration of the temple (1 Kgs 8:63; 2 Chr 7:5). Events on a national level that evoked the peace offering were the successful conclusion of a military campaign (1 Sm 11:15), the end of a famine or pestilence (2 Sm 24:25), confirmation of a candidate to the throne (1 Kgs 1:9, 19), or a time of religious revival (2 Chr 29:31-36). On the local level, they were offered at the annual family reunion (1 Sm 20:6) or other festive occasions, such as the harvest of the firstfruits (Ex 22:29-31; 1 Sm 9:11-14, 22-24; 16:4-5).<\/p>\n<li>2. Wave offering. The first portion of the peace offering was “waved” before the Lord to signify that the priest was eating it as a representative of God (the actual motion evidently resembled the wielding of a saw or a staff, Is 10:15). The same technical term, “wave offering,” was also used for other kinds of offering: precious metals donated for making the cultic artifacts (Ex 35:22; 38:29) and the guilt offering of the cleansed leper (Lv 14:12).<\/li>\n<li>3. Freewill offering. These gifts, brought to the holy convocations that took place three times per year (Ex 23:16; 34:20; Dt 16:10, 16-17; 2 Chr 35:8; Ezr 3:5), were voluntary (Lv 7:16; 22:18, 21-23; 23:28; Nm 15:3; 29:39; Dt 12:6, 17). Like the voluntary offering, the freewill offering could be a burnt rather than a peace offering (Lv 22:17-24; Ez 46:12). If it was the latter, the flesh could be eaten on the second day but must be burned before the third (Lv 7:16-17). Unlike some other peace offerings, the animal being sacrificed could have one limb longer than the other (22:23).<\/li>\n<li>4. Installation offering. This Hebrew term refers to the settings of precious stones (Ex 25:7; 35:9, 27; 1 Chr 29:2), so “installation” seems an appropriate translation. It had to do with “filling the hand,” a ritual act that consecrated someone to divine service (Ex 28:41; cf. 32:29) and required ritual purity and spiritual devotion (2 Chr 29:31). The details of the original ceremony at the installation of the first priest is described in two passages (Ex 29:19-34; Lv 8:22-32).<\/li>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Atonement; Cleanness and Uncleanness, Regulations Concerning; Feasts and Festivals of Israel; Tabernacle; Temple.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>OFFERINGS AND SACRIFICES<\/h3>\n<p>Major ritual expressions of religious life with accompanying rites, such as libations, effusions, and sacred meals. The ideology expressed in Israel’s ritual complex made its religion unique in the ancient Near East. The concepts of OT ritual also underlie NT theology with regard to sin and reconciliation to God through the atoning death of Jesus Christ.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PerformanceandOrderofSacrifices\">Performance and Order of Sacrifices<\/p>\n<p>The main source for a description of the correct performance of sacrificial ritual is the opening section of Leviticus (Lv 1–7). It consists of two separate parts. The first (1:1–6:7) is didactic, dealing with two categories of sacrifice: those of a “pleasing odor,” namely, the burnt (1:1-17), the grain (2:1-16), and the peace offerings (3:1-17); and the expiatory sacrifices, namely, the sin (4:1–5:13) and the guilt or trespass offerings (5:14–6:7). Attention is paid to the minute details of each ritual, and they are grouped according to their logical or conceptual associations.<\/p>\n<p>The grain (or cereal) offering follows the burnt offering because it always accompanied it in actual practice (Nm 15:1-21; chs 28–29); it also went with the peace offering (Lv 7:12-14; Nm 15:3-4). Special emphasis is placed on burning the inward parts of a sacrifice on the altar to make a “pleasing odor to the Lord” (Lv 1:9, 17; 2:2, 9, 12; 3:5, 11, 16). When the Lord smelled the pleasing odor (Gn 8:21), it was a sign of divine favor; refusal indicated God’s displeasure (Lv 26:31). The officiating priest evidently knew how to read the signs and would tell the offerer whether his sacrifice had been accepted (1 Sm 26:19; cf. Am 5:21-23).<\/p>\n<p>The sin and guilt offerings were expiatory (Lv 4:1–6:7, 20). The situations requiring such offerings are listed, and special emphasis is laid on the handling of the blood in the ritual.<\/p>\n<p>The second major section in this passage (Lv 6:8–7:38) stresses the administrative details for the various offerings. This section consists of a series of “instructions” for each type of offering pertaining to the distribution of the sacrificial materials. Some went to the priest(s), some went to the offerer, and others were burned on the altar or disposed of outside the camp. Those sacrifices designated as “most holy” were to be eaten only by qualified members of the priesthood (Lv 2:3, 10; 10:12-17; 14:13; Nm 18:9).<\/p>\n<p>The burnt offering is discussed first because it was entirely consumed on the altar (and thus not eaten by anyone). After it, there follow the sacrifices distributed to the officiants (Lv 6:17, 26, 29; 7:1, 6), and at the end come the peace offerings, a significant portion of which was returned to the offender.<\/p>\n<p>The order in which the sacrifices are treated in this passage also corresponds to their relative frequency in the rituals of the sacred calendar (Nm 28:19; 2 Chr 31:3; Ez 45:17). This would be particularly important for the priests and Levites on duty at the temple because they were responsible for the logistics of the daily sacrificial ritual, especially on the high holidays; management of the temple storehouse was a formidable task (1 Chr 23:28-32; 26:15, 20-22; 2 Chr 13:10-11; 30:3-19; 34:9-11).<\/p>\n<p>Each section concerning a particular offering concludes with the logistic or administrative details peculiar to it. There then follows a summary of the matters treated thus far (Lv 7:7-10), and the section concludes with a treatment of the peace offerings (vv 11-36). The latter did not play a role in the sacred calendar except during the Feast of Weeks (23:19-20); on all other occasions, with the two exceptions of the Nazirite vow and the installation of the priesthood, peace offerings were purely voluntary sacrifices and thus not subject to any fixed bookkeeping.<\/p>\n<p>In other biblical contexts, the sacrifices are listed according to the same “bookkeeping” or “administrative” order: burnt, grain, and drink; sin (or guilt); and sometimes peace offerings. An example is the roster of donations made by the tribal leaders for dedication of the altar (Nm 7). The information is organized like an everyday ledger from the temple storehouse; the summary classifies the animals as burnt, grain, sin, and peace offerings (vv 87-88) in accordance with the respective entries from each donor (vv 15-17). The Levitical scribe had two purposes for such a record: to credit the offerers and to record the treasures and food supplies coming in. Much of the foodstuffs being given as offerings was actually apportioned to the officiating priests (Nm 18:8-11; 2 Chr 31:4-19).<\/p>\n<p>When prescriptions were made as to the type and number of offerings to be brought (e.g., Nm 15:24), the “bookkeeping” order is generally followed. This was true of the calendarial sacrifices; burnt and grain offerings and libations were listed, followed by a sin offering for each of the following: New Moon (Nm 28:11-15), each day of Passover (vv 19-22), the Festival of Weeks (Lv 23:18-19; Nm 28:27-30), Trumpets (29:2-5), Day of Atonement (vv 8-11), and each day of the Feast of Tabernacles (vv 12-16).<\/p>\n<p>For sacrifices required in specific cases, the instructions as to what offerings to bring follow this sequence (e.g., the purification of a woman after giving birth, Lv 12:6-8). Note also the offerings given at the successful termination of a Nazirite vow; the Nazirite brought burnt, sin, and peace offerings (with some special grain offerings, Nm 6:14-15). However, the priest conducted the actual ritual according to a different order; the sin offering was made first, followed by the burnt offering and finally the peace offering (vv 16-17). In the case of an incomplete vow, the first step was to offer a sin offering and then a burnt offering to renew the vow (v 11). The reconsecration of the Nazirite required a separate guilt offering—a distinct ritual act (v 12).<\/p>\n<p>The description of the offerings made by the prince of Israel in the latter days presents the same contrast between the two orders of sacrifices. On festival holidays the prince brought burnt, grain, and drink offerings, but he offered them as sin, grain, burnt, and peace offerings (Ez 45:17). This second order of sacrifices in which the sin offering precedes the burnt offering was also followed in the rededication of the altar (43:18-27).<\/p>\n<p>The same “procedural” sequence of sacrifices appears in other instances: the purification of the leper—guilt and sin offerings (Lv 14:19), followed by a burnt offering (vv 12-20); the man with a discharge—sin and burnt offerings (15:15); likewise the woman with a discharge (v 30). The same order is followed for the sacrifices on the Day of Atonement (16:3-6, 11, 15, 24).<\/p>\n<p>The book of Leviticus furnishes two examples of the proper order in which sacrifices were offered. One is the ordination of Aaron and his sons. The sin offering came first and then the burnt offering (Ex 29:10-18; Lv 8:14-21). The focal point in this ritual was the sacrifice of ordination, or literally “installation,” a special form of peace offering (Ex 29:19-34; Lv 8:22-29). The second passage is the formal inauguration of the sacrificial system at the tabernacle (Lv 9). The sacrifices for Aaron were sin and burnt offerings, followed by those for the people: sin, burnt, grain, and peace offerings (9:7-22).<\/p>\n<p>The same sequence is followed at the cleansing and restoration of the temple in Jerusalem conducted by King Hezekiah (2 Chr 29:20-36). A great sin offering was first, followed by the burnt offerings accompanied by music and song. Then the king proclaimed that the people had committed themselves to the Lord; in this new state of purity they could now share in the sacrifices of devotion (burnt offerings) and thanksgiving (peace offerings).<\/p>\n<p>The procedural order of the sacrifices embodies the OT ideology of how God may be approached. First, atonement for sin had to be made and then total consecration of self; these are symbolized by the sin and\/or guilt offerings and the burnt and grain offerings, respectively. When these conditions were met, the offerer could express his continued devotion by more burnt offerings and also take part in the fellowship sacrifices (peace offerings) in which he himself got a large portion of the slaughtered animal (to share with his friends and the poor in his community; Dt 12:17-19).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"DescriptionofSacrifices\">Description of Sacrifices<\/p>\n<p>The ensuing description of the different types of sacrifice will treat them in accordance with the “procedural” order, that is, as symbolic stages in one’s approach to God.<\/p>\n<h5>Expiation<\/h5>\n<p>These two offerings were required for making atonement for sins and trespasses:<\/p>\n<p>1. Sin offering (Lv 4:1–5:13; 6:24-30). Different animals were specified in accordance with the rank of the offerer. A high priest had to bring a young bull (4:3), as did the congregation as a whole (v 14), except when the matter was a ritual infraction (Nm 15:24). A ruler would bring a male goat (Lv 4:23), but a commoner could provide a female goat (v 28; Nm 15:27) or a lamb (Lv 4:32). If he was indigent, he could offer two turtledoves or two young pigeons (one of which would be a burnt offering; 5:7), or if he was extremely poor, he might even substitute a tenth of an ephah of fine flour (Lv 5:11-13; cf. Heb 9:22).<\/p>\n\n<p>The offerer brought the animal to the entrance of the temple court and laid his hand on it (Lv 4:4). He did not confess his sin in this act because the animal was not being sent away (cf. the goat for Azazel, 16:21); rather, he was identifying himself with the sacrifice. The offerer had to kill the animal on the north side of the altar (4:24, 29). The animals were never slaughtered on the altar proper. The officiating priest collected the blood; when it was a bull for himself or for the congregation, he sprinkled some of the blood before the veil inside the tent of meeting and put some on the horns of the incense altar (vv 5-7, 16-18). On the Day of Atonement he brought the sacrificial blood for himself and for the people into the Holy of Holies (16:14-15). From all other animals, the blood was applied to the horns of the altar of burnt offering (4:25, 30, 34); the blood of fowl was sprinkled on the side of the altar (5:9). Finally, the remaining blood from any offering was poured or drained out at the base of the altar (4:7).<\/p>\n<p>The choicest of the internal organs, namely, the fatty tissue over and on the entrails, the two kidneys and their fat, and the appendage to the liver, were all offered to the Lord on the altar (Lv 4:8-10). The carcass and the other entrails were burned outside the camp when it was a bull for the priest or for the people. This was also true of the bull for the ordination of the priests (Ex 29:10-14; Lv 8:14-17). Otherwise, the priest who conducted the rites received the edible flesh as his portion. He had to eat it within the temple area, and its preparation was governed by strict rules of ritual purity (Lv 6:25-30; cf. 10:16-20). A sin offering of one male goat was presented at each of the sacred holidays: the New Moon (Nm 28:15), each day of Passover (vv 22-24), the Festival of Weeks (v 30), the Festival of Trumpets (29:5), the Day of Atonement (v 11), and each day of the Feast of Tabernacles (vv 16, 19). The high priest also offered a bull for himself and then sacrificed one of the two goats on the Day of Atonement. Certain purification rites required lesser sin offerings, namely, lambs or birds: childbirth (Lv 12:6-8), cleansing from leprosy (14:12-14, 19-22), and abscesses and hemorrhages (15:14-15, 29-30) or after defilement while under a vow (Nm 6:10-11).<\/p>\n<li>2. Guilt offering (Lv 5:14–6:7; 7:1-7). The guilt or trespass offering was a special kind of sin offering (cf. 5:7) required whenever someone had been denied his rightful due. Reparation of the valued amount that had been defrauded had to be made, plus a fine of one-fifth (5:16; 6:5). The animal was usually a ram (5:15, 18; 6:6). The cleansed leper and the defiled Nazirite had to bring a male lamb (Lv 14:12, 21; Nm 6:12). The offerer apparently handled the sacrifice as he would a sin offering, but the priest had to sprinkle the blood around the altar (Lv 7:2). Viscera were burned on the altar as usual (vv 3-5). Some of the blood was then applied to the tip of the cleansed leper’s right ear and to his right thumb and big toe (14:14). Again the priest received most of the animal’s flesh for food (7:6-7; 14:13). A guilt offering was required whenever another party had suffered some loss. Ritual infractions, such as eating the “holy things” without proper authorization (5:14-19; 22:14), called for payment of the sum that should have gone to the Lord plus the fine of one-fifth that went to the priest (Lv 5:16; 2 Kgs 12:16). The leper belongs in this category, since during the time of his infection he was unable to render service to God (Lv 14:12-18). The same applies to the Nazirite who had suffered defilement while he was set apart to God by the vow; thus a guilt offering was required (Nm 6:12). Violation of another person’s property rights could be expiated only by the guilt offering and its additional one-fifth. Such matters included cheating on deposits or security, robbery or oppression, failing to report the find of some lost property, or false swearing or failing to testify (Lv 6:1-5). Intercourse with a betrothed slave girl was also a violation of property rights (19:20-22). If the offended party was no longer living and had no surviving kinsmen, the payment went to the priest (Nm 5:5-10).<\/li>\n<h5>Consecration Offerings<\/h5>\n<p>These rituals usually come to mind when one hears the word “offering.” They represent acts of personal commitment that must accompany the repentance expressed in the sin and guilt offerings. They were also a prerequisite for the fellowship or communal sacrifices that might follow.<\/p>\n<p>1. Burnt offering (Lv 1:3-17; 6:8-13). The burnt offering could be a bull, a sheep, or a bird. The offerer presented the animal, laid his hand on it, and killed it on the north side of the altar. The bird was simply given to the priest. The latter collected the blood, presented it before God, and then sprinkled it around the altar. When the offering was a bird, he wrung off its head and drained the blood at the side of the altar. Though the slaughtering and sprinkling of the blood relates the burnt offering to the expiatory sacrifices of the previous section, the main emphasis here is on killing the animal, washing its unclean parts, and then carefully arranging all of the pieces on the altar. All of this was then consumed on the altar as a pleasing odor to the Lord. Since burnt offerings were offered morning and evening, a good supply of wood by the altar was necessary. The officiating priest, dressed in proper garments, had to keep the fire burning continuously (6:8-13).<\/p>\n<p>Burnt offerings played a prominent role in the sacrifices of the ritual calendar. The continual burnt offering was made twice a day, a male lamb morning and evening (Ex 29:38-42; Nm 28:1-8). Two additional lambs were sacrificed each Sabbath (Nm 28:9-10).<\/p>\n<p>Except for these daily offerings, a sin offering of one goat was usually made along with the burnt offerings on the following holidays: For the New Moon at the beginning of each month, two young bulls, one ram, and seven male lambs were offered (Nm 28:11-14). The same were required for each day of the Passover festival (vv 19-24) and again on the Feast of Weeks (vv 6-29). On the Festival of Trumpets and the Day of Atonement, the requirement was one bull, one ram, and seven lambs (29:2-4).<\/p>\n<p>The great Feast of Tabernacles was characterized by a series of elaborate burnt offerings, plus one goat per day as a sin offering. On the first day, 13 young bulls, 2 rams, and 14 male lambs were offered (Nm 29:12-16). Each successive day, the number of bulls was decreased by one until on the seventh day there were only seven (the rams and lambs remained the same; 29:17-25). On the eighth day the animals required for Trumpets and Atonement were offered, namely, one bull, one ram, and seven lambs.<\/p>\n<p>Certain rituals of purification also required burnt offerings in addition to sin offerings: after childbirth (Lv 12:6-8), abscesses (15:14-15), and discharges (vv 29-30); or after defilement while under a Nazirite vow (Nm 6:10-11). Though it is not stated that grain offerings were required in these cases, they certainly were for the cleansing from leprosy (Lv 14:10, 19-22, 31) and the completion of the Nazirite vow (Nm 6:14-16).<\/p>\n<li>2. Grain (Cereal) offering (Lv 2; 6:14-23). The Hebrew term referring to this particular offering means “gift,” or “offering,” including animals (Gn 4:3-5; Jgs 6:18; 1 Sm 2:17). But in the specific sacrificial context it signifies a combination of fine flour, olive oil, and frankincense that could be made up in the form of baked loaves, wafers, or morsels. The offering of firstfruits was to be crushed heads of new grain (Lv 2:14). No leaven or honey was permitted on the cakes, although those same commodities could be accepted as a firstfruit offering. They would not go to the altar but were given to the priest. The offerer had to bring the prepared loaves or wafers to the temple. The priest would burn one handful on the altar as its “memorial portion” (v 2), keeping the remainder for his own food (6:16; 7:9). But when the priest was making a grain offering on his own behalf, he burnt it all on the altar (6:22-23).<\/li>\n<p>A grain offering was usually given with every burnt offering, especially those pertaining to the sacred calendar (Nm 28–29). The amounts of flour and oil were set according to the animal being sacrificed: three-tenths of an ephah of flour and one-half a hin of oil for a bull, two-tenths ephah and one-third hin for a ram, and one-tenth ephah plus one-fourth hin for a lamb (15:2-10). Other happy occasions for a grain offering included the cleansing of a leper (Lv 14:10, 20-21, 31; unspecified quantity of grain with a bird) and the successful consummation of a Nazirite vow (Nm 6:13-15).<\/p>\n<p>Peace offerings were invariably followed by grain offerings (Lv 7:12-14; Nm 15:4). The priest received one of each pair of cakes or wafers. The remainder was returned to the offerer to be eaten with the flesh of the sacrificial animal at a place of his choice.<\/p>\n<p>A special case where such offering was used was the one-tenth of an ephah of barley meal required in the jealousy ritual. It was to have no oil or frankincense (Nm 5:15, 18, 25-26). A very poor individual was permitted to bring one-tenth of an ephah of fine flour without oil or frankincense as a sin offering (Lv 5:11-13).<\/p>\n<li>3. Drink offering (Nm 15:1-10). The standard libation was one-fourth of a hin of wine for a lamb, one-third for a ram, and one-half for a bull. The wine (Ex 29:40), also called “strong drink” (Nm 28:7), is probably an intentional substitute for the blood used by other nations (Ps 16:4). The libation was classed as a “pleasing odor” offering (Nm 15:7). As with the burnt offering, the entire drink offering was expended; nothing was given to the priest (28:7).<\/li>\n<p>Drink offerings accompanied the daily offering (Ex 29:40-41; Nm 28:7) and the Sabbath offering (Nm 28:9), as well as the New Moon festival. Reference is also made to them in connection with the second and following days of the Feast of Tabernacles (29:18, 21); for the first day their absence is probably unintentional. The same might hold true for the Passover, Firstfruits, and Feast of Trumpets (Nm 28:16–29:11; cf. Ez 45:11). A libation was required for the rites concluding a Nazirite vow (Nm 6:17) but not for cleansing a leper (Lv 14:10-20).<\/p>\n<h5>Fellowship Offerings<\/h5>\n<p>These sacrifices were voluntary on the part of the offerer and generally not imposed by regulations except for the Nazirite (Nm 6:17) and the Feast of Weeks (Lv 23:19-20). An offerer who had already fulfilled the ritual requirements for atonement and personal consecration was permitted to make a fellowship offering. Burnt offerings often accompanied the fellowship sacrifices as a further expression of devotion.<\/p>\n<p>1. Peace offering (Lv 3; 7:11-36; Am 5:22). This is the basic class of all fellowship or communal offerings; the others are simply subclasses of the peace offering. In terms of holiness, or restrictedness, they were not so rigidly confined as the other offerings. Animals from the herd or flock, male or female (Lv 3:1, 6, 12), were permitted. The usual stipulation of freedom from blemish was in force, except in the case of the freewill offering, in which the animal could have one limb longer than the other (22:23). Unleavened cakes were also required, at least for the thank (7:12-13) and Nazirite (Nm 6:15-19) offerings. Each of these three types of peace offerings will be discussed below, with their special features.<\/p>\n<p>The first parts of the ritual—the presentation and laying on of the hand—were identical to those of the other sacrifices. However, the animal was slaughtered at the door of the sanctuary courtyard and not on the north side of the altar (Lv 3:1-2, 7-8, 12-13; 7:29-30). The priest collected the blood and tossed it against the altar as he did with the burnt offering (3:2, 8, 13). The choice viscera were offered up as a “pleasing odor” (3:3-5, 6-11, 14-16).<\/p>\n<p>The priest also received a certain portion of the offering. He was allowed to eat it in any ritually clean place and to share it with his family (Lv 7:14, 30-36; Nm 6:20), in contrast to his portion of other sacrifices, which he had to eat somewhere in the temple compound (Nm 18:10-11). He received one of the cakes and the breast as a wave offering and the right thigh as a contribution for the offerer. This latter is the so-called “heave offering”; the technical term developed from a root signifying “to be high” and meaning “that which is lifted up.” The heave offering did not really represent a special kind of ritual ceremony.<\/p>\n<p>The ritual act of the peace offering culminated with a fellowship meal. Except for those parts on the altar or given to the priest, the body of the animal was returned to the man who offered it. He had to prepare it as a communal meal for himself, for his family, and for the Levite in his community (Dt 12:12, 18-19). This would have to be at the official sanctuary (Dt 12:6-7, 11-12, 15-19; cf. 1 Sm 1:3-4) and the participants had to observe strict rules of purity (Lv 7:19-21; 19:5-8). It may be contrasted with the ritual slaughtering of animals for a banquet that was permitted at any local altar (Dt 12:16, 20-22). The flesh of the thank offering had to be eaten on the same day of the sacrifice (Lv 7:15), while that of the votive or freewill offerings could be finished off on the following day (vv 16-18). Whatever remained then had to be burned before the time limit expired.<\/p>\n<p>Only three times is there a specific demand for a peace offering: in the Feast of Weeks (Lv 23:19-20), upon completion of a Nazirite vow (Nm 6:17-20), and at the installation of the priesthood (Ex 29:19-22, 28). Other public ritual occasions included the inauguration of the temple (1 Kgs 8:63; 2 Chr 7:5). Events on a national level that evoked the peace offering were the successful conclusion of a military campaign (1 Sm 11:15), the end of a famine or pestilence (2 Sm 24:25), confirmation of a candidate to the throne (1 Kgs 1:9, 19), or a time of religious revival (2 Chr 29:31-36). On the local level, they were offered at the annual family reunion (1 Sm 20:6) or other festive occasions, such as the harvest of the firstfruits (Ex 22:29-31; 1 Sm 9:11-14, 22-24; 16:4-5).<\/p>\n<li>2. Wave offering. The first portion of the peace offering was “waved” before the Lord to signify that the priest was eating it as a representative of God (the actual motion evidently resembled the wielding of a saw or a staff, Is 10:15). The same technical term, “wave offering,” was also used for other kinds of offering: precious metals donated for making the cultic artifacts (Ex 35:22; 38:29) and the guilt offering of the cleansed leper (Lv 14:12).<\/li>\n<li>3. Freewill offering. These gifts, brought to the holy convocations that took place three times per year (Ex 23:16; 34:20; Dt 16:10, 16-17; 2 Chr 35:8; Ezr 3:5), were voluntary (Lv 7:16; 22:18, 21-23; 23:28; Nm 15:3; 29:39; Dt 12:6, 17). Like the voluntary offering, the freewill offering could be a burnt rather than a peace offering (Lv 22:17-24; Ez 46:12). If it was the latter, the flesh could be eaten on the second day but must be burned before the third (Lv 7:16-17). Unlike some other peace offerings, the animal being sacrificed could have one limb longer than the other (22:23).<\/li>\n<li>4. Installation offering. This Hebrew term refers to the settings of precious stones (Ex 25:7; 35:9, 27; 1 Chr 29:2), so “installation” seems an appropriate translation. It had to do with “filling the hand,” a ritual act that consecrated someone to divine service (Ex 28:41; cf. 32:29) and required ritual purity and spiritual devotion (2 Chr 29:31). The details of the original ceremony at the installation of the first priest is described in two passages (Ex 29:19-34; Lv 8:22-32).<\/li>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Atonement; Cleanness and Uncleanness, Regulations Concerning; Feasts and Festivals of Israel; Tabernacle; Temple.<\/p>","summary_ro":"OFFERINGS AND SACRIFICES Major ritual expressions of religious life with accompanying rites, such as libations, effusions, and sacred meals. The ideology expressed in Israel’s ritual complex made its religion unique in the ancient Near East. The concepts of OT ritual also underlie NT theology with regard to sin and reconciliation to God through the atoning death of Jesus Christ. Performance and Order of Sacrifices The main source for a description of the correct performance of sacrificial rit...","summary_en":"OFFERINGS AND SACRIFICES Major ritual expressions of religious life with accompanying rites, such as libations, effusions, and sacred meals. The ideology expressed in Israel’s ritual complex made its religion unique in the ancient Near East. The concepts of OT ritual also underlie NT theology with regard to sin and reconciliation to God through the atoning death of Jesus Christ. Performance and Order of Sacrifices The main source for a description of the correct performance of sacrificial rit...","source":"Articles\/O.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"3":[{"id":28299,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Offerings and Sacrifices","title_en":"Offerings and Sacrifices","content_ro":"<h3>OFFERINGS AND SACRIFICES<\/h3>\n<p>Major ritual expressions of religious life with accompanying rites, such as libations, effusions, and sacred meals. The ideology expressed in Israel’s ritual complex made its religion unique in the ancient Near East. The concepts of OT ritual also underlie NT theology with regard to sin and reconciliation to God through the atoning death of Jesus Christ.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PerformanceandOrderofSacrifices\">Performance and Order of Sacrifices<\/p>\n<p>The main source for a description of the correct performance of sacrificial ritual is the opening section of Leviticus (Lv 1–7). It consists of two separate parts. The first (1:1–6:7) is didactic, dealing with two categories of sacrifice: those of a “pleasing odor,” namely, the burnt (1:1-17), the grain (2:1-16), and the peace offerings (3:1-17); and the expiatory sacrifices, namely, the sin (4:1–5:13) and the guilt or trespass offerings (5:14–6:7). Attention is paid to the minute details of each ritual, and they are grouped according to their logical or conceptual associations.<\/p>\n<p>The grain (or cereal) offering follows the burnt offering because it always accompanied it in actual practice (Nm 15:1-21; chs 28–29); it also went with the peace offering (Lv 7:12-14; Nm 15:3-4). Special emphasis is placed on burning the inward parts of a sacrifice on the altar to make a “pleasing odor to the Lord” (Lv 1:9, 17; 2:2, 9, 12; 3:5, 11, 16). When the Lord smelled the pleasing odor (Gn 8:21), it was a sign of divine favor; refusal indicated God’s displeasure (Lv 26:31). The officiating priest evidently knew how to read the signs and would tell the offerer whether his sacrifice had been accepted (1 Sm 26:19; cf. Am 5:21-23).<\/p>\n<p>The sin and guilt offerings were expiatory (Lv 4:1–6:7, 20). The situations requiring such offerings are listed, and special emphasis is laid on the handling of the blood in the ritual.<\/p>\n<p>The second major section in this passage (Lv 6:8–7:38) stresses the administrative details for the various offerings. This section consists of a series of “instructions” for each type of offering pertaining to the distribution of the sacrificial materials. Some went to the priest(s), some went to the offerer, and others were burned on the altar or disposed of outside the camp. Those sacrifices designated as “most holy” were to be eaten only by qualified members of the priesthood (Lv 2:3, 10; 10:12-17; 14:13; Nm 18:9).<\/p>\n<p>The burnt offering is discussed first because it was entirely consumed on the altar (and thus not eaten by anyone). After it, there follow the sacrifices distributed to the officiants (Lv 6:17, 26, 29; 7:1, 6), and at the end come the peace offerings, a significant portion of which was returned to the offender.<\/p>\n<p>The order in which the sacrifices are treated in this passage also corresponds to their relative frequency in the rituals of the sacred calendar (Nm 28:19; 2 Chr 31:3; Ez 45:17). This would be particularly important for the priests and Levites on duty at the temple because they were responsible for the logistics of the daily sacrificial ritual, especially on the high holidays; management of the temple storehouse was a formidable task (1 Chr 23:28-32; 26:15, 20-22; 2 Chr 13:10-11; 30:3-19; 34:9-11).<\/p>\n<p>Each section concerning a particular offering concludes with the logistic or administrative details peculiar to it. There then follows a summary of the matters treated thus far (Lv 7:7-10), and the section concludes with a treatment of the peace offerings (vv 11-36). The latter did not play a role in the sacred calendar except during the Feast of Weeks (23:19-20); on all other occasions, with the two exceptions of the Nazirite vow and the installation of the priesthood, peace offerings were purely voluntary sacrifices and thus not subject to any fixed bookkeeping.<\/p>\n<p>In other biblical contexts, the sacrifices are listed according to the same “bookkeeping” or “administrative” order: burnt, grain, and drink; sin (or guilt); and sometimes peace offerings. An example is the roster of donations made by the tribal leaders for dedication of the altar (Nm 7). The information is organized like an everyday ledger from the temple storehouse; the summary classifies the animals as burnt, grain, sin, and peace offerings (vv 87-88) in accordance with the respective entries from each donor (vv 15-17). The Levitical scribe had two purposes for such a record: to credit the offerers and to record the treasures and food supplies coming in. Much of the foodstuffs being given as offerings was actually apportioned to the officiating priests (Nm 18:8-11; 2 Chr 31:4-19).<\/p>\n<p>When prescriptions were made as to the type and number of offerings to be brought (e.g., Nm 15:24), the “bookkeeping” order is generally followed. This was true of the calendarial sacrifices; burnt and grain offerings and libations were listed, followed by a sin offering for each of the following: New Moon (Nm 28:11-15), each day of Passover (vv 19-22), the Festival of Weeks (Lv 23:18-19; Nm 28:27-30), Trumpets (29:2-5), Day of Atonement (vv 8-11), and each day of the Feast of Tabernacles (vv 12-16).<\/p>\n<p>For sacrifices required in specific cases, the instructions as to what offerings to bring follow this sequence (e.g., the purification of a woman after giving birth, Lv 12:6-8). Note also the offerings given at the successful termination of a Nazirite vow; the Nazirite brought burnt, sin, and peace offerings (with some special grain offerings, Nm 6:14-15). However, the priest conducted the actual ritual according to a different order; the sin offering was made first, followed by the burnt offering and finally the peace offering (vv 16-17). In the case of an incomplete vow, the first step was to offer a sin offering and then a burnt offering to renew the vow (v 11). The reconsecration of the Nazirite required a separate guilt offering—a distinct ritual act (v 12).<\/p>\n<p>The description of the offerings made by the prince of Israel in the latter days presents the same contrast between the two orders of sacrifices. On festival holidays the prince brought burnt, grain, and drink offerings, but he offered them as sin, grain, burnt, and peace offerings (Ez 45:17). This second order of sacrifices in which the sin offering precedes the burnt offering was also followed in the rededication of the altar (43:18-27).<\/p>\n<p>The same “procedural” sequence of sacrifices appears in other instances: the purification of the leper—guilt and sin offerings (Lv 14:19), followed by a burnt offering (vv 12-20); the man with a discharge—sin and burnt offerings (15:15); likewise the woman with a discharge (v 30). The same order is followed for the sacrifices on the Day of Atonement (16:3-6, 11, 15, 24).<\/p>\n<p>The book of Leviticus furnishes two examples of the proper order in which sacrifices were offered. One is the ordination of Aaron and his sons. The sin offering came first and then the burnt offering (Ex 29:10-18; Lv 8:14-21). The focal point in this ritual was the sacrifice of ordination, or literally “installation,” a special form of peace offering (Ex 29:19-34; Lv 8:22-29). The second passage is the formal inauguration of the sacrificial system at the tabernacle (Lv 9). The sacrifices for Aaron were sin and burnt offerings, followed by those for the people: sin, burnt, grain, and peace offerings (9:7-22).<\/p>\n<p>The same sequence is followed at the cleansing and restoration of the temple in Jerusalem conducted by King Hezekiah (2 Chr 29:20-36). A great sin offering was first, followed by the burnt offerings accompanied by music and song. Then the king proclaimed that the people had committed themselves to the Lord; in this new state of purity they could now share in the sacrifices of devotion (burnt offerings) and thanksgiving (peace offerings).<\/p>\n<p>The procedural order of the sacrifices embodies the OT ideology of how God may be approached. First, atonement for sin had to be made and then total consecration of self; these are symbolized by the sin and\/or guilt offerings and the burnt and grain offerings, respectively. When these conditions were met, the offerer could express his continued devotion by more burnt offerings and also take part in the fellowship sacrifices (peace offerings) in which he himself got a large portion of the slaughtered animal (to share with his friends and the poor in his community; Dt 12:17-19).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"DescriptionofSacrifices\">Description of Sacrifices<\/p>\n<p>The ensuing description of the different types of sacrifice will treat them in accordance with the “procedural” order, that is, as symbolic stages in one’s approach to God.<\/p>\n<h5>Expiation<\/h5>\n<p>These two offerings were required for making atonement for sins and trespasses:<\/p>\n<p>1. Sin offering (Lv 4:1–5:13; 6:24-30). Different animals were specified in accordance with the rank of the offerer. A high priest had to bring a young bull (4:3), as did the congregation as a whole (v 14), except when the matter was a ritual infraction (Nm 15:24). A ruler would bring a male goat (Lv 4:23), but a commoner could provide a female goat (v 28; Nm 15:27) or a lamb (Lv 4:32). If he was indigent, he could offer two turtledoves or two young pigeons (one of which would be a burnt offering; 5:7), or if he was extremely poor, he might even substitute a tenth of an ephah of fine flour (Lv 5:11-13; cf. Heb 9:22).<\/p>\n\n<p>The offerer brought the animal to the entrance of the temple court and laid his hand on it (Lv 4:4). He did not confess his sin in this act because the animal was not being sent away (cf. the goat for Azazel, 16:21); rather, he was identifying himself with the sacrifice. The offerer had to kill the animal on the north side of the altar (4:24, 29). The animals were never slaughtered on the altar proper. The officiating priest collected the blood; when it was a bull for himself or for the congregation, he sprinkled some of the blood before the veil inside the tent of meeting and put some on the horns of the incense altar (vv 5-7, 16-18). On the Day of Atonement he brought the sacrificial blood for himself and for the people into the Holy of Holies (16:14-15). From all other animals, the blood was applied to the horns of the altar of burnt offering (4:25, 30, 34); the blood of fowl was sprinkled on the side of the altar (5:9). Finally, the remaining blood from any offering was poured or drained out at the base of the altar (4:7).<\/p>\n<p>The choicest of the internal organs, namely, the fatty tissue over and on the entrails, the two kidneys and their fat, and the appendage to the liver, were all offered to the Lord on the altar (Lv 4:8-10). The carcass and the other entrails were burned outside the camp when it was a bull for the priest or for the people. This was also true of the bull for the ordination of the priests (Ex 29:10-14; Lv 8:14-17). Otherwise, the priest who conducted the rites received the edible flesh as his portion. He had to eat it within the temple area, and its preparation was governed by strict rules of ritual purity (Lv 6:25-30; cf. 10:16-20). A sin offering of one male goat was presented at each of the sacred holidays: the New Moon (Nm 28:15), each day of Passover (vv 22-24), the Festival of Weeks (v 30), the Festival of Trumpets (29:5), the Day of Atonement (v 11), and each day of the Feast of Tabernacles (vv 16, 19). The high priest also offered a bull for himself and then sacrificed one of the two goats on the Day of Atonement. Certain purification rites required lesser sin offerings, namely, lambs or birds: childbirth (Lv 12:6-8), cleansing from leprosy (14:12-14, 19-22), and abscesses and hemorrhages (15:14-15, 29-30) or after defilement while under a vow (Nm 6:10-11).<\/p>\n<li>2. Guilt offering (Lv 5:14–6:7; 7:1-7). The guilt or trespass offering was a special kind of sin offering (cf. 5:7) required whenever someone had been denied his rightful due. Reparation of the valued amount that had been defrauded had to be made, plus a fine of one-fifth (5:16; 6:5). The animal was usually a ram (5:15, 18; 6:6). The cleansed leper and the defiled Nazirite had to bring a male lamb (Lv 14:12, 21; Nm 6:12). The offerer apparently handled the sacrifice as he would a sin offering, but the priest had to sprinkle the blood around the altar (Lv 7:2). Viscera were burned on the altar as usual (vv 3-5). Some of the blood was then applied to the tip of the cleansed leper’s right ear and to his right thumb and big toe (14:14). Again the priest received most of the animal’s flesh for food (7:6-7; 14:13). A guilt offering was required whenever another party had suffered some loss. Ritual infractions, such as eating the “holy things” without proper authorization (5:14-19; 22:14), called for payment of the sum that should have gone to the Lord plus the fine of one-fifth that went to the priest (Lv 5:16; 2 Kgs 12:16). The leper belongs in this category, since during the time of his infection he was unable to render service to God (Lv 14:12-18). The same applies to the Nazirite who had suffered defilement while he was set apart to God by the vow; thus a guilt offering was required (Nm 6:12). Violation of another person’s property rights could be expiated only by the guilt offering and its additional one-fifth. Such matters included cheating on deposits or security, robbery or oppression, failing to report the find of some lost property, or false swearing or failing to testify (Lv 6:1-5). Intercourse with a betrothed slave girl was also a violation of property rights (19:20-22). If the offended party was no longer living and had no surviving kinsmen, the payment went to the priest (Nm 5:5-10).<\/li>\n<h5>Consecration Offerings<\/h5>\n<p>These rituals usually come to mind when one hears the word “offering.” They represent acts of personal commitment that must accompany the repentance expressed in the sin and guilt offerings. They were also a prerequisite for the fellowship or communal sacrifices that might follow.<\/p>\n<p>1. Burnt offering (Lv 1:3-17; 6:8-13). The burnt offering could be a bull, a sheep, or a bird. The offerer presented the animal, laid his hand on it, and killed it on the north side of the altar. The bird was simply given to the priest. The latter collected the blood, presented it before God, and then sprinkled it around the altar. When the offering was a bird, he wrung off its head and drained the blood at the side of the altar. Though the slaughtering and sprinkling of the blood relates the burnt offering to the expiatory sacrifices of the previous section, the main emphasis here is on killing the animal, washing its unclean parts, and then carefully arranging all of the pieces on the altar. All of this was then consumed on the altar as a pleasing odor to the Lord. Since burnt offerings were offered morning and evening, a good supply of wood by the altar was necessary. The officiating priest, dressed in proper garments, had to keep the fire burning continuously (6:8-13).<\/p>\n<p>Burnt offerings played a prominent role in the sacrifices of the ritual calendar. The continual burnt offering was made twice a day, a male lamb morning and evening (Ex 29:38-42; Nm 28:1-8). Two additional lambs were sacrificed each Sabbath (Nm 28:9-10).<\/p>\n<p>Except for these daily offerings, a sin offering of one goat was usually made along with the burnt offerings on the following holidays: For the New Moon at the beginning of each month, two young bulls, one ram, and seven male lambs were offered (Nm 28:11-14). The same were required for each day of the Passover festival (vv 19-24) and again on the Feast of Weeks (vv 6-29). On the Festival of Trumpets and the Day of Atonement, the requirement was one bull, one ram, and seven lambs (29:2-4).<\/p>\n<p>The great Feast of Tabernacles was characterized by a series of elaborate burnt offerings, plus one goat per day as a sin offering. On the first day, 13 young bulls, 2 rams, and 14 male lambs were offered (Nm 29:12-16). Each successive day, the number of bulls was decreased by one until on the seventh day there were only seven (the rams and lambs remained the same; 29:17-25). On the eighth day the animals required for Trumpets and Atonement were offered, namely, one bull, one ram, and seven lambs.<\/p>\n<p>Certain rituals of purification also required burnt offerings in addition to sin offerings: after childbirth (Lv 12:6-8), abscesses (15:14-15), and discharges (vv 29-30); or after defilement while under a Nazirite vow (Nm 6:10-11). Though it is not stated that grain offerings were required in these cases, they certainly were for the cleansing from leprosy (Lv 14:10, 19-22, 31) and the completion of the Nazirite vow (Nm 6:14-16).<\/p>\n<li>2. Grain (Cereal) offering (Lv 2; 6:14-23). The Hebrew term referring to this particular offering means “gift,” or “offering,” including animals (Gn 4:3-5; Jgs 6:18; 1 Sm 2:17). But in the specific sacrificial context it signifies a combination of fine flour, olive oil, and frankincense that could be made up in the form of baked loaves, wafers, or morsels. The offering of firstfruits was to be crushed heads of new grain (Lv 2:14). No leaven or honey was permitted on the cakes, although those same commodities could be accepted as a firstfruit offering. They would not go to the altar but were given to the priest. The offerer had to bring the prepared loaves or wafers to the temple. The priest would burn one handful on the altar as its “memorial portion” (v 2), keeping the remainder for his own food (6:16; 7:9). But when the priest was making a grain offering on his own behalf, he burnt it all on the altar (6:22-23).<\/li>\n<p>A grain offering was usually given with every burnt offering, especially those pertaining to the sacred calendar (Nm 28–29). The amounts of flour and oil were set according to the animal being sacrificed: three-tenths of an ephah of flour and one-half a hin of oil for a bull, two-tenths ephah and one-third hin for a ram, and one-tenth ephah plus one-fourth hin for a lamb (15:2-10). Other happy occasions for a grain offering included the cleansing of a leper (Lv 14:10, 20-21, 31; unspecified quantity of grain with a bird) and the successful consummation of a Nazirite vow (Nm 6:13-15).<\/p>\n<p>Peace offerings were invariably followed by grain offerings (Lv 7:12-14; Nm 15:4). The priest received one of each pair of cakes or wafers. The remainder was returned to the offerer to be eaten with the flesh of the sacrificial animal at a place of his choice.<\/p>\n<p>A special case where such offering was used was the one-tenth of an ephah of barley meal required in the jealousy ritual. It was to have no oil or frankincense (Nm 5:15, 18, 25-26). A very poor individual was permitted to bring one-tenth of an ephah of fine flour without oil or frankincense as a sin offering (Lv 5:11-13).<\/p>\n<li>3. Drink offering (Nm 15:1-10). The standard libation was one-fourth of a hin of wine for a lamb, one-third for a ram, and one-half for a bull. The wine (Ex 29:40), also called “strong drink” (Nm 28:7), is probably an intentional substitute for the blood used by other nations (Ps 16:4). The libation was classed as a “pleasing odor” offering (Nm 15:7). As with the burnt offering, the entire drink offering was expended; nothing was given to the priest (28:7).<\/li>\n<p>Drink offerings accompanied the daily offering (Ex 29:40-41; Nm 28:7) and the Sabbath offering (Nm 28:9), as well as the New Moon festival. Reference is also made to them in connection with the second and following days of the Feast of Tabernacles (29:18, 21); for the first day their absence is probably unintentional. The same might hold true for the Passover, Firstfruits, and Feast of Trumpets (Nm 28:16–29:11; cf. Ez 45:11). A libation was required for the rites concluding a Nazirite vow (Nm 6:17) but not for cleansing a leper (Lv 14:10-20).<\/p>\n<h5>Fellowship Offerings<\/h5>\n<p>These sacrifices were voluntary on the part of the offerer and generally not imposed by regulations except for the Nazirite (Nm 6:17) and the Feast of Weeks (Lv 23:19-20). An offerer who had already fulfilled the ritual requirements for atonement and personal consecration was permitted to make a fellowship offering. Burnt offerings often accompanied the fellowship sacrifices as a further expression of devotion.<\/p>\n<p>1. Peace offering (Lv 3; 7:11-36; Am 5:22). This is the basic class of all fellowship or communal offerings; the others are simply subclasses of the peace offering. In terms of holiness, or restrictedness, they were not so rigidly confined as the other offerings. Animals from the herd or flock, male or female (Lv 3:1, 6, 12), were permitted. The usual stipulation of freedom from blemish was in force, except in the case of the freewill offering, in which the animal could have one limb longer than the other (22:23). Unleavened cakes were also required, at least for the thank (7:12-13) and Nazirite (Nm 6:15-19) offerings. Each of these three types of peace offerings will be discussed below, with their special features.<\/p>\n<p>The first parts of the ritual—the presentation and laying on of the hand—were identical to those of the other sacrifices. However, the animal was slaughtered at the door of the sanctuary courtyard and not on the north side of the altar (Lv 3:1-2, 7-8, 12-13; 7:29-30). The priest collected the blood and tossed it against the altar as he did with the burnt offering (3:2, 8, 13). The choice viscera were offered up as a “pleasing odor” (3:3-5, 6-11, 14-16).<\/p>\n<p>The priest also received a certain portion of the offering. He was allowed to eat it in any ritually clean place and to share it with his family (Lv 7:14, 30-36; Nm 6:20), in contrast to his portion of other sacrifices, which he had to eat somewhere in the temple compound (Nm 18:10-11). He received one of the cakes and the breast as a wave offering and the right thigh as a contribution for the offerer. This latter is the so-called “heave offering”; the technical term developed from a root signifying “to be high” and meaning “that which is lifted up.” The heave offering did not really represent a special kind of ritual ceremony.<\/p>\n<p>The ritual act of the peace offering culminated with a fellowship meal. Except for those parts on the altar or given to the priest, the body of the animal was returned to the man who offered it. He had to prepare it as a communal meal for himself, for his family, and for the Levite in his community (Dt 12:12, 18-19). This would have to be at the official sanctuary (Dt 12:6-7, 11-12, 15-19; cf. 1 Sm 1:3-4) and the participants had to observe strict rules of purity (Lv 7:19-21; 19:5-8). It may be contrasted with the ritual slaughtering of animals for a banquet that was permitted at any local altar (Dt 12:16, 20-22). The flesh of the thank offering had to be eaten on the same day of the sacrifice (Lv 7:15), while that of the votive or freewill offerings could be finished off on the following day (vv 16-18). Whatever remained then had to be burned before the time limit expired.<\/p>\n<p>Only three times is there a specific demand for a peace offering: in the Feast of Weeks (Lv 23:19-20), upon completion of a Nazirite vow (Nm 6:17-20), and at the installation of the priesthood (Ex 29:19-22, 28). Other public ritual occasions included the inauguration of the temple (1 Kgs 8:63; 2 Chr 7:5). Events on a national level that evoked the peace offering were the successful conclusion of a military campaign (1 Sm 11:15), the end of a famine or pestilence (2 Sm 24:25), confirmation of a candidate to the throne (1 Kgs 1:9, 19), or a time of religious revival (2 Chr 29:31-36). On the local level, they were offered at the annual family reunion (1 Sm 20:6) or other festive occasions, such as the harvest of the firstfruits (Ex 22:29-31; 1 Sm 9:11-14, 22-24; 16:4-5).<\/p>\n<li>2. Wave offering. The first portion of the peace offering was “waved” before the Lord to signify that the priest was eating it as a representative of God (the actual motion evidently resembled the wielding of a saw or a staff, Is 10:15). The same technical term, “wave offering,” was also used for other kinds of offering: precious metals donated for making the cultic artifacts (Ex 35:22; 38:29) and the guilt offering of the cleansed leper (Lv 14:12).<\/li>\n<li>3. Freewill offering. These gifts, brought to the holy convocations that took place three times per year (Ex 23:16; 34:20; Dt 16:10, 16-17; 2 Chr 35:8; Ezr 3:5), were voluntary (Lv 7:16; 22:18, 21-23; 23:28; Nm 15:3; 29:39; Dt 12:6, 17). Like the voluntary offering, the freewill offering could be a burnt rather than a peace offering (Lv 22:17-24; Ez 46:12). If it was the latter, the flesh could be eaten on the second day but must be burned before the third (Lv 7:16-17). Unlike some other peace offerings, the animal being sacrificed could have one limb longer than the other (22:23).<\/li>\n<li>4. Installation offering. This Hebrew term refers to the settings of precious stones (Ex 25:7; 35:9, 27; 1 Chr 29:2), so “installation” seems an appropriate translation. It had to do with “filling the hand,” a ritual act that consecrated someone to divine service (Ex 28:41; cf. 32:29) and required ritual purity and spiritual devotion (2 Chr 29:31). The details of the original ceremony at the installation of the first priest is described in two passages (Ex 29:19-34; Lv 8:22-32).<\/li>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Atonement; Cleanness and Uncleanness, Regulations Concerning; Feasts and Festivals of Israel; Tabernacle; Temple.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>OFFERINGS AND SACRIFICES<\/h3>\n<p>Major ritual expressions of religious life with accompanying rites, such as libations, effusions, and sacred meals. The ideology expressed in Israel’s ritual complex made its religion unique in the ancient Near East. The concepts of OT ritual also underlie NT theology with regard to sin and reconciliation to God through the atoning death of Jesus Christ.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PerformanceandOrderofSacrifices\">Performance and Order of Sacrifices<\/p>\n<p>The main source for a description of the correct performance of sacrificial ritual is the opening section of Leviticus (Lv 1–7). It consists of two separate parts. The first (1:1–6:7) is didactic, dealing with two categories of sacrifice: those of a “pleasing odor,” namely, the burnt (1:1-17), the grain (2:1-16), and the peace offerings (3:1-17); and the expiatory sacrifices, namely, the sin (4:1–5:13) and the guilt or trespass offerings (5:14–6:7). Attention is paid to the minute details of each ritual, and they are grouped according to their logical or conceptual associations.<\/p>\n<p>The grain (or cereal) offering follows the burnt offering because it always accompanied it in actual practice (Nm 15:1-21; chs 28–29); it also went with the peace offering (Lv 7:12-14; Nm 15:3-4). Special emphasis is placed on burning the inward parts of a sacrifice on the altar to make a “pleasing odor to the Lord” (Lv 1:9, 17; 2:2, 9, 12; 3:5, 11, 16). When the Lord smelled the pleasing odor (Gn 8:21), it was a sign of divine favor; refusal indicated God’s displeasure (Lv 26:31). The officiating priest evidently knew how to read the signs and would tell the offerer whether his sacrifice had been accepted (1 Sm 26:19; cf. Am 5:21-23).<\/p>\n<p>The sin and guilt offerings were expiatory (Lv 4:1–6:7, 20). The situations requiring such offerings are listed, and special emphasis is laid on the handling of the blood in the ritual.<\/p>\n<p>The second major section in this passage (Lv 6:8–7:38) stresses the administrative details for the various offerings. This section consists of a series of “instructions” for each type of offering pertaining to the distribution of the sacrificial materials. Some went to the priest(s), some went to the offerer, and others were burned on the altar or disposed of outside the camp. Those sacrifices designated as “most holy” were to be eaten only by qualified members of the priesthood (Lv 2:3, 10; 10:12-17; 14:13; Nm 18:9).<\/p>\n<p>The burnt offering is discussed first because it was entirely consumed on the altar (and thus not eaten by anyone). After it, there follow the sacrifices distributed to the officiants (Lv 6:17, 26, 29; 7:1, 6), and at the end come the peace offerings, a significant portion of which was returned to the offender.<\/p>\n<p>The order in which the sacrifices are treated in this passage also corresponds to their relative frequency in the rituals of the sacred calendar (Nm 28:19; 2 Chr 31:3; Ez 45:17). This would be particularly important for the priests and Levites on duty at the temple because they were responsible for the logistics of the daily sacrificial ritual, especially on the high holidays; management of the temple storehouse was a formidable task (1 Chr 23:28-32; 26:15, 20-22; 2 Chr 13:10-11; 30:3-19; 34:9-11).<\/p>\n<p>Each section concerning a particular offering concludes with the logistic or administrative details peculiar to it. There then follows a summary of the matters treated thus far (Lv 7:7-10), and the section concludes with a treatment of the peace offerings (vv 11-36). The latter did not play a role in the sacred calendar except during the Feast of Weeks (23:19-20); on all other occasions, with the two exceptions of the Nazirite vow and the installation of the priesthood, peace offerings were purely voluntary sacrifices and thus not subject to any fixed bookkeeping.<\/p>\n<p>In other biblical contexts, the sacrifices are listed according to the same “bookkeeping” or “administrative” order: burnt, grain, and drink; sin (or guilt); and sometimes peace offerings. An example is the roster of donations made by the tribal leaders for dedication of the altar (Nm 7). The information is organized like an everyday ledger from the temple storehouse; the summary classifies the animals as burnt, grain, sin, and peace offerings (vv 87-88) in accordance with the respective entries from each donor (vv 15-17). The Levitical scribe had two purposes for such a record: to credit the offerers and to record the treasures and food supplies coming in. Much of the foodstuffs being given as offerings was actually apportioned to the officiating priests (Nm 18:8-11; 2 Chr 31:4-19).<\/p>\n<p>When prescriptions were made as to the type and number of offerings to be brought (e.g., Nm 15:24), the “bookkeeping” order is generally followed. This was true of the calendarial sacrifices; burnt and grain offerings and libations were listed, followed by a sin offering for each of the following: New Moon (Nm 28:11-15), each day of Passover (vv 19-22), the Festival of Weeks (Lv 23:18-19; Nm 28:27-30), Trumpets (29:2-5), Day of Atonement (vv 8-11), and each day of the Feast of Tabernacles (vv 12-16).<\/p>\n<p>For sacrifices required in specific cases, the instructions as to what offerings to bring follow this sequence (e.g., the purification of a woman after giving birth, Lv 12:6-8). Note also the offerings given at the successful termination of a Nazirite vow; the Nazirite brought burnt, sin, and peace offerings (with some special grain offerings, Nm 6:14-15). However, the priest conducted the actual ritual according to a different order; the sin offering was made first, followed by the burnt offering and finally the peace offering (vv 16-17). In the case of an incomplete vow, the first step was to offer a sin offering and then a burnt offering to renew the vow (v 11). The reconsecration of the Nazirite required a separate guilt offering—a distinct ritual act (v 12).<\/p>\n<p>The description of the offerings made by the prince of Israel in the latter days presents the same contrast between the two orders of sacrifices. On festival holidays the prince brought burnt, grain, and drink offerings, but he offered them as sin, grain, burnt, and peace offerings (Ez 45:17). This second order of sacrifices in which the sin offering precedes the burnt offering was also followed in the rededication of the altar (43:18-27).<\/p>\n<p>The same “procedural” sequence of sacrifices appears in other instances: the purification of the leper—guilt and sin offerings (Lv 14:19), followed by a burnt offering (vv 12-20); the man with a discharge—sin and burnt offerings (15:15); likewise the woman with a discharge (v 30). The same order is followed for the sacrifices on the Day of Atonement (16:3-6, 11, 15, 24).<\/p>\n<p>The book of Leviticus furnishes two examples of the proper order in which sacrifices were offered. One is the ordination of Aaron and his sons. The sin offering came first and then the burnt offering (Ex 29:10-18; Lv 8:14-21). The focal point in this ritual was the sacrifice of ordination, or literally “installation,” a special form of peace offering (Ex 29:19-34; Lv 8:22-29). The second passage is the formal inauguration of the sacrificial system at the tabernacle (Lv 9). The sacrifices for Aaron were sin and burnt offerings, followed by those for the people: sin, burnt, grain, and peace offerings (9:7-22).<\/p>\n<p>The same sequence is followed at the cleansing and restoration of the temple in Jerusalem conducted by King Hezekiah (2 Chr 29:20-36). A great sin offering was first, followed by the burnt offerings accompanied by music and song. Then the king proclaimed that the people had committed themselves to the Lord; in this new state of purity they could now share in the sacrifices of devotion (burnt offerings) and thanksgiving (peace offerings).<\/p>\n<p>The procedural order of the sacrifices embodies the OT ideology of how God may be approached. First, atonement for sin had to be made and then total consecration of self; these are symbolized by the sin and\/or guilt offerings and the burnt and grain offerings, respectively. When these conditions were met, the offerer could express his continued devotion by more burnt offerings and also take part in the fellowship sacrifices (peace offerings) in which he himself got a large portion of the slaughtered animal (to share with his friends and the poor in his community; Dt 12:17-19).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"DescriptionofSacrifices\">Description of Sacrifices<\/p>\n<p>The ensuing description of the different types of sacrifice will treat them in accordance with the “procedural” order, that is, as symbolic stages in one’s approach to God.<\/p>\n<h5>Expiation<\/h5>\n<p>These two offerings were required for making atonement for sins and trespasses:<\/p>\n<p>1. Sin offering (Lv 4:1–5:13; 6:24-30). Different animals were specified in accordance with the rank of the offerer. A high priest had to bring a young bull (4:3), as did the congregation as a whole (v 14), except when the matter was a ritual infraction (Nm 15:24). A ruler would bring a male goat (Lv 4:23), but a commoner could provide a female goat (v 28; Nm 15:27) or a lamb (Lv 4:32). If he was indigent, he could offer two turtledoves or two young pigeons (one of which would be a burnt offering; 5:7), or if he was extremely poor, he might even substitute a tenth of an ephah of fine flour (Lv 5:11-13; cf. Heb 9:22).<\/p>\n\n<p>The offerer brought the animal to the entrance of the temple court and laid his hand on it (Lv 4:4). He did not confess his sin in this act because the animal was not being sent away (cf. the goat for Azazel, 16:21); rather, he was identifying himself with the sacrifice. The offerer had to kill the animal on the north side of the altar (4:24, 29). The animals were never slaughtered on the altar proper. The officiating priest collected the blood; when it was a bull for himself or for the congregation, he sprinkled some of the blood before the veil inside the tent of meeting and put some on the horns of the incense altar (vv 5-7, 16-18). On the Day of Atonement he brought the sacrificial blood for himself and for the people into the Holy of Holies (16:14-15). From all other animals, the blood was applied to the horns of the altar of burnt offering (4:25, 30, 34); the blood of fowl was sprinkled on the side of the altar (5:9). Finally, the remaining blood from any offering was poured or drained out at the base of the altar (4:7).<\/p>\n<p>The choicest of the internal organs, namely, the fatty tissue over and on the entrails, the two kidneys and their fat, and the appendage to the liver, were all offered to the Lord on the altar (Lv 4:8-10). The carcass and the other entrails were burned outside the camp when it was a bull for the priest or for the people. This was also true of the bull for the ordination of the priests (Ex 29:10-14; Lv 8:14-17). Otherwise, the priest who conducted the rites received the edible flesh as his portion. He had to eat it within the temple area, and its preparation was governed by strict rules of ritual purity (Lv 6:25-30; cf. 10:16-20). A sin offering of one male goat was presented at each of the sacred holidays: the New Moon (Nm 28:15), each day of Passover (vv 22-24), the Festival of Weeks (v 30), the Festival of Trumpets (29:5), the Day of Atonement (v 11), and each day of the Feast of Tabernacles (vv 16, 19). The high priest also offered a bull for himself and then sacrificed one of the two goats on the Day of Atonement. Certain purification rites required lesser sin offerings, namely, lambs or birds: childbirth (Lv 12:6-8), cleansing from leprosy (14:12-14, 19-22), and abscesses and hemorrhages (15:14-15, 29-30) or after defilement while under a vow (Nm 6:10-11).<\/p>\n<li>2. Guilt offering (Lv 5:14–6:7; 7:1-7). The guilt or trespass offering was a special kind of sin offering (cf. 5:7) required whenever someone had been denied his rightful due. Reparation of the valued amount that had been defrauded had to be made, plus a fine of one-fifth (5:16; 6:5). The animal was usually a ram (5:15, 18; 6:6). The cleansed leper and the defiled Nazirite had to bring a male lamb (Lv 14:12, 21; Nm 6:12). The offerer apparently handled the sacrifice as he would a sin offering, but the priest had to sprinkle the blood around the altar (Lv 7:2). Viscera were burned on the altar as usual (vv 3-5). Some of the blood was then applied to the tip of the cleansed leper’s right ear and to his right thumb and big toe (14:14). Again the priest received most of the animal’s flesh for food (7:6-7; 14:13). A guilt offering was required whenever another party had suffered some loss. Ritual infractions, such as eating the “holy things” without proper authorization (5:14-19; 22:14), called for payment of the sum that should have gone to the Lord plus the fine of one-fifth that went to the priest (Lv 5:16; 2 Kgs 12:16). The leper belongs in this category, since during the time of his infection he was unable to render service to God (Lv 14:12-18). The same applies to the Nazirite who had suffered defilement while he was set apart to God by the vow; thus a guilt offering was required (Nm 6:12). Violation of another person’s property rights could be expiated only by the guilt offering and its additional one-fifth. Such matters included cheating on deposits or security, robbery or oppression, failing to report the find of some lost property, or false swearing or failing to testify (Lv 6:1-5). Intercourse with a betrothed slave girl was also a violation of property rights (19:20-22). If the offended party was no longer living and had no surviving kinsmen, the payment went to the priest (Nm 5:5-10).<\/li>\n<h5>Consecration Offerings<\/h5>\n<p>These rituals usually come to mind when one hears the word “offering.” They represent acts of personal commitment that must accompany the repentance expressed in the sin and guilt offerings. They were also a prerequisite for the fellowship or communal sacrifices that might follow.<\/p>\n<p>1. Burnt offering (Lv 1:3-17; 6:8-13). The burnt offering could be a bull, a sheep, or a bird. The offerer presented the animal, laid his hand on it, and killed it on the north side of the altar. The bird was simply given to the priest. The latter collected the blood, presented it before God, and then sprinkled it around the altar. When the offering was a bird, he wrung off its head and drained the blood at the side of the altar. Though the slaughtering and sprinkling of the blood relates the burnt offering to the expiatory sacrifices of the previous section, the main emphasis here is on killing the animal, washing its unclean parts, and then carefully arranging all of the pieces on the altar. All of this was then consumed on the altar as a pleasing odor to the Lord. Since burnt offerings were offered morning and evening, a good supply of wood by the altar was necessary. The officiating priest, dressed in proper garments, had to keep the fire burning continuously (6:8-13).<\/p>\n<p>Burnt offerings played a prominent role in the sacrifices of the ritual calendar. The continual burnt offering was made twice a day, a male lamb morning and evening (Ex 29:38-42; Nm 28:1-8). Two additional lambs were sacrificed each Sabbath (Nm 28:9-10).<\/p>\n<p>Except for these daily offerings, a sin offering of one goat was usually made along with the burnt offerings on the following holidays: For the New Moon at the beginning of each month, two young bulls, one ram, and seven male lambs were offered (Nm 28:11-14). The same were required for each day of the Passover festival (vv 19-24) and again on the Feast of Weeks (vv 6-29). On the Festival of Trumpets and the Day of Atonement, the requirement was one bull, one ram, and seven lambs (29:2-4).<\/p>\n<p>The great Feast of Tabernacles was characterized by a series of elaborate burnt offerings, plus one goat per day as a sin offering. On the first day, 13 young bulls, 2 rams, and 14 male lambs were offered (Nm 29:12-16). Each successive day, the number of bulls was decreased by one until on the seventh day there were only seven (the rams and lambs remained the same; 29:17-25). On the eighth day the animals required for Trumpets and Atonement were offered, namely, one bull, one ram, and seven lambs.<\/p>\n<p>Certain rituals of purification also required burnt offerings in addition to sin offerings: after childbirth (Lv 12:6-8), abscesses (15:14-15), and discharges (vv 29-30); or after defilement while under a Nazirite vow (Nm 6:10-11). Though it is not stated that grain offerings were required in these cases, they certainly were for the cleansing from leprosy (Lv 14:10, 19-22, 31) and the completion of the Nazirite vow (Nm 6:14-16).<\/p>\n<li>2. Grain (Cereal) offering (Lv 2; 6:14-23). The Hebrew term referring to this particular offering means “gift,” or “offering,” including animals (Gn 4:3-5; Jgs 6:18; 1 Sm 2:17). But in the specific sacrificial context it signifies a combination of fine flour, olive oil, and frankincense that could be made up in the form of baked loaves, wafers, or morsels. The offering of firstfruits was to be crushed heads of new grain (Lv 2:14). No leaven or honey was permitted on the cakes, although those same commodities could be accepted as a firstfruit offering. They would not go to the altar but were given to the priest. The offerer had to bring the prepared loaves or wafers to the temple. The priest would burn one handful on the altar as its “memorial portion” (v 2), keeping the remainder for his own food (6:16; 7:9). But when the priest was making a grain offering on his own behalf, he burnt it all on the altar (6:22-23).<\/li>\n<p>A grain offering was usually given with every burnt offering, especially those pertaining to the sacred calendar (Nm 28–29). The amounts of flour and oil were set according to the animal being sacrificed: three-tenths of an ephah of flour and one-half a hin of oil for a bull, two-tenths ephah and one-third hin for a ram, and one-tenth ephah plus one-fourth hin for a lamb (15:2-10). Other happy occasions for a grain offering included the cleansing of a leper (Lv 14:10, 20-21, 31; unspecified quantity of grain with a bird) and the successful consummation of a Nazirite vow (Nm 6:13-15).<\/p>\n<p>Peace offerings were invariably followed by grain offerings (Lv 7:12-14; Nm 15:4). The priest received one of each pair of cakes or wafers. The remainder was returned to the offerer to be eaten with the flesh of the sacrificial animal at a place of his choice.<\/p>\n<p>A special case where such offering was used was the one-tenth of an ephah of barley meal required in the jealousy ritual. It was to have no oil or frankincense (Nm 5:15, 18, 25-26). A very poor individual was permitted to bring one-tenth of an ephah of fine flour without oil or frankincense as a sin offering (Lv 5:11-13).<\/p>\n<li>3. Drink offering (Nm 15:1-10). The standard libation was one-fourth of a hin of wine for a lamb, one-third for a ram, and one-half for a bull. The wine (Ex 29:40), also called “strong drink” (Nm 28:7), is probably an intentional substitute for the blood used by other nations (Ps 16:4). The libation was classed as a “pleasing odor” offering (Nm 15:7). As with the burnt offering, the entire drink offering was expended; nothing was given to the priest (28:7).<\/li>\n<p>Drink offerings accompanied the daily offering (Ex 29:40-41; Nm 28:7) and the Sabbath offering (Nm 28:9), as well as the New Moon festival. Reference is also made to them in connection with the second and following days of the Feast of Tabernacles (29:18, 21); for the first day their absence is probably unintentional. The same might hold true for the Passover, Firstfruits, and Feast of Trumpets (Nm 28:16–29:11; cf. Ez 45:11). A libation was required for the rites concluding a Nazirite vow (Nm 6:17) but not for cleansing a leper (Lv 14:10-20).<\/p>\n<h5>Fellowship Offerings<\/h5>\n<p>These sacrifices were voluntary on the part of the offerer and generally not imposed by regulations except for the Nazirite (Nm 6:17) and the Feast of Weeks (Lv 23:19-20). An offerer who had already fulfilled the ritual requirements for atonement and personal consecration was permitted to make a fellowship offering. Burnt offerings often accompanied the fellowship sacrifices as a further expression of devotion.<\/p>\n<p>1. Peace offering (Lv 3; 7:11-36; Am 5:22). This is the basic class of all fellowship or communal offerings; the others are simply subclasses of the peace offering. In terms of holiness, or restrictedness, they were not so rigidly confined as the other offerings. Animals from the herd or flock, male or female (Lv 3:1, 6, 12), were permitted. The usual stipulation of freedom from blemish was in force, except in the case of the freewill offering, in which the animal could have one limb longer than the other (22:23). Unleavened cakes were also required, at least for the thank (7:12-13) and Nazirite (Nm 6:15-19) offerings. Each of these three types of peace offerings will be discussed below, with their special features.<\/p>\n<p>The first parts of the ritual—the presentation and laying on of the hand—were identical to those of the other sacrifices. However, the animal was slaughtered at the door of the sanctuary courtyard and not on the north side of the altar (Lv 3:1-2, 7-8, 12-13; 7:29-30). The priest collected the blood and tossed it against the altar as he did with the burnt offering (3:2, 8, 13). The choice viscera were offered up as a “pleasing odor” (3:3-5, 6-11, 14-16).<\/p>\n<p>The priest also received a certain portion of the offering. He was allowed to eat it in any ritually clean place and to share it with his family (Lv 7:14, 30-36; Nm 6:20), in contrast to his portion of other sacrifices, which he had to eat somewhere in the temple compound (Nm 18:10-11). He received one of the cakes and the breast as a wave offering and the right thigh as a contribution for the offerer. This latter is the so-called “heave offering”; the technical term developed from a root signifying “to be high” and meaning “that which is lifted up.” The heave offering did not really represent a special kind of ritual ceremony.<\/p>\n<p>The ritual act of the peace offering culminated with a fellowship meal. Except for those parts on the altar or given to the priest, the body of the animal was returned to the man who offered it. He had to prepare it as a communal meal for himself, for his family, and for the Levite in his community (Dt 12:12, 18-19). This would have to be at the official sanctuary (Dt 12:6-7, 11-12, 15-19; cf. 1 Sm 1:3-4) and the participants had to observe strict rules of purity (Lv 7:19-21; 19:5-8). It may be contrasted with the ritual slaughtering of animals for a banquet that was permitted at any local altar (Dt 12:16, 20-22). The flesh of the thank offering had to be eaten on the same day of the sacrifice (Lv 7:15), while that of the votive or freewill offerings could be finished off on the following day (vv 16-18). Whatever remained then had to be burned before the time limit expired.<\/p>\n<p>Only three times is there a specific demand for a peace offering: in the Feast of Weeks (Lv 23:19-20), upon completion of a Nazirite vow (Nm 6:17-20), and at the installation of the priesthood (Ex 29:19-22, 28). Other public ritual occasions included the inauguration of the temple (1 Kgs 8:63; 2 Chr 7:5). Events on a national level that evoked the peace offering were the successful conclusion of a military campaign (1 Sm 11:15), the end of a famine or pestilence (2 Sm 24:25), confirmation of a candidate to the throne (1 Kgs 1:9, 19), or a time of religious revival (2 Chr 29:31-36). On the local level, they were offered at the annual family reunion (1 Sm 20:6) or other festive occasions, such as the harvest of the firstfruits (Ex 22:29-31; 1 Sm 9:11-14, 22-24; 16:4-5).<\/p>\n<li>2. Wave offering. The first portion of the peace offering was “waved” before the Lord to signify that the priest was eating it as a representative of God (the actual motion evidently resembled the wielding of a saw or a staff, Is 10:15). The same technical term, “wave offering,” was also used for other kinds of offering: precious metals donated for making the cultic artifacts (Ex 35:22; 38:29) and the guilt offering of the cleansed leper (Lv 14:12).<\/li>\n<li>3. Freewill offering. These gifts, brought to the holy convocations that took place three times per year (Ex 23:16; 34:20; Dt 16:10, 16-17; 2 Chr 35:8; Ezr 3:5), were voluntary (Lv 7:16; 22:18, 21-23; 23:28; Nm 15:3; 29:39; Dt 12:6, 17). Like the voluntary offering, the freewill offering could be a burnt rather than a peace offering (Lv 22:17-24; Ez 46:12). If it was the latter, the flesh could be eaten on the second day but must be burned before the third (Lv 7:16-17). Unlike some other peace offerings, the animal being sacrificed could have one limb longer than the other (22:23).<\/li>\n<li>4. Installation offering. This Hebrew term refers to the settings of precious stones (Ex 25:7; 35:9, 27; 1 Chr 29:2), so “installation” seems an appropriate translation. It had to do with “filling the hand,” a ritual act that consecrated someone to divine service (Ex 28:41; cf. 32:29) and required ritual purity and spiritual devotion (2 Chr 29:31). The details of the original ceremony at the installation of the first priest is described in two passages (Ex 29:19-34; Lv 8:22-32).<\/li>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Atonement; Cleanness and Uncleanness, Regulations Concerning; Feasts and Festivals of Israel; Tabernacle; Temple.<\/p>","summary_ro":"OFFERINGS AND SACRIFICES Major ritual expressions of religious life with accompanying rites, such as libations, effusions, and sacred meals. The ideology expressed in Israel’s ritual complex made its religion unique in the ancient Near East. The concepts of OT ritual also underlie NT theology with regard to sin and reconciliation to God through the atoning death of Jesus Christ. Performance and Order of Sacrifices The main source for a description of the correct performance of sacrificial rit...","summary_en":"OFFERINGS AND SACRIFICES Major ritual expressions of religious life with accompanying rites, such as libations, effusions, and sacred meals. The ideology expressed in Israel’s ritual complex made its religion unique in the ancient Near East. The concepts of OT ritual also underlie NT theology with regard to sin and reconciliation to God through the atoning death of Jesus Christ. Performance and Order of Sacrifices The main source for a description of the correct performance of sacrificial rit...","source":"Articles\/O.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"4":[{"id":21679,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Kidney","title_en":"Kidney","content_ro":"<h3>KIDNEY<\/h3>\n<p>One of the body parts of sacrificial animals used for offerings to God. The kidneys, along with their fat, were to be burned on the altar (Ex 29:13; Lv 3:4-15) and represented the blood that the Israelites were not permitted to eat.<\/p>\n<p>In a more figurative sense the kidneys are thought of as the seat of human emotions (Ps 73:21) and the rational and moral faculties (Ps 16:7; Jer 12:2). They are closely associated with the “heart” and “soul,” standing for one’s innermost self-consciousness. The <span>nlt<\/span> translates the Hebrew word as “mind,” “heart,” and “soul” in several passages.<\/p>\n<p>As in the OT Jehovah had knowledge of man’s inmost thoughts (e.g., Pss 7:9; 26:2; Jer 20:12), so Christ was identified in the book of Revelation as the one who “searches the minds and hearts” (Rv 2:23), making an indirect but clear identification of Jesus with Jehovah. This is the only reference to the kidneys in the NT.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>KIDNEY<\/h3>\n<p>One of the body parts of sacrificial animals used for offerings to God. The kidneys, along with their fat, were to be burned on the altar (Ex 29:13; Lv 3:4-15) and represented the blood that the Israelites were not permitted to eat.<\/p>\n<p>In a more figurative sense the kidneys are thought of as the seat of human emotions (Ps 73:21) and the rational and moral faculties (Ps 16:7; Jer 12:2). They are closely associated with the “heart” and “soul,” standing for one’s innermost self-consciousness. The <span>nlt<\/span> translates the Hebrew word as “mind,” “heart,” and “soul” in several passages.<\/p>\n<p>As in the OT Jehovah had knowledge of man’s inmost thoughts (e.g., Pss 7:9; 26:2; Jer 20:12), so Christ was identified in the book of Revelation as the one who “searches the minds and hearts” (Rv 2:23), making an indirect but clear identification of Jesus with Jehovah. This is the only reference to the kidneys in the NT.<\/p>","summary_ro":"KIDNEY One of the body parts of sacrificial animals used for offerings to God. The kidneys, along with their fat, were to be burned on the altar (Ex 29:13; Lv 3:4-15) and represented the blood that the Israelites were not permitted to eat. In a more figurative sense the kidneys are thought of as the seat of human emotions (Ps 73:21) and the rational and moral faculties (Ps 16:7; Jer 12:2). They are closely associated with the “heart” and “soul,” standing for one’s innermost self-consciousness...","summary_en":"KIDNEY One of the body parts of sacrificial animals used for offerings to God. The kidneys, along with their fat, were to be burned on the altar (Ex 29:13; Lv 3:4-15) and represented the blood that the Israelites were not permitted to eat. In a more figurative sense the kidneys are thought of as the seat of human emotions (Ps 73:21) and the rational and moral faculties (Ps 16:7; Jer 12:2). They are closely associated with the “heart” and “soul,” standing for one’s innermost self-consciousness...","source":"Articles\/K.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":23357,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Liver","title_en":"Liver","content_ro":"<h3>LIVER<\/h3>\n<p>Large abdominal organ that performs many functions necessary for life. The writer of Proverbs understood the critical nature of the liver when he noted that an arrow injury to the liver (<span>nlt<\/span> “heart”) was fatal (Prv 7:23). In most instances, in Scripture the liver is mentioned in connection with the description of animal sacrifices (Ex 29:13, 22; Lv 3:4, 10, 15).<\/p>\n<p>In ancient Babylon, sheep liver was occasionally used in fortune-telling; the shape of each small detail of the liver was carefully examined for possible omens. Bronze and baked-clay anatomical models of sheep livers have been recovered from archaeology sites dating to the 16th century <span>BC<\/span>. Evidently this is the use of the liver made by the king of Babylon in Ezekiel 21:21. This use of the sheep liver was popular until the time of the Greeks and rivaled astrology for many centuries.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>LIVER<\/h3>\n<p>Large abdominal organ that performs many functions necessary for life. The writer of Proverbs understood the critical nature of the liver when he noted that an arrow injury to the liver (<span>nlt<\/span> “heart”) was fatal (Prv 7:23). In most instances, in Scripture the liver is mentioned in connection with the description of animal sacrifices (Ex 29:13, 22; Lv 3:4, 10, 15).<\/p>\n<p>In ancient Babylon, sheep liver was occasionally used in fortune-telling; the shape of each small detail of the liver was carefully examined for possible omens. Bronze and baked-clay anatomical models of sheep livers have been recovered from archaeology sites dating to the 16th century <span>BC<\/span>. Evidently this is the use of the liver made by the king of Babylon in Ezekiel 21:21. This use of the sheep liver was popular until the time of the Greeks and rivaled astrology for many centuries.<\/p>","summary_ro":"LIVER Large abdominal organ that performs many functions necessary for life. The writer of Proverbs understood the critical nature of the liver when he noted that an arrow injury to the liver (nlt “heart”) was fatal (Prv 7:23). In most instances, in Scripture the liver is mentioned in connection with the description of animal sacrifices (Ex 29:13, 22; Lv 3:4, 10, 15). In ancient Babylon, sheep liver was occasionally used in fortune-telling; the shape of each small detail of the liver was care...","summary_en":"LIVER Large abdominal organ that performs many functions necessary for life. The writer of Proverbs understood the critical nature of the liver when he noted that an arrow injury to the liver (nlt “heart”) was fatal (Prv 7:23). In most instances, in Scripture the liver is mentioned in connection with the description of animal sacrifices (Ex 29:13, 22; Lv 3:4, 10, 15). In ancient Babylon, sheep liver was occasionally used in fortune-telling; the shape of each small detail of the liver was care...","source":"Articles\/L.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":44079,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Leviticul 3:4","title_en":"Study Note: Leviticul 3:4","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:4<\/strong> <em>kidneys . . . lobe of the liver:<\/em> The Israelites saw the kidneys as organs of understanding, much like how we think of the brain (“I am overwhelmed [literally <em>my kidneys are consumed<\/em>],” Job 19:27; “heart,” Pss 7:9; 16:7; Jer 12:2; Lam 3:13; “motives,” Ps 26:2; Jer 17:10; “thoughts,” Jer 11:20; 20:12). The liver represented life and vitality, similar to how we think of the heart (Prov 7:23; “spirit,” Lam 2:11).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:4<\/strong> <em>kidneys . . . lobe of the liver:<\/em> The Israelites saw the kidneys as organs of understanding, much like how we think of the brain (“I am overwhelmed [literally <em>my kidneys are consumed<\/em>],” Job 19:27; “heart,” Pss 7:9; 16:7; Jer 12:2; Lam 3:13; “motives,” Ps 26:2; Jer 17:10; “thoughts,” Jer 11:20; 20:12). The liver represented life and vitality, similar to how we think of the heart (Prov 7:23; “spirit,” Lam 2:11).<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:4 kidneys . . . lobe of the liver: The Israelites saw the kidneys as organs of understanding, much like how we think of the brain (“I am overwhelmed [literally my kidneys are consumed],” Job 19:27; “heart,” Pss 7:9; 16:7; Jer 12:2; Lam 3:13; “motives,” Ps 26:2; Jer 17:10; “thoughts,” Jer 11:20; 20:12). The liver represented life and vitality, similar to how we think of the heart (Prov 7:23; “spirit,” Lam 2:11).","summary_en":"3:4 kidneys . . . lobe of the liver: The Israelites saw the kidneys as organs of understanding, much like how we think of the brain (“I am overwhelmed [literally my kidneys are consumed],” Job 19:27; “heart,” Pss 7:9; 16:7; Jer 12:2; Lam 3:13; “motives,” Ps 26:2; Jer 17:10; “thoughts,” Jer 11:20; 20:12). The liver represented life and vitality, similar to how we think of the heart (Prov 7:23; “spirit,” Lam 2:11).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":71705,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Leviticul 3:4","title_en":"Study Note: Leviticul 3:4","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:4<\/strong> <em>kidneys . . . lobe of the liver:<\/em> The Israelites saw the kidneys as organs of understanding, much like how we think of the brain (“I am overwhelmed [literally <em>my kidneys are consumed<\/em>],” Job 19:27; “heart,” Pss 7:9; 16:7; Jer 12:2; Lam 3:13; “motives,” Ps 26:2; Jer 17:10; “thoughts,” Jer 11:20; 20:12). The liver represented life and vitality, similar to how we think of the heart (Prov 7:23; “spirit,” Lam 2:11).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:4<\/strong> <em>kidneys . . . lobe of the liver:<\/em> The Israelites saw the kidneys as organs of understanding, much like how we think of the brain (“I am overwhelmed [literally <em>my kidneys are consumed<\/em>],” Job 19:27; “heart,” Pss 7:9; 16:7; Jer 12:2; Lam 3:13; “motives,” Ps 26:2; Jer 17:10; “thoughts,” Jer 11:20; 20:12). The liver represented life and vitality, similar to how we think of the heart (Prov 7:23; “spirit,” Lam 2:11).<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:4 kidneys . . . lobe of the liver: The Israelites saw the kidneys as organs of understanding, much like how we think of the brain (“I am overwhelmed [literally my kidneys are consumed],” Job 19:27; “heart,” Pss 7:9; 16:7; Jer 12:2; Lam 3:13; “motives,” Ps 26:2; Jer 17:10; “thoughts,” Jer 11:20; 20:12). The liver represented life and vitality, similar to how we think of the heart (Prov 7:23; “spirit,” Lam 2:11).","summary_en":"3:4 kidneys . . . lobe of the liver: The Israelites saw the kidneys as organs of understanding, much like how we think of the brain (“I am overwhelmed [literally my kidneys are consumed],” Job 19:27; “heart,” Pss 7:9; 16:7; Jer 12:2; Lam 3:13; “motives,” Ps 26:2; Jer 17:10; “thoughts,” Jer 11:20; 20:12). The liver represented life and vitality, similar to how we think of the heart (Prov 7:23; “spirit,” Lam 2:11).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":99331,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Leviticul 3:4","title_en":"Study Note: Leviticul 3:4","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:4<\/strong> <em>kidneys . . . lobe of the liver:<\/em> The Israelites saw the kidneys as organs of understanding, much like how we think of the brain (“I am overwhelmed [literally <em>my kidneys are consumed<\/em>],” Job 19:27; “heart,” Pss 7:9; 16:7; Jer 12:2; Lam 3:13; “motives,” Ps 26:2; Jer 17:10; “thoughts,” Jer 11:20; 20:12). The liver represented life and vitality, similar to how we think of the heart (Prov 7:23; “spirit,” Lam 2:11).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:4<\/strong> <em>kidneys . . . lobe of the liver:<\/em> The Israelites saw the kidneys as organs of understanding, much like how we think of the brain (“I am overwhelmed [literally <em>my kidneys are consumed<\/em>],” Job 19:27; “heart,” Pss 7:9; 16:7; Jer 12:2; Lam 3:13; “motives,” Ps 26:2; Jer 17:10; “thoughts,” Jer 11:20; 20:12). The liver represented life and vitality, similar to how we think of the heart (Prov 7:23; “spirit,” Lam 2:11).<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:4 kidneys . . . lobe of the liver: The Israelites saw the kidneys as organs of understanding, much like how we think of the brain (“I am overwhelmed [literally my kidneys are consumed],” Job 19:27; “heart,” Pss 7:9; 16:7; Jer 12:2; Lam 3:13; “motives,” Ps 26:2; Jer 17:10; “thoughts,” Jer 11:20; 20:12). The liver represented life and vitality, similar to how we think of the heart (Prov 7:23; “spirit,” Lam 2:11).","summary_en":"3:4 kidneys . . . lobe of the liver: The Israelites saw the kidneys as organs of understanding, much like how we think of the brain (“I am overwhelmed [literally my kidneys are consumed],” Job 19:27; “heart,” Pss 7:9; 16:7; Jer 12:2; Lam 3:13; “motives,” Ps 26:2; Jer 17:10; “thoughts,” Jer 11:20; 20:12). The liver represented life and vitality, similar to how we think of the heart (Prov 7:23; “spirit,” Lam 2:11).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":126957,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Leviticul 3:4","title_en":"Study Note: Leviticul 3:4","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:4<\/strong> <em>kidneys . . . lobe of the liver:<\/em> The Israelites saw the kidneys as organs of understanding, much like how we think of the brain (“I am overwhelmed [literally <em>my kidneys are consumed<\/em>],” Job 19:27; “heart,” Pss 7:9; 16:7; Jer 12:2; Lam 3:13; “motives,” Ps 26:2; Jer 17:10; “thoughts,” Jer 11:20; 20:12). The liver represented life and vitality, similar to how we think of the heart (Prov 7:23; “spirit,” Lam 2:11).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:4<\/strong> <em>kidneys . . . lobe of the liver:<\/em> The Israelites saw the kidneys as organs of understanding, much like how we think of the brain (“I am overwhelmed [literally <em>my kidneys are consumed<\/em>],” Job 19:27; “heart,” Pss 7:9; 16:7; Jer 12:2; Lam 3:13; “motives,” Ps 26:2; Jer 17:10; “thoughts,” Jer 11:20; 20:12). The liver represented life and vitality, similar to how we think of the heart (Prov 7:23; “spirit,” Lam 2:11).<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:4 kidneys . . . lobe of the liver: The Israelites saw the kidneys as organs of understanding, much like how we think of the brain (“I am overwhelmed [literally my kidneys are consumed],” Job 19:27; “heart,” Pss 7:9; 16:7; Jer 12:2; Lam 3:13; “motives,” Ps 26:2; Jer 17:10; “thoughts,” Jer 11:20; 20:12). The liver represented life and vitality, similar to how we think of the heart (Prov 7:23; “spirit,” Lam 2:11).","summary_en":"3:4 kidneys . . . lobe of the liver: The Israelites saw the kidneys as organs of understanding, much like how we think of the brain (“I am overwhelmed [literally my kidneys are consumed],” Job 19:27; “heart,” Pss 7:9; 16:7; Jer 12:2; Lam 3:13; “motives,” Ps 26:2; Jer 17:10; “thoughts,” Jer 11:20; 20:12). The liver represented life and vitality, similar to how we think of the heart (Prov 7:23; “spirit,” Lam 2:11).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"5":[{"id":28169,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Offerings and Sacrifices","title_en":"Offerings and Sacrifices","content_ro":"<h3>OFFERINGS AND SACRIFICES<\/h3>\n<p>Major ritual expressions of religious life with accompanying rites, such as libations, effusions, and sacred meals. The ideology expressed in Israel’s ritual complex made its religion unique in the ancient Near East. The concepts of OT ritual also underlie NT theology with regard to sin and reconciliation to God through the atoning death of Jesus Christ.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PerformanceandOrderofSacrifices\">Performance and Order of Sacrifices<\/p>\n<p>The main source for a description of the correct performance of sacrificial ritual is the opening section of Leviticus (Lv 1–7). It consists of two separate parts. The first (1:1–6:7) is didactic, dealing with two categories of sacrifice: those of a “pleasing odor,” namely, the burnt (1:1-17), the grain (2:1-16), and the peace offerings (3:1-17); and the expiatory sacrifices, namely, the sin (4:1–5:13) and the guilt or trespass offerings (5:14–6:7). Attention is paid to the minute details of each ritual, and they are grouped according to their logical or conceptual associations.<\/p>\n<p>The grain (or cereal) offering follows the burnt offering because it always accompanied it in actual practice (Nm 15:1-21; chs 28–29); it also went with the peace offering (Lv 7:12-14; Nm 15:3-4). Special emphasis is placed on burning the inward parts of a sacrifice on the altar to make a “pleasing odor to the Lord” (Lv 1:9, 17; 2:2, 9, 12; 3:5, 11, 16). When the Lord smelled the pleasing odor (Gn 8:21), it was a sign of divine favor; refusal indicated God’s displeasure (Lv 26:31). The officiating priest evidently knew how to read the signs and would tell the offerer whether his sacrifice had been accepted (1 Sm 26:19; cf. Am 5:21-23).<\/p>\n<p>The sin and guilt offerings were expiatory (Lv 4:1–6:7, 20). The situations requiring such offerings are listed, and special emphasis is laid on the handling of the blood in the ritual.<\/p>\n<p>The second major section in this passage (Lv 6:8–7:38) stresses the administrative details for the various offerings. This section consists of a series of “instructions” for each type of offering pertaining to the distribution of the sacrificial materials. Some went to the priest(s), some went to the offerer, and others were burned on the altar or disposed of outside the camp. Those sacrifices designated as “most holy” were to be eaten only by qualified members of the priesthood (Lv 2:3, 10; 10:12-17; 14:13; Nm 18:9).<\/p>\n<p>The burnt offering is discussed first because it was entirely consumed on the altar (and thus not eaten by anyone). After it, there follow the sacrifices distributed to the officiants (Lv 6:17, 26, 29; 7:1, 6), and at the end come the peace offerings, a significant portion of which was returned to the offender.<\/p>\n<p>The order in which the sacrifices are treated in this passage also corresponds to their relative frequency in the rituals of the sacred calendar (Nm 28:19; 2 Chr 31:3; Ez 45:17). This would be particularly important for the priests and Levites on duty at the temple because they were responsible for the logistics of the daily sacrificial ritual, especially on the high holidays; management of the temple storehouse was a formidable task (1 Chr 23:28-32; 26:15, 20-22; 2 Chr 13:10-11; 30:3-19; 34:9-11).<\/p>\n<p>Each section concerning a particular offering concludes with the logistic or administrative details peculiar to it. There then follows a summary of the matters treated thus far (Lv 7:7-10), and the section concludes with a treatment of the peace offerings (vv 11-36). The latter did not play a role in the sacred calendar except during the Feast of Weeks (23:19-20); on all other occasions, with the two exceptions of the Nazirite vow and the installation of the priesthood, peace offerings were purely voluntary sacrifices and thus not subject to any fixed bookkeeping.<\/p>\n<p>In other biblical contexts, the sacrifices are listed according to the same “bookkeeping” or “administrative” order: burnt, grain, and drink; sin (or guilt); and sometimes peace offerings. An example is the roster of donations made by the tribal leaders for dedication of the altar (Nm 7). The information is organized like an everyday ledger from the temple storehouse; the summary classifies the animals as burnt, grain, sin, and peace offerings (vv 87-88) in accordance with the respective entries from each donor (vv 15-17). The Levitical scribe had two purposes for such a record: to credit the offerers and to record the treasures and food supplies coming in. Much of the foodstuffs being given as offerings was actually apportioned to the officiating priests (Nm 18:8-11; 2 Chr 31:4-19).<\/p>\n<p>When prescriptions were made as to the type and number of offerings to be brought (e.g., Nm 15:24), the “bookkeeping” order is generally followed. This was true of the calendarial sacrifices; burnt and grain offerings and libations were listed, followed by a sin offering for each of the following: New Moon (Nm 28:11-15), each day of Passover (vv 19-22), the Festival of Weeks (Lv 23:18-19; Nm 28:27-30), Trumpets (29:2-5), Day of Atonement (vv 8-11), and each day of the Feast of Tabernacles (vv 12-16).<\/p>\n<p>For sacrifices required in specific cases, the instructions as to what offerings to bring follow this sequence (e.g., the purification of a woman after giving birth, Lv 12:6-8). Note also the offerings given at the successful termination of a Nazirite vow; the Nazirite brought burnt, sin, and peace offerings (with some special grain offerings, Nm 6:14-15). However, the priest conducted the actual ritual according to a different order; the sin offering was made first, followed by the burnt offering and finally the peace offering (vv 16-17). In the case of an incomplete vow, the first step was to offer a sin offering and then a burnt offering to renew the vow (v 11). The reconsecration of the Nazirite required a separate guilt offering—a distinct ritual act (v 12).<\/p>\n<p>The description of the offerings made by the prince of Israel in the latter days presents the same contrast between the two orders of sacrifices. On festival holidays the prince brought burnt, grain, and drink offerings, but he offered them as sin, grain, burnt, and peace offerings (Ez 45:17). This second order of sacrifices in which the sin offering precedes the burnt offering was also followed in the rededication of the altar (43:18-27).<\/p>\n<p>The same “procedural” sequence of sacrifices appears in other instances: the purification of the leper—guilt and sin offerings (Lv 14:19), followed by a burnt offering (vv 12-20); the man with a discharge—sin and burnt offerings (15:15); likewise the woman with a discharge (v 30). The same order is followed for the sacrifices on the Day of Atonement (16:3-6, 11, 15, 24).<\/p>\n<p>The book of Leviticus furnishes two examples of the proper order in which sacrifices were offered. One is the ordination of Aaron and his sons. The sin offering came first and then the burnt offering (Ex 29:10-18; Lv 8:14-21). The focal point in this ritual was the sacrifice of ordination, or literally “installation,” a special form of peace offering (Ex 29:19-34; Lv 8:22-29). The second passage is the formal inauguration of the sacrificial system at the tabernacle (Lv 9). The sacrifices for Aaron were sin and burnt offerings, followed by those for the people: sin, burnt, grain, and peace offerings (9:7-22).<\/p>\n<p>The same sequence is followed at the cleansing and restoration of the temple in Jerusalem conducted by King Hezekiah (2 Chr 29:20-36). A great sin offering was first, followed by the burnt offerings accompanied by music and song. Then the king proclaimed that the people had committed themselves to the Lord; in this new state of purity they could now share in the sacrifices of devotion (burnt offerings) and thanksgiving (peace offerings).<\/p>\n<p>The procedural order of the sacrifices embodies the OT ideology of how God may be approached. First, atonement for sin had to be made and then total consecration of self; these are symbolized by the sin and\/or guilt offerings and the burnt and grain offerings, respectively. When these conditions were met, the offerer could express his continued devotion by more burnt offerings and also take part in the fellowship sacrifices (peace offerings) in which he himself got a large portion of the slaughtered animal (to share with his friends and the poor in his community; Dt 12:17-19).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"DescriptionofSacrifices\">Description of Sacrifices<\/p>\n<p>The ensuing description of the different types of sacrifice will treat them in accordance with the “procedural” order, that is, as symbolic stages in one’s approach to God.<\/p>\n<h5>Expiation<\/h5>\n<p>These two offerings were required for making atonement for sins and trespasses:<\/p>\n<p>1. Sin offering (Lv 4:1–5:13; 6:24-30). Different animals were specified in accordance with the rank of the offerer. A high priest had to bring a young bull (4:3), as did the congregation as a whole (v 14), except when the matter was a ritual infraction (Nm 15:24). A ruler would bring a male goat (Lv 4:23), but a commoner could provide a female goat (v 28; Nm 15:27) or a lamb (Lv 4:32). If he was indigent, he could offer two turtledoves or two young pigeons (one of which would be a burnt offering; 5:7), or if he was extremely poor, he might even substitute a tenth of an ephah of fine flour (Lv 5:11-13; cf. Heb 9:22).<\/p>\n\n<p>The offerer brought the animal to the entrance of the temple court and laid his hand on it (Lv 4:4). He did not confess his sin in this act because the animal was not being sent away (cf. the goat for Azazel, 16:21); rather, he was identifying himself with the sacrifice. The offerer had to kill the animal on the north side of the altar (4:24, 29). The animals were never slaughtered on the altar proper. The officiating priest collected the blood; when it was a bull for himself or for the congregation, he sprinkled some of the blood before the veil inside the tent of meeting and put some on the horns of the incense altar (vv 5-7, 16-18). On the Day of Atonement he brought the sacrificial blood for himself and for the people into the Holy of Holies (16:14-15). From all other animals, the blood was applied to the horns of the altar of burnt offering (4:25, 30, 34); the blood of fowl was sprinkled on the side of the altar (5:9). Finally, the remaining blood from any offering was poured or drained out at the base of the altar (4:7).<\/p>\n<p>The choicest of the internal organs, namely, the fatty tissue over and on the entrails, the two kidneys and their fat, and the appendage to the liver, were all offered to the Lord on the altar (Lv 4:8-10). The carcass and the other entrails were burned outside the camp when it was a bull for the priest or for the people. This was also true of the bull for the ordination of the priests (Ex 29:10-14; Lv 8:14-17). Otherwise, the priest who conducted the rites received the edible flesh as his portion. He had to eat it within the temple area, and its preparation was governed by strict rules of ritual purity (Lv 6:25-30; cf. 10:16-20). A sin offering of one male goat was presented at each of the sacred holidays: the New Moon (Nm 28:15), each day of Passover (vv 22-24), the Festival of Weeks (v 30), the Festival of Trumpets (29:5), the Day of Atonement (v 11), and each day of the Feast of Tabernacles (vv 16, 19). The high priest also offered a bull for himself and then sacrificed one of the two goats on the Day of Atonement. Certain purification rites required lesser sin offerings, namely, lambs or birds: childbirth (Lv 12:6-8), cleansing from leprosy (14:12-14, 19-22), and abscesses and hemorrhages (15:14-15, 29-30) or after defilement while under a vow (Nm 6:10-11).<\/p>\n<li>2. Guilt offering (Lv 5:14–6:7; 7:1-7). The guilt or trespass offering was a special kind of sin offering (cf. 5:7) required whenever someone had been denied his rightful due. Reparation of the valued amount that had been defrauded had to be made, plus a fine of one-fifth (5:16; 6:5). The animal was usually a ram (5:15, 18; 6:6). The cleansed leper and the defiled Nazirite had to bring a male lamb (Lv 14:12, 21; Nm 6:12). The offerer apparently handled the sacrifice as he would a sin offering, but the priest had to sprinkle the blood around the altar (Lv 7:2). Viscera were burned on the altar as usual (vv 3-5). Some of the blood was then applied to the tip of the cleansed leper’s right ear and to his right thumb and big toe (14:14). Again the priest received most of the animal’s flesh for food (7:6-7; 14:13). A guilt offering was required whenever another party had suffered some loss. Ritual infractions, such as eating the “holy things” without proper authorization (5:14-19; 22:14), called for payment of the sum that should have gone to the Lord plus the fine of one-fifth that went to the priest (Lv 5:16; 2 Kgs 12:16). The leper belongs in this category, since during the time of his infection he was unable to render service to God (Lv 14:12-18). The same applies to the Nazirite who had suffered defilement while he was set apart to God by the vow; thus a guilt offering was required (Nm 6:12). Violation of another person’s property rights could be expiated only by the guilt offering and its additional one-fifth. Such matters included cheating on deposits or security, robbery or oppression, failing to report the find of some lost property, or false swearing or failing to testify (Lv 6:1-5). Intercourse with a betrothed slave girl was also a violation of property rights (19:20-22). If the offended party was no longer living and had no surviving kinsmen, the payment went to the priest (Nm 5:5-10).<\/li>\n<h5>Consecration Offerings<\/h5>\n<p>These rituals usually come to mind when one hears the word “offering.” They represent acts of personal commitment that must accompany the repentance expressed in the sin and guilt offerings. They were also a prerequisite for the fellowship or communal sacrifices that might follow.<\/p>\n<p>1. Burnt offering (Lv 1:3-17; 6:8-13). The burnt offering could be a bull, a sheep, or a bird. The offerer presented the animal, laid his hand on it, and killed it on the north side of the altar. The bird was simply given to the priest. The latter collected the blood, presented it before God, and then sprinkled it around the altar. When the offering was a bird, he wrung off its head and drained the blood at the side of the altar. Though the slaughtering and sprinkling of the blood relates the burnt offering to the expiatory sacrifices of the previous section, the main emphasis here is on killing the animal, washing its unclean parts, and then carefully arranging all of the pieces on the altar. All of this was then consumed on the altar as a pleasing odor to the Lord. Since burnt offerings were offered morning and evening, a good supply of wood by the altar was necessary. The officiating priest, dressed in proper garments, had to keep the fire burning continuously (6:8-13).<\/p>\n<p>Burnt offerings played a prominent role in the sacrifices of the ritual calendar. The continual burnt offering was made twice a day, a male lamb morning and evening (Ex 29:38-42; Nm 28:1-8). Two additional lambs were sacrificed each Sabbath (Nm 28:9-10).<\/p>\n<p>Except for these daily offerings, a sin offering of one goat was usually made along with the burnt offerings on the following holidays: For the New Moon at the beginning of each month, two young bulls, one ram, and seven male lambs were offered (Nm 28:11-14). The same were required for each day of the Passover festival (vv 19-24) and again on the Feast of Weeks (vv 6-29). On the Festival of Trumpets and the Day of Atonement, the requirement was one bull, one ram, and seven lambs (29:2-4).<\/p>\n<p>The great Feast of Tabernacles was characterized by a series of elaborate burnt offerings, plus one goat per day as a sin offering. On the first day, 13 young bulls, 2 rams, and 14 male lambs were offered (Nm 29:12-16). Each successive day, the number of bulls was decreased by one until on the seventh day there were only seven (the rams and lambs remained the same; 29:17-25). On the eighth day the animals required for Trumpets and Atonement were offered, namely, one bull, one ram, and seven lambs.<\/p>\n<p>Certain rituals of purification also required burnt offerings in addition to sin offerings: after childbirth (Lv 12:6-8), abscesses (15:14-15), and discharges (vv 29-30); or after defilement while under a Nazirite vow (Nm 6:10-11). Though it is not stated that grain offerings were required in these cases, they certainly were for the cleansing from leprosy (Lv 14:10, 19-22, 31) and the completion of the Nazirite vow (Nm 6:14-16).<\/p>\n<li>2. Grain (Cereal) offering (Lv 2; 6:14-23). The Hebrew term referring to this particular offering means “gift,” or “offering,” including animals (Gn 4:3-5; Jgs 6:18; 1 Sm 2:17). But in the specific sacrificial context it signifies a combination of fine flour, olive oil, and frankincense that could be made up in the form of baked loaves, wafers, or morsels. The offering of firstfruits was to be crushed heads of new grain (Lv 2:14). No leaven or honey was permitted on the cakes, although those same commodities could be accepted as a firstfruit offering. They would not go to the altar but were given to the priest. The offerer had to bring the prepared loaves or wafers to the temple. The priest would burn one handful on the altar as its “memorial portion” (v 2), keeping the remainder for his own food (6:16; 7:9). But when the priest was making a grain offering on his own behalf, he burnt it all on the altar (6:22-23).<\/li>\n<p>A grain offering was usually given with every burnt offering, especially those pertaining to the sacred calendar (Nm 28–29). The amounts of flour and oil were set according to the animal being sacrificed: three-tenths of an ephah of flour and one-half a hin of oil for a bull, two-tenths ephah and one-third hin for a ram, and one-tenth ephah plus one-fourth hin for a lamb (15:2-10). Other happy occasions for a grain offering included the cleansing of a leper (Lv 14:10, 20-21, 31; unspecified quantity of grain with a bird) and the successful consummation of a Nazirite vow (Nm 6:13-15).<\/p>\n<p>Peace offerings were invariably followed by grain offerings (Lv 7:12-14; Nm 15:4). The priest received one of each pair of cakes or wafers. The remainder was returned to the offerer to be eaten with the flesh of the sacrificial animal at a place of his choice.<\/p>\n<p>A special case where such offering was used was the one-tenth of an ephah of barley meal required in the jealousy ritual. It was to have no oil or frankincense (Nm 5:15, 18, 25-26). A very poor individual was permitted to bring one-tenth of an ephah of fine flour without oil or frankincense as a sin offering (Lv 5:11-13).<\/p>\n<li>3. Drink offering (Nm 15:1-10). The standard libation was one-fourth of a hin of wine for a lamb, one-third for a ram, and one-half for a bull. The wine (Ex 29:40), also called “strong drink” (Nm 28:7), is probably an intentional substitute for the blood used by other nations (Ps 16:4). The libation was classed as a “pleasing odor” offering (Nm 15:7). As with the burnt offering, the entire drink offering was expended; nothing was given to the priest (28:7).<\/li>\n<p>Drink offerings accompanied the daily offering (Ex 29:40-41; Nm 28:7) and the Sabbath offering (Nm 28:9), as well as the New Moon festival. Reference is also made to them in connection with the second and following days of the Feast of Tabernacles (29:18, 21); for the first day their absence is probably unintentional. The same might hold true for the Passover, Firstfruits, and Feast of Trumpets (Nm 28:16–29:11; cf. Ez 45:11). A libation was required for the rites concluding a Nazirite vow (Nm 6:17) but not for cleansing a leper (Lv 14:10-20).<\/p>\n<h5>Fellowship Offerings<\/h5>\n<p>These sacrifices were voluntary on the part of the offerer and generally not imposed by regulations except for the Nazirite (Nm 6:17) and the Feast of Weeks (Lv 23:19-20). An offerer who had already fulfilled the ritual requirements for atonement and personal consecration was permitted to make a fellowship offering. Burnt offerings often accompanied the fellowship sacrifices as a further expression of devotion.<\/p>\n<p>1. Peace offering (Lv 3; 7:11-36; Am 5:22). This is the basic class of all fellowship or communal offerings; the others are simply subclasses of the peace offering. In terms of holiness, or restrictedness, they were not so rigidly confined as the other offerings. Animals from the herd or flock, male or female (Lv 3:1, 6, 12), were permitted. The usual stipulation of freedom from blemish was in force, except in the case of the freewill offering, in which the animal could have one limb longer than the other (22:23). Unleavened cakes were also required, at least for the thank (7:12-13) and Nazirite (Nm 6:15-19) offerings. Each of these three types of peace offerings will be discussed below, with their special features.<\/p>\n<p>The first parts of the ritual—the presentation and laying on of the hand—were identical to those of the other sacrifices. However, the animal was slaughtered at the door of the sanctuary courtyard and not on the north side of the altar (Lv 3:1-2, 7-8, 12-13; 7:29-30). The priest collected the blood and tossed it against the altar as he did with the burnt offering (3:2, 8, 13). The choice viscera were offered up as a “pleasing odor” (3:3-5, 6-11, 14-16).<\/p>\n<p>The priest also received a certain portion of the offering. He was allowed to eat it in any ritually clean place and to share it with his family (Lv 7:14, 30-36; Nm 6:20), in contrast to his portion of other sacrifices, which he had to eat somewhere in the temple compound (Nm 18:10-11). He received one of the cakes and the breast as a wave offering and the right thigh as a contribution for the offerer. This latter is the so-called “heave offering”; the technical term developed from a root signifying “to be high” and meaning “that which is lifted up.” The heave offering did not really represent a special kind of ritual ceremony.<\/p>\n<p>The ritual act of the peace offering culminated with a fellowship meal. Except for those parts on the altar or given to the priest, the body of the animal was returned to the man who offered it. He had to prepare it as a communal meal for himself, for his family, and for the Levite in his community (Dt 12:12, 18-19). This would have to be at the official sanctuary (Dt 12:6-7, 11-12, 15-19; cf. 1 Sm 1:3-4) and the participants had to observe strict rules of purity (Lv 7:19-21; 19:5-8). It may be contrasted with the ritual slaughtering of animals for a banquet that was permitted at any local altar (Dt 12:16, 20-22). The flesh of the thank offering had to be eaten on the same day of the sacrifice (Lv 7:15), while that of the votive or freewill offerings could be finished off on the following day (vv 16-18). Whatever remained then had to be burned before the time limit expired.<\/p>\n<p>Only three times is there a specific demand for a peace offering: in the Feast of Weeks (Lv 23:19-20), upon completion of a Nazirite vow (Nm 6:17-20), and at the installation of the priesthood (Ex 29:19-22, 28). Other public ritual occasions included the inauguration of the temple (1 Kgs 8:63; 2 Chr 7:5). Events on a national level that evoked the peace offering were the successful conclusion of a military campaign (1 Sm 11:15), the end of a famine or pestilence (2 Sm 24:25), confirmation of a candidate to the throne (1 Kgs 1:9, 19), or a time of religious revival (2 Chr 29:31-36). On the local level, they were offered at the annual family reunion (1 Sm 20:6) or other festive occasions, such as the harvest of the firstfruits (Ex 22:29-31; 1 Sm 9:11-14, 22-24; 16:4-5).<\/p>\n<li>2. Wave offering. The first portion of the peace offering was “waved” before the Lord to signify that the priest was eating it as a representative of God (the actual motion evidently resembled the wielding of a saw or a staff, Is 10:15). The same technical term, “wave offering,” was also used for other kinds of offering: precious metals donated for making the cultic artifacts (Ex 35:22; 38:29) and the guilt offering of the cleansed leper (Lv 14:12).<\/li>\n<li>3. Freewill offering. These gifts, brought to the holy convocations that took place three times per year (Ex 23:16; 34:20; Dt 16:10, 16-17; 2 Chr 35:8; Ezr 3:5), were voluntary (Lv 7:16; 22:18, 21-23; 23:28; Nm 15:3; 29:39; Dt 12:6, 17). Like the voluntary offering, the freewill offering could be a burnt rather than a peace offering (Lv 22:17-24; Ez 46:12). If it was the latter, the flesh could be eaten on the second day but must be burned before the third (Lv 7:16-17). Unlike some other peace offerings, the animal being sacrificed could have one limb longer than the other (22:23).<\/li>\n<li>4. Installation offering. This Hebrew term refers to the settings of precious stones (Ex 25:7; 35:9, 27; 1 Chr 29:2), so “installation” seems an appropriate translation. It had to do with “filling the hand,” a ritual act that consecrated someone to divine service (Ex 28:41; cf. 32:29) and required ritual purity and spiritual devotion (2 Chr 29:31). The details of the original ceremony at the installation of the first priest is described in two passages (Ex 29:19-34; Lv 8:22-32).<\/li>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Atonement; Cleanness and Uncleanness, Regulations Concerning; Feasts and Festivals of Israel; Tabernacle; Temple.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>OFFERINGS AND SACRIFICES<\/h3>\n<p>Major ritual expressions of religious life with accompanying rites, such as libations, effusions, and sacred meals. The ideology expressed in Israel’s ritual complex made its religion unique in the ancient Near East. The concepts of OT ritual also underlie NT theology with regard to sin and reconciliation to God through the atoning death of Jesus Christ.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PerformanceandOrderofSacrifices\">Performance and Order of Sacrifices<\/p>\n<p>The main source for a description of the correct performance of sacrificial ritual is the opening section of Leviticus (Lv 1–7). It consists of two separate parts. The first (1:1–6:7) is didactic, dealing with two categories of sacrifice: those of a “pleasing odor,” namely, the burnt (1:1-17), the grain (2:1-16), and the peace offerings (3:1-17); and the expiatory sacrifices, namely, the sin (4:1–5:13) and the guilt or trespass offerings (5:14–6:7). Attention is paid to the minute details of each ritual, and they are grouped according to their logical or conceptual associations.<\/p>\n<p>The grain (or cereal) offering follows the burnt offering because it always accompanied it in actual practice (Nm 15:1-21; chs 28–29); it also went with the peace offering (Lv 7:12-14; Nm 15:3-4). Special emphasis is placed on burning the inward parts of a sacrifice on the altar to make a “pleasing odor to the Lord” (Lv 1:9, 17; 2:2, 9, 12; 3:5, 11, 16). When the Lord smelled the pleasing odor (Gn 8:21), it was a sign of divine favor; refusal indicated God’s displeasure (Lv 26:31). The officiating priest evidently knew how to read the signs and would tell the offerer whether his sacrifice had been accepted (1 Sm 26:19; cf. Am 5:21-23).<\/p>\n<p>The sin and guilt offerings were expiatory (Lv 4:1–6:7, 20). The situations requiring such offerings are listed, and special emphasis is laid on the handling of the blood in the ritual.<\/p>\n<p>The second major section in this passage (Lv 6:8–7:38) stresses the administrative details for the various offerings. This section consists of a series of “instructions” for each type of offering pertaining to the distribution of the sacrificial materials. Some went to the priest(s), some went to the offerer, and others were burned on the altar or disposed of outside the camp. Those sacrifices designated as “most holy” were to be eaten only by qualified members of the priesthood (Lv 2:3, 10; 10:12-17; 14:13; Nm 18:9).<\/p>\n<p>The burnt offering is discussed first because it was entirely consumed on the altar (and thus not eaten by anyone). After it, there follow the sacrifices distributed to the officiants (Lv 6:17, 26, 29; 7:1, 6), and at the end come the peace offerings, a significant portion of which was returned to the offender.<\/p>\n<p>The order in which the sacrifices are treated in this passage also corresponds to their relative frequency in the rituals of the sacred calendar (Nm 28:19; 2 Chr 31:3; Ez 45:17). This would be particularly important for the priests and Levites on duty at the temple because they were responsible for the logistics of the daily sacrificial ritual, especially on the high holidays; management of the temple storehouse was a formidable task (1 Chr 23:28-32; 26:15, 20-22; 2 Chr 13:10-11; 30:3-19; 34:9-11).<\/p>\n<p>Each section concerning a particular offering concludes with the logistic or administrative details peculiar to it. There then follows a summary of the matters treated thus far (Lv 7:7-10), and the section concludes with a treatment of the peace offerings (vv 11-36). The latter did not play a role in the sacred calendar except during the Feast of Weeks (23:19-20); on all other occasions, with the two exceptions of the Nazirite vow and the installation of the priesthood, peace offerings were purely voluntary sacrifices and thus not subject to any fixed bookkeeping.<\/p>\n<p>In other biblical contexts, the sacrifices are listed according to the same “bookkeeping” or “administrative” order: burnt, grain, and drink; sin (or guilt); and sometimes peace offerings. An example is the roster of donations made by the tribal leaders for dedication of the altar (Nm 7). The information is organized like an everyday ledger from the temple storehouse; the summary classifies the animals as burnt, grain, sin, and peace offerings (vv 87-88) in accordance with the respective entries from each donor (vv 15-17). The Levitical scribe had two purposes for such a record: to credit the offerers and to record the treasures and food supplies coming in. Much of the foodstuffs being given as offerings was actually apportioned to the officiating priests (Nm 18:8-11; 2 Chr 31:4-19).<\/p>\n<p>When prescriptions were made as to the type and number of offerings to be brought (e.g., Nm 15:24), the “bookkeeping” order is generally followed. This was true of the calendarial sacrifices; burnt and grain offerings and libations were listed, followed by a sin offering for each of the following: New Moon (Nm 28:11-15), each day of Passover (vv 19-22), the Festival of Weeks (Lv 23:18-19; Nm 28:27-30), Trumpets (29:2-5), Day of Atonement (vv 8-11), and each day of the Feast of Tabernacles (vv 12-16).<\/p>\n<p>For sacrifices required in specific cases, the instructions as to what offerings to bring follow this sequence (e.g., the purification of a woman after giving birth, Lv 12:6-8). Note also the offerings given at the successful termination of a Nazirite vow; the Nazirite brought burnt, sin, and peace offerings (with some special grain offerings, Nm 6:14-15). However, the priest conducted the actual ritual according to a different order; the sin offering was made first, followed by the burnt offering and finally the peace offering (vv 16-17). In the case of an incomplete vow, the first step was to offer a sin offering and then a burnt offering to renew the vow (v 11). The reconsecration of the Nazirite required a separate guilt offering—a distinct ritual act (v 12).<\/p>\n<p>The description of the offerings made by the prince of Israel in the latter days presents the same contrast between the two orders of sacrifices. On festival holidays the prince brought burnt, grain, and drink offerings, but he offered them as sin, grain, burnt, and peace offerings (Ez 45:17). This second order of sacrifices in which the sin offering precedes the burnt offering was also followed in the rededication of the altar (43:18-27).<\/p>\n<p>The same “procedural” sequence of sacrifices appears in other instances: the purification of the leper—guilt and sin offerings (Lv 14:19), followed by a burnt offering (vv 12-20); the man with a discharge—sin and burnt offerings (15:15); likewise the woman with a discharge (v 30). The same order is followed for the sacrifices on the Day of Atonement (16:3-6, 11, 15, 24).<\/p>\n<p>The book of Leviticus furnishes two examples of the proper order in which sacrifices were offered. One is the ordination of Aaron and his sons. The sin offering came first and then the burnt offering (Ex 29:10-18; Lv 8:14-21). The focal point in this ritual was the sacrifice of ordination, or literally “installation,” a special form of peace offering (Ex 29:19-34; Lv 8:22-29). The second passage is the formal inauguration of the sacrificial system at the tabernacle (Lv 9). The sacrifices for Aaron were sin and burnt offerings, followed by those for the people: sin, burnt, grain, and peace offerings (9:7-22).<\/p>\n<p>The same sequence is followed at the cleansing and restoration of the temple in Jerusalem conducted by King Hezekiah (2 Chr 29:20-36). A great sin offering was first, followed by the burnt offerings accompanied by music and song. Then the king proclaimed that the people had committed themselves to the Lord; in this new state of purity they could now share in the sacrifices of devotion (burnt offerings) and thanksgiving (peace offerings).<\/p>\n<p>The procedural order of the sacrifices embodies the OT ideology of how God may be approached. First, atonement for sin had to be made and then total consecration of self; these are symbolized by the sin and\/or guilt offerings and the burnt and grain offerings, respectively. When these conditions were met, the offerer could express his continued devotion by more burnt offerings and also take part in the fellowship sacrifices (peace offerings) in which he himself got a large portion of the slaughtered animal (to share with his friends and the poor in his community; Dt 12:17-19).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"DescriptionofSacrifices\">Description of Sacrifices<\/p>\n<p>The ensuing description of the different types of sacrifice will treat them in accordance with the “procedural” order, that is, as symbolic stages in one’s approach to God.<\/p>\n<h5>Expiation<\/h5>\n<p>These two offerings were required for making atonement for sins and trespasses:<\/p>\n<p>1. Sin offering (Lv 4:1–5:13; 6:24-30). Different animals were specified in accordance with the rank of the offerer. A high priest had to bring a young bull (4:3), as did the congregation as a whole (v 14), except when the matter was a ritual infraction (Nm 15:24). A ruler would bring a male goat (Lv 4:23), but a commoner could provide a female goat (v 28; Nm 15:27) or a lamb (Lv 4:32). If he was indigent, he could offer two turtledoves or two young pigeons (one of which would be a burnt offering; 5:7), or if he was extremely poor, he might even substitute a tenth of an ephah of fine flour (Lv 5:11-13; cf. Heb 9:22).<\/p>\n\n<p>The offerer brought the animal to the entrance of the temple court and laid his hand on it (Lv 4:4). He did not confess his sin in this act because the animal was not being sent away (cf. the goat for Azazel, 16:21); rather, he was identifying himself with the sacrifice. The offerer had to kill the animal on the north side of the altar (4:24, 29). The animals were never slaughtered on the altar proper. The officiating priest collected the blood; when it was a bull for himself or for the congregation, he sprinkled some of the blood before the veil inside the tent of meeting and put some on the horns of the incense altar (vv 5-7, 16-18). On the Day of Atonement he brought the sacrificial blood for himself and for the people into the Holy of Holies (16:14-15). From all other animals, the blood was applied to the horns of the altar of burnt offering (4:25, 30, 34); the blood of fowl was sprinkled on the side of the altar (5:9). Finally, the remaining blood from any offering was poured or drained out at the base of the altar (4:7).<\/p>\n<p>The choicest of the internal organs, namely, the fatty tissue over and on the entrails, the two kidneys and their fat, and the appendage to the liver, were all offered to the Lord on the altar (Lv 4:8-10). The carcass and the other entrails were burned outside the camp when it was a bull for the priest or for the people. This was also true of the bull for the ordination of the priests (Ex 29:10-14; Lv 8:14-17). Otherwise, the priest who conducted the rites received the edible flesh as his portion. He had to eat it within the temple area, and its preparation was governed by strict rules of ritual purity (Lv 6:25-30; cf. 10:16-20). A sin offering of one male goat was presented at each of the sacred holidays: the New Moon (Nm 28:15), each day of Passover (vv 22-24), the Festival of Weeks (v 30), the Festival of Trumpets (29:5), the Day of Atonement (v 11), and each day of the Feast of Tabernacles (vv 16, 19). The high priest also offered a bull for himself and then sacrificed one of the two goats on the Day of Atonement. Certain purification rites required lesser sin offerings, namely, lambs or birds: childbirth (Lv 12:6-8), cleansing from leprosy (14:12-14, 19-22), and abscesses and hemorrhages (15:14-15, 29-30) or after defilement while under a vow (Nm 6:10-11).<\/p>\n<li>2. Guilt offering (Lv 5:14–6:7; 7:1-7). The guilt or trespass offering was a special kind of sin offering (cf. 5:7) required whenever someone had been denied his rightful due. Reparation of the valued amount that had been defrauded had to be made, plus a fine of one-fifth (5:16; 6:5). The animal was usually a ram (5:15, 18; 6:6). The cleansed leper and the defiled Nazirite had to bring a male lamb (Lv 14:12, 21; Nm 6:12). The offerer apparently handled the sacrifice as he would a sin offering, but the priest had to sprinkle the blood around the altar (Lv 7:2). Viscera were burned on the altar as usual (vv 3-5). Some of the blood was then applied to the tip of the cleansed leper’s right ear and to his right thumb and big toe (14:14). Again the priest received most of the animal’s flesh for food (7:6-7; 14:13). A guilt offering was required whenever another party had suffered some loss. Ritual infractions, such as eating the “holy things” without proper authorization (5:14-19; 22:14), called for payment of the sum that should have gone to the Lord plus the fine of one-fifth that went to the priest (Lv 5:16; 2 Kgs 12:16). The leper belongs in this category, since during the time of his infection he was unable to render service to God (Lv 14:12-18). The same applies to the Nazirite who had suffered defilement while he was set apart to God by the vow; thus a guilt offering was required (Nm 6:12). Violation of another person’s property rights could be expiated only by the guilt offering and its additional one-fifth. Such matters included cheating on deposits or security, robbery or oppression, failing to report the find of some lost property, or false swearing or failing to testify (Lv 6:1-5). Intercourse with a betrothed slave girl was also a violation of property rights (19:20-22). If the offended party was no longer living and had no surviving kinsmen, the payment went to the priest (Nm 5:5-10).<\/li>\n<h5>Consecration Offerings<\/h5>\n<p>These rituals usually come to mind when one hears the word “offering.” They represent acts of personal commitment that must accompany the repentance expressed in the sin and guilt offerings. They were also a prerequisite for the fellowship or communal sacrifices that might follow.<\/p>\n<p>1. Burnt offering (Lv 1:3-17; 6:8-13). The burnt offering could be a bull, a sheep, or a bird. The offerer presented the animal, laid his hand on it, and killed it on the north side of the altar. The bird was simply given to the priest. The latter collected the blood, presented it before God, and then sprinkled it around the altar. When the offering was a bird, he wrung off its head and drained the blood at the side of the altar. Though the slaughtering and sprinkling of the blood relates the burnt offering to the expiatory sacrifices of the previous section, the main emphasis here is on killing the animal, washing its unclean parts, and then carefully arranging all of the pieces on the altar. All of this was then consumed on the altar as a pleasing odor to the Lord. Since burnt offerings were offered morning and evening, a good supply of wood by the altar was necessary. The officiating priest, dressed in proper garments, had to keep the fire burning continuously (6:8-13).<\/p>\n<p>Burnt offerings played a prominent role in the sacrifices of the ritual calendar. The continual burnt offering was made twice a day, a male lamb morning and evening (Ex 29:38-42; Nm 28:1-8). Two additional lambs were sacrificed each Sabbath (Nm 28:9-10).<\/p>\n<p>Except for these daily offerings, a sin offering of one goat was usually made along with the burnt offerings on the following holidays: For the New Moon at the beginning of each month, two young bulls, one ram, and seven male lambs were offered (Nm 28:11-14). The same were required for each day of the Passover festival (vv 19-24) and again on the Feast of Weeks (vv 6-29). On the Festival of Trumpets and the Day of Atonement, the requirement was one bull, one ram, and seven lambs (29:2-4).<\/p>\n<p>The great Feast of Tabernacles was characterized by a series of elaborate burnt offerings, plus one goat per day as a sin offering. On the first day, 13 young bulls, 2 rams, and 14 male lambs were offered (Nm 29:12-16). Each successive day, the number of bulls was decreased by one until on the seventh day there were only seven (the rams and lambs remained the same; 29:17-25). On the eighth day the animals required for Trumpets and Atonement were offered, namely, one bull, one ram, and seven lambs.<\/p>\n<p>Certain rituals of purification also required burnt offerings in addition to sin offerings: after childbirth (Lv 12:6-8), abscesses (15:14-15), and discharges (vv 29-30); or after defilement while under a Nazirite vow (Nm 6:10-11). Though it is not stated that grain offerings were required in these cases, they certainly were for the cleansing from leprosy (Lv 14:10, 19-22, 31) and the completion of the Nazirite vow (Nm 6:14-16).<\/p>\n<li>2. Grain (Cereal) offering (Lv 2; 6:14-23). The Hebrew term referring to this particular offering means “gift,” or “offering,” including animals (Gn 4:3-5; Jgs 6:18; 1 Sm 2:17). But in the specific sacrificial context it signifies a combination of fine flour, olive oil, and frankincense that could be made up in the form of baked loaves, wafers, or morsels. The offering of firstfruits was to be crushed heads of new grain (Lv 2:14). No leaven or honey was permitted on the cakes, although those same commodities could be accepted as a firstfruit offering. They would not go to the altar but were given to the priest. The offerer had to bring the prepared loaves or wafers to the temple. The priest would burn one handful on the altar as its “memorial portion” (v 2), keeping the remainder for his own food (6:16; 7:9). But when the priest was making a grain offering on his own behalf, he burnt it all on the altar (6:22-23).<\/li>\n<p>A grain offering was usually given with every burnt offering, especially those pertaining to the sacred calendar (Nm 28–29). The amounts of flour and oil were set according to the animal being sacrificed: three-tenths of an ephah of flour and one-half a hin of oil for a bull, two-tenths ephah and one-third hin for a ram, and one-tenth ephah plus one-fourth hin for a lamb (15:2-10). Other happy occasions for a grain offering included the cleansing of a leper (Lv 14:10, 20-21, 31; unspecified quantity of grain with a bird) and the successful consummation of a Nazirite vow (Nm 6:13-15).<\/p>\n<p>Peace offerings were invariably followed by grain offerings (Lv 7:12-14; Nm 15:4). The priest received one of each pair of cakes or wafers. The remainder was returned to the offerer to be eaten with the flesh of the sacrificial animal at a place of his choice.<\/p>\n<p>A special case where such offering was used was the one-tenth of an ephah of barley meal required in the jealousy ritual. It was to have no oil or frankincense (Nm 5:15, 18, 25-26). A very poor individual was permitted to bring one-tenth of an ephah of fine flour without oil or frankincense as a sin offering (Lv 5:11-13).<\/p>\n<li>3. Drink offering (Nm 15:1-10). The standard libation was one-fourth of a hin of wine for a lamb, one-third for a ram, and one-half for a bull. The wine (Ex 29:40), also called “strong drink” (Nm 28:7), is probably an intentional substitute for the blood used by other nations (Ps 16:4). The libation was classed as a “pleasing odor” offering (Nm 15:7). As with the burnt offering, the entire drink offering was expended; nothing was given to the priest (28:7).<\/li>\n<p>Drink offerings accompanied the daily offering (Ex 29:40-41; Nm 28:7) and the Sabbath offering (Nm 28:9), as well as the New Moon festival. Reference is also made to them in connection with the second and following days of the Feast of Tabernacles (29:18, 21); for the first day their absence is probably unintentional. The same might hold true for the Passover, Firstfruits, and Feast of Trumpets (Nm 28:16–29:11; cf. Ez 45:11). A libation was required for the rites concluding a Nazirite vow (Nm 6:17) but not for cleansing a leper (Lv 14:10-20).<\/p>\n<h5>Fellowship Offerings<\/h5>\n<p>These sacrifices were voluntary on the part of the offerer and generally not imposed by regulations except for the Nazirite (Nm 6:17) and the Feast of Weeks (Lv 23:19-20). An offerer who had already fulfilled the ritual requirements for atonement and personal consecration was permitted to make a fellowship offering. Burnt offerings often accompanied the fellowship sacrifices as a further expression of devotion.<\/p>\n<p>1. Peace offering (Lv 3; 7:11-36; Am 5:22). This is the basic class of all fellowship or communal offerings; the others are simply subclasses of the peace offering. In terms of holiness, or restrictedness, they were not so rigidly confined as the other offerings. Animals from the herd or flock, male or female (Lv 3:1, 6, 12), were permitted. The usual stipulation of freedom from blemish was in force, except in the case of the freewill offering, in which the animal could have one limb longer than the other (22:23). Unleavened cakes were also required, at least for the thank (7:12-13) and Nazirite (Nm 6:15-19) offerings. Each of these three types of peace offerings will be discussed below, with their special features.<\/p>\n<p>The first parts of the ritual—the presentation and laying on of the hand—were identical to those of the other sacrifices. However, the animal was slaughtered at the door of the sanctuary courtyard and not on the north side of the altar (Lv 3:1-2, 7-8, 12-13; 7:29-30). The priest collected the blood and tossed it against the altar as he did with the burnt offering (3:2, 8, 13). The choice viscera were offered up as a “pleasing odor” (3:3-5, 6-11, 14-16).<\/p>\n<p>The priest also received a certain portion of the offering. He was allowed to eat it in any ritually clean place and to share it with his family (Lv 7:14, 30-36; Nm 6:20), in contrast to his portion of other sacrifices, which he had to eat somewhere in the temple compound (Nm 18:10-11). He received one of the cakes and the breast as a wave offering and the right thigh as a contribution for the offerer. This latter is the so-called “heave offering”; the technical term developed from a root signifying “to be high” and meaning “that which is lifted up.” The heave offering did not really represent a special kind of ritual ceremony.<\/p>\n<p>The ritual act of the peace offering culminated with a fellowship meal. Except for those parts on the altar or given to the priest, the body of the animal was returned to the man who offered it. He had to prepare it as a communal meal for himself, for his family, and for the Levite in his community (Dt 12:12, 18-19). This would have to be at the official sanctuary (Dt 12:6-7, 11-12, 15-19; cf. 1 Sm 1:3-4) and the participants had to observe strict rules of purity (Lv 7:19-21; 19:5-8). It may be contrasted with the ritual slaughtering of animals for a banquet that was permitted at any local altar (Dt 12:16, 20-22). The flesh of the thank offering had to be eaten on the same day of the sacrifice (Lv 7:15), while that of the votive or freewill offerings could be finished off on the following day (vv 16-18). Whatever remained then had to be burned before the time limit expired.<\/p>\n<p>Only three times is there a specific demand for a peace offering: in the Feast of Weeks (Lv 23:19-20), upon completion of a Nazirite vow (Nm 6:17-20), and at the installation of the priesthood (Ex 29:19-22, 28). Other public ritual occasions included the inauguration of the temple (1 Kgs 8:63; 2 Chr 7:5). Events on a national level that evoked the peace offering were the successful conclusion of a military campaign (1 Sm 11:15), the end of a famine or pestilence (2 Sm 24:25), confirmation of a candidate to the throne (1 Kgs 1:9, 19), or a time of religious revival (2 Chr 29:31-36). On the local level, they were offered at the annual family reunion (1 Sm 20:6) or other festive occasions, such as the harvest of the firstfruits (Ex 22:29-31; 1 Sm 9:11-14, 22-24; 16:4-5).<\/p>\n<li>2. Wave offering. The first portion of the peace offering was “waved” before the Lord to signify that the priest was eating it as a representative of God (the actual motion evidently resembled the wielding of a saw or a staff, Is 10:15). The same technical term, “wave offering,” was also used for other kinds of offering: precious metals donated for making the cultic artifacts (Ex 35:22; 38:29) and the guilt offering of the cleansed leper (Lv 14:12).<\/li>\n<li>3. Freewill offering. These gifts, brought to the holy convocations that took place three times per year (Ex 23:16; 34:20; Dt 16:10, 16-17; 2 Chr 35:8; Ezr 3:5), were voluntary (Lv 7:16; 22:18, 21-23; 23:28; Nm 15:3; 29:39; Dt 12:6, 17). Like the voluntary offering, the freewill offering could be a burnt rather than a peace offering (Lv 22:17-24; Ez 46:12). If it was the latter, the flesh could be eaten on the second day but must be burned before the third (Lv 7:16-17). Unlike some other peace offerings, the animal being sacrificed could have one limb longer than the other (22:23).<\/li>\n<li>4. Installation offering. This Hebrew term refers to the settings of precious stones (Ex 25:7; 35:9, 27; 1 Chr 29:2), so “installation” seems an appropriate translation. It had to do with “filling the hand,” a ritual act that consecrated someone to divine service (Ex 28:41; cf. 32:29) and required ritual purity and spiritual devotion (2 Chr 29:31). The details of the original ceremony at the installation of the first priest is described in two passages (Ex 29:19-34; Lv 8:22-32).<\/li>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Atonement; Cleanness and Uncleanness, Regulations Concerning; Feasts and Festivals of Israel; Tabernacle; Temple.<\/p>","summary_ro":"OFFERINGS AND SACRIFICES Major ritual expressions of religious life with accompanying rites, such as libations, effusions, and sacred meals. The ideology expressed in Israel’s ritual complex made its religion unique in the ancient Near East. The concepts of OT ritual also underlie NT theology with regard to sin and reconciliation to God through the atoning death of Jesus Christ. Performance and Order of Sacrifices The main source for a description of the correct performance of sacrificial rit...","summary_en":"OFFERINGS AND SACRIFICES Major ritual expressions of religious life with accompanying rites, such as libations, effusions, and sacred meals. The ideology expressed in Israel’s ritual complex made its religion unique in the ancient Near East. The concepts of OT ritual also underlie NT theology with regard to sin and reconciliation to God through the atoning death of Jesus Christ. Performance and Order of Sacrifices The main source for a description of the correct performance of sacrificial rit...","source":"Articles\/O.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":44080,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Leviticul 3:5","title_en":"Study Note: Leviticul 3:5","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:5<\/strong> The <em>burnt offering<\/em> is described in 1:3-17 and is best referred to as the “whole burnt offering.” Because it was offered twice daily (see Num 28:4), and because the need for atonement preceded fellowship, the text assumes that the burnt offering would be on the altar already. The priest was to lay the fatty portions and certain internal organs (3:3-4) of the peace offering on top of it.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:5<\/strong> The <em>burnt offering<\/em> is described in 1:3-17 and is best referred to as the “whole burnt offering.” Because it was offered twice daily (see Num 28:4), and because the need for atonement preceded fellowship, the text assumes that the burnt offering would be on the altar already. The priest was to lay the fatty portions and certain internal organs (3:3-4) of the peace offering on top of it.<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:5 The burnt offering is described in 1:3-17 and is best referred to as the “whole burnt offering.” Because it was offered twice daily (see Num 28:4), and because the need for atonement preceded fellowship, the text assumes that the burnt offering would be on the altar already. The priest was to lay the fatty portions and certain internal organs (3:3-4) of the peace offering on top of it.","summary_en":"3:5 The burnt offering is described in 1:3-17 and is best referred to as the “whole burnt offering.” Because it was offered twice daily (see Num 28:4), and because the need for atonement preceded fellowship, the text assumes that the burnt offering would be on the altar already. The priest was to lay the fatty portions and certain internal organs (3:3-4) of the peace offering on top of it.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":71706,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Leviticul 3:5","title_en":"Study Note: Leviticul 3:5","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:5<\/strong> The <em>burnt offering<\/em> is described in 1:3-17 and is best referred to as the “whole burnt offering.” Because it was offered twice daily (see Num 28:4), and because the need for atonement preceded fellowship, the text assumes that the burnt offering would be on the altar already. The priest was to lay the fatty portions and certain internal organs (3:3-4) of the peace offering on top of it.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:5<\/strong> The <em>burnt offering<\/em> is described in 1:3-17 and is best referred to as the “whole burnt offering.” Because it was offered twice daily (see Num 28:4), and because the need for atonement preceded fellowship, the text assumes that the burnt offering would be on the altar already. The priest was to lay the fatty portions and certain internal organs (3:3-4) of the peace offering on top of it.<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:5 The burnt offering is described in 1:3-17 and is best referred to as the “whole burnt offering.” Because it was offered twice daily (see Num 28:4), and because the need for atonement preceded fellowship, the text assumes that the burnt offering would be on the altar already. The priest was to lay the fatty portions and certain internal organs (3:3-4) of the peace offering on top of it.","summary_en":"3:5 The burnt offering is described in 1:3-17 and is best referred to as the “whole burnt offering.” Because it was offered twice daily (see Num 28:4), and because the need for atonement preceded fellowship, the text assumes that the burnt offering would be on the altar already. The priest was to lay the fatty portions and certain internal organs (3:3-4) of the peace offering on top of it.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":99332,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Leviticul 3:5","title_en":"Study Note: Leviticul 3:5","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:5<\/strong> The <em>burnt offering<\/em> is described in 1:3-17 and is best referred to as the “whole burnt offering.” Because it was offered twice daily (see Num 28:4), and because the need for atonement preceded fellowship, the text assumes that the burnt offering would be on the altar already. The priest was to lay the fatty portions and certain internal organs (3:3-4) of the peace offering on top of it.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:5<\/strong> The <em>burnt offering<\/em> is described in 1:3-17 and is best referred to as the “whole burnt offering.” Because it was offered twice daily (see Num 28:4), and because the need for atonement preceded fellowship, the text assumes that the burnt offering would be on the altar already. The priest was to lay the fatty portions and certain internal organs (3:3-4) of the peace offering on top of it.<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:5 The burnt offering is described in 1:3-17 and is best referred to as the “whole burnt offering.” Because it was offered twice daily (see Num 28:4), and because the need for atonement preceded fellowship, the text assumes that the burnt offering would be on the altar already. The priest was to lay the fatty portions and certain internal organs (3:3-4) of the peace offering on top of it.","summary_en":"3:5 The burnt offering is described in 1:3-17 and is best referred to as the “whole burnt offering.” Because it was offered twice daily (see Num 28:4), and because the need for atonement preceded fellowship, the text assumes that the burnt offering would be on the altar already. The priest was to lay the fatty portions and certain internal organs (3:3-4) of the peace offering on top of it.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":126958,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Leviticul 3:5","title_en":"Study Note: Leviticul 3:5","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:5<\/strong> The <em>burnt offering<\/em> is described in 1:3-17 and is best referred to as the “whole burnt offering.” Because it was offered twice daily (see Num 28:4), and because the need for atonement preceded fellowship, the text assumes that the burnt offering would be on the altar already. The priest was to lay the fatty portions and certain internal organs (3:3-4) of the peace offering on top of it.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:5<\/strong> The <em>burnt offering<\/em> is described in 1:3-17 and is best referred to as the “whole burnt offering.” Because it was offered twice daily (see Num 28:4), and because the need for atonement preceded fellowship, the text assumes that the burnt offering would be on the altar already. The priest was to lay the fatty portions and certain internal organs (3:3-4) of the peace offering on top of it.<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:5 The burnt offering is described in 1:3-17 and is best referred to as the “whole burnt offering.” Because it was offered twice daily (see Num 28:4), and because the need for atonement preceded fellowship, the text assumes that the burnt offering would be on the altar already. The priest was to lay the fatty portions and certain internal organs (3:3-4) of the peace offering on top of it.","summary_en":"3:5 The burnt offering is described in 1:3-17 and is best referred to as the “whole burnt offering.” Because it was offered twice daily (see Num 28:4), and because the need for atonement preceded fellowship, the text assumes that the burnt offering would be on the altar already. The priest was to lay the fatty portions and certain internal organs (3:3-4) of the peace offering on top of it.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"6":[{"id":44081,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Leviticul 3:6","title_en":"Study Note: Leviticul 3:6","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:6-11<\/strong> <em>Sheep<\/em> were smaller, easier to raise, and less expensive than cattle. Apart from the exceptions mentioned in these verses, offerings of sheep followed the same pattern as those of cattle.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:6-11<\/strong> <em>Sheep<\/em> were smaller, easier to raise, and less expensive than cattle. Apart from the exceptions mentioned in these verses, offerings of sheep followed the same pattern as those of cattle.<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:6-11 Sheep were smaller, easier to raise, and less expensive than cattle. Apart from the exceptions mentioned in these verses, offerings of sheep followed the same pattern as those of cattle.","summary_en":"3:6-11 Sheep were smaller, easier to raise, and less expensive than cattle. Apart from the exceptions mentioned in these verses, offerings of sheep followed the same pattern as those of cattle.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":71707,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Leviticul 3:6","title_en":"Study Note: Leviticul 3:6","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:6-11<\/strong> <em>Sheep<\/em> were smaller, easier to raise, and less expensive than cattle. Apart from the exceptions mentioned in these verses, offerings of sheep followed the same pattern as those of cattle.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:6-11<\/strong> <em>Sheep<\/em> were smaller, easier to raise, and less expensive than cattle. Apart from the exceptions mentioned in these verses, offerings of sheep followed the same pattern as those of cattle.<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:6-11 Sheep were smaller, easier to raise, and less expensive than cattle. Apart from the exceptions mentioned in these verses, offerings of sheep followed the same pattern as those of cattle.","summary_en":"3:6-11 Sheep were smaller, easier to raise, and less expensive than cattle. Apart from the exceptions mentioned in these verses, offerings of sheep followed the same pattern as those of cattle.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":99333,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Leviticul 3:6","title_en":"Study Note: Leviticul 3:6","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:6-11<\/strong> <em>Sheep<\/em> were smaller, easier to raise, and less expensive than cattle. Apart from the exceptions mentioned in these verses, offerings of sheep followed the same pattern as those of cattle.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:6-11<\/strong> <em>Sheep<\/em> were smaller, easier to raise, and less expensive than cattle. Apart from the exceptions mentioned in these verses, offerings of sheep followed the same pattern as those of cattle.<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:6-11 Sheep were smaller, easier to raise, and less expensive than cattle. Apart from the exceptions mentioned in these verses, offerings of sheep followed the same pattern as those of cattle.","summary_en":"3:6-11 Sheep were smaller, easier to raise, and less expensive than cattle. Apart from the exceptions mentioned in these verses, offerings of sheep followed the same pattern as those of cattle.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":126959,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Leviticul 3:6","title_en":"Study Note: Leviticul 3:6","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:6-11<\/strong> <em>Sheep<\/em> were smaller, easier to raise, and less expensive than cattle. Apart from the exceptions mentioned in these verses, offerings of sheep followed the same pattern as those of cattle.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:6-11<\/strong> <em>Sheep<\/em> were smaller, easier to raise, and less expensive than cattle. Apart from the exceptions mentioned in these verses, offerings of sheep followed the same pattern as those of cattle.<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:6-11 Sheep were smaller, easier to raise, and less expensive than cattle. Apart from the exceptions mentioned in these verses, offerings of sheep followed the same pattern as those of cattle.","summary_en":"3:6-11 Sheep were smaller, easier to raise, and less expensive than cattle. Apart from the exceptions mentioned in these verses, offerings of sheep followed the same pattern as those of cattle.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"9":[{"id":9596,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Laws*, Dietary","title_en":"Laws*, Dietary","content_ro":"<h3>DIETARY LAWS*<\/h3>\n<p>Regulations of food preparation and consumption provided by God for his people in OT times. The dietary laws formed part of broader regulations on “cleanness” that were designed to maintain Israel’s status as a holy people.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Holiness and Dietary Law<\/p>\n<p>• Before Moses<\/p>\n<p>• The Mosaic Law<\/p>\n<p>• After Moses<\/p>\n<p>• Symbolism<\/p>\n<p>• Reactions from the Church<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"HolinessandDietaryLaw\">Holiness and Dietary Law<\/p>\n<p>Biblical laws concerning diet and cleanness were based on the idea of holiness. The underlying meaning of the Hebrew word for “holiness” is difficult to ascertain but most probably was “to cut,” or “to be separate,” or “to set apart.” The Lord told Israel, “You shall be holy to me; for I the <span>Lord<\/span> am holy, and have separated you from the peoples, that you should be mine” (Lv 20:26, <span>rsv<\/span>). God is the supreme example of holiness; he is the one uniquely separate in his character and being (Is 6:3). But God wanted his covenant people to be holy, too. One of the ways that God made the Israelites different from the other peoples of the world was by giving them dietary laws: “I am the <span>Lord<\/span> your God; consecrate yourselves and be holy, because I am holy” (Lv 11:44, <span>niv<\/span>). Keeping the dietary laws did not automatically make the people “holy” (i.e., separated to God); rather, it was one of the ways OT believers could show their gratitude to God for his deliverance.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"BeforeMoses\">Before Moses<\/p>\n<p>From the Creation, God approved all varieties of fruit and vegetables as legitimate, clean food (Gn 1:29). After the fall of humanity, God distinguished between clean and unclean animals. At the time of Noah, God directed that additional specimens of clean animals be taken aboard the ark (7:2; 8:20). After the Flood, God prohibited the eating of blood because blood represented life (9:4). To commemorate the patriarch Jacob’s wrestling with the Angel of the Lord, Jacob’s descendants refrained from eating a certain hip muscle (32:32), though that was not a command from God.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheMosaicLaw\">The Mosaic Law<\/p>\n<p>The primary revelation of the Lord’s dietary standards for Israel was given through Moses. Dietary laws are found among the ceremonial regulations received at Mt Sinai (Lv 11). Moses repeated many of those laws 39 years later, shortly before the people entered the Promised Land (Dt 14:3-21). The dietary laws concerned only animal products, except for the prohibition of wine to certain people (Lv 10:9; Nm 6:3-4; cf. Jgs 13:14; Jer 35:6).<\/p>\n<p>Five categories of living things were regulated for food. To be edible an animal had to have cloven (divided) hooves and had to chew its cud. According to Leviticus, that requirement ruled out camels, horses, rabbits, and pigs (Lv 11:2-8). Sea life had to have fins and scales (vv 9-12). Birds were edible if they were not predatory (vv 13-19); Moses went on to list 20 species specifically prohibited because they were birds of prey or scavengers. Winged insects were forbidden (vv 22-23) except for certain types of locusts and grasshoppers (food commonly eaten by desert nomads). Finally, “the animals that move about on the ground,” including reptiles and rodents (vv 29-31, <span>niv<\/span>), were ruled out.<\/p>\n<p>Further prohibitions were made about food that otherwise would have been considered clean. For example, nothing found already dead (Dt 14:21) or that had been torn by beasts (Lv 17:15) was to be eaten. Food could become defiled by contact with some other thing that was unclean, like a dead mouse that happened to fall into a food container (11:32-34). A young goat was not to be boiled in its mother’s milk (Ex 23:19; 34:26; Dt 14:21). When clean animals were slaughtered, their blood was to be drained out (Lv 17:14). All pieces of fat (3:16; 7:23), especially a sheep’s fat tail (Ex 29:22; Lv 3:9), were restricted for use in sacrifices to the Lord. Through Moses the Lord reiterated the prohibition against eating blood (Lv 17:10; 19:26; Dt 12:16; 15:23).<\/p>\n<p>Several reasons, stated in or inferred from Scripture, account for the dietary laws and apply to the Bible’s cleanness regulations in general. Some seem to be natural reasons; others may be symbolic or relational.<\/p>\n<h5>Hygiene<\/h5>\n<p>Some dietary laws, such as those against eating vermin or decomposing flesh, circumvented obvious health hazards and were given for the people’s protection. But hygiene alone cannot account for all the regulations; in fact, some foods that might have been acceptable from a hygienic viewpoint, such as rabbit or clams, were excluded.<\/p>\n<h5>Aversion<\/h5>\n<p>Worms and snakes are generally considered loathsome, whatever their actual food value. Such animals were not <em>kosher<\/em> (proper).<\/p>\n<h5>Relationship to Pagan Practice<\/h5>\n<p>Boiling a young goat in its mother’s milk has now been documented as a pagan rite among Moses’ contemporaries, the Canaanites. God’s people were not to imitate the practices of the peoples around them (Dt 18:9).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"AfterMoses\">After Moses<\/p>\n<p>The dietary laws given at Mt Sinai continued to be recognized throughout Israel’s history. Before the birth of Samson, the child’s mother was warned, “Now see to it that you drink no wine or other fermented drink and that you do not eat anything unclean” (Jgs 13:4, <span>niv<\/span>). During the Philistine wars of the next century (c. 1041 <span>BC<\/span>), King Saul’s soldiers sinned by disregarding requirements about the proper draining of blood from animals (1 Sm 14:32-34).<\/p>\n<p>Later, when the Israelites were exiled in heathen lands, they were faced with situations in which the selection of food and its preparation could render it unclean (Ez 4:12-14). Daniel’s refusal to be defiled by pagan delicacies at Nebuchadnezzar’s Babylonian court (605 <span>BC<\/span>) illustrated his loyalty to God (Dn 1:8).<\/p>\n<p>From the prophet Isaiah’s day (740 <span>BC<\/span>) onward, the most abhorrent food to the Israelites was the meat of swine (Is 65:4; 66:3, 17). In the Maccabean period the “abomination of desolation,” which the Jewish hero Judas Maccabeus and his followers resisted to the death, included sacrifices of pigs on the temple altar in Jerusalem by the pagan ruler Antiochus Epiphanes (1 Macc 1:54, 62-63; 2 Macc 6:5; 7:1).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Symbolism\">Symbolism<\/p>\n<p>Certain food products were ruled out because of something they symbolized. God said not to eat blood: “Be sure that you do not eat the blood; for the blood is the life, and you shall not eat the life with the flesh” (Dt 12:23, <span>rsv<\/span>). Blood had a ritual function. It was used to make atonement on God’s altar and therefore was not to be eaten (Lv 17:11-12). The NT writers recognized the sacrificial blood of the OT as a “type” or foreshadowing of the blood of Jesus Christ shed on the cross as a sacrifice for sin (Heb 10:1, 4, 12; 1 Pt 1:18-19). A symbolic regard for maternal life may explain why one who came upon a bird’s nest was allowed to take the eggs or the young but had to leave the mother bird unharmed (Dt 22:6-7). The need to preserve a fragile desert ecosystem may also have been a factor.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ReactionsfromtheChurch\">Reactions from the Church<\/p>\n<p>At first the early church, with its Jewish background, found it difficult to break away from Hebrew dietary traditions. The apostle Peter was given a vision, repeated three times, about no longer calling either non-Jewish food or the non-Jews who ate it “unclean” (Acts 10:9-16; 11:1-10). Later, a council at Jerusalem officially decided not to retain Moses’ ceremonialism in the church, except that gentile Christians should abstain “from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood” (Acts 15:20, <span>niv<\/span>) in order not to offend Jewish Christians. That was an application of the NT teaching of consideration for those with sensitive consciences. “Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. . . . But the man who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin” (Rom 14:20, 23, <span>niv<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>Jewish dietary laws also have relevance to Christians because of certain OT promises. God promised, first to Abraham and, by reiteration or allusion, throughout the OT, that the Gentiles would be included in his covenant. By preserving the health of the Hebrew people, God was ensuring their continuation as a nation. According to the NT, the salvation of both Jews and Gentiles was achieved by Christ, a Jew. The nation through which Christ came was protected in order that God’s promise could be fulfilled. Thus, the dietary laws need not be seen as burdensome restrictions of the law; they were part of God’s way of working out his redemptive plan.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Cleanness and Uncleanness, Regulations Concerning; Leviticus, Book of.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>DIETARY LAWS*<\/h3>\n<p>Regulations of food preparation and consumption provided by God for his people in OT times. The dietary laws formed part of broader regulations on “cleanness” that were designed to maintain Israel’s status as a holy people.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Holiness and Dietary Law<\/p>\n<p>• Before Moses<\/p>\n<p>• The Mosaic Law<\/p>\n<p>• After Moses<\/p>\n<p>• Symbolism<\/p>\n<p>• Reactions from the Church<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"HolinessandDietaryLaw\">Holiness and Dietary Law<\/p>\n<p>Biblical laws concerning diet and cleanness were based on the idea of holiness. The underlying meaning of the Hebrew word for “holiness” is difficult to ascertain but most probably was “to cut,” or “to be separate,” or “to set apart.” The Lord told Israel, “You shall be holy to me; for I the <span>Lord<\/span> am holy, and have separated you from the peoples, that you should be mine” (Lv 20:26, <span>rsv<\/span>). God is the supreme example of holiness; he is the one uniquely separate in his character and being (Is 6:3). But God wanted his covenant people to be holy, too. One of the ways that God made the Israelites different from the other peoples of the world was by giving them dietary laws: “I am the <span>Lord<\/span> your God; consecrate yourselves and be holy, because I am holy” (Lv 11:44, <span>niv<\/span>). Keeping the dietary laws did not automatically make the people “holy” (i.e., separated to God); rather, it was one of the ways OT believers could show their gratitude to God for his deliverance.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"BeforeMoses\">Before Moses<\/p>\n<p>From the Creation, God approved all varieties of fruit and vegetables as legitimate, clean food (Gn 1:29). After the fall of humanity, God distinguished between clean and unclean animals. At the time of Noah, God directed that additional specimens of clean animals be taken aboard the ark (7:2; 8:20). After the Flood, God prohibited the eating of blood because blood represented life (9:4). To commemorate the patriarch Jacob’s wrestling with the Angel of the Lord, Jacob’s descendants refrained from eating a certain hip muscle (32:32), though that was not a command from God.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheMosaicLaw\">The Mosaic Law<\/p>\n<p>The primary revelation of the Lord’s dietary standards for Israel was given through Moses. Dietary laws are found among the ceremonial regulations received at Mt Sinai (Lv 11). Moses repeated many of those laws 39 years later, shortly before the people entered the Promised Land (Dt 14:3-21). The dietary laws concerned only animal products, except for the prohibition of wine to certain people (Lv 10:9; Nm 6:3-4; cf. Jgs 13:14; Jer 35:6).<\/p>\n<p>Five categories of living things were regulated for food. To be edible an animal had to have cloven (divided) hooves and had to chew its cud. According to Leviticus, that requirement ruled out camels, horses, rabbits, and pigs (Lv 11:2-8). Sea life had to have fins and scales (vv 9-12). Birds were edible if they were not predatory (vv 13-19); Moses went on to list 20 species specifically prohibited because they were birds of prey or scavengers. Winged insects were forbidden (vv 22-23) except for certain types of locusts and grasshoppers (food commonly eaten by desert nomads). Finally, “the animals that move about on the ground,” including reptiles and rodents (vv 29-31, <span>niv<\/span>), were ruled out.<\/p>\n<p>Further prohibitions were made about food that otherwise would have been considered clean. For example, nothing found already dead (Dt 14:21) or that had been torn by beasts (Lv 17:15) was to be eaten. Food could become defiled by contact with some other thing that was unclean, like a dead mouse that happened to fall into a food container (11:32-34). A young goat was not to be boiled in its mother’s milk (Ex 23:19; 34:26; Dt 14:21). When clean animals were slaughtered, their blood was to be drained out (Lv 17:14). All pieces of fat (3:16; 7:23), especially a sheep’s fat tail (Ex 29:22; Lv 3:9), were restricted for use in sacrifices to the Lord. Through Moses the Lord reiterated the prohibition against eating blood (Lv 17:10; 19:26; Dt 12:16; 15:23).<\/p>\n<p>Several reasons, stated in or inferred from Scripture, account for the dietary laws and apply to the Bible’s cleanness regulations in general. Some seem to be natural reasons; others may be symbolic or relational.<\/p>\n<h5>Hygiene<\/h5>\n<p>Some dietary laws, such as those against eating vermin or decomposing flesh, circumvented obvious health hazards and were given for the people’s protection. But hygiene alone cannot account for all the regulations; in fact, some foods that might have been acceptable from a hygienic viewpoint, such as rabbit or clams, were excluded.<\/p>\n<h5>Aversion<\/h5>\n<p>Worms and snakes are generally considered loathsome, whatever their actual food value. Such animals were not <em>kosher<\/em> (proper).<\/p>\n<h5>Relationship to Pagan Practice<\/h5>\n<p>Boiling a young goat in its mother’s milk has now been documented as a pagan rite among Moses’ contemporaries, the Canaanites. God’s people were not to imitate the practices of the peoples around them (Dt 18:9).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"AfterMoses\">After Moses<\/p>\n<p>The dietary laws given at Mt Sinai continued to be recognized throughout Israel’s history. Before the birth of Samson, the child’s mother was warned, “Now see to it that you drink no wine or other fermented drink and that you do not eat anything unclean” (Jgs 13:4, <span>niv<\/span>). During the Philistine wars of the next century (c. 1041 <span>BC<\/span>), King Saul’s soldiers sinned by disregarding requirements about the proper draining of blood from animals (1 Sm 14:32-34).<\/p>\n<p>Later, when the Israelites were exiled in heathen lands, they were faced with situations in which the selection of food and its preparation could render it unclean (Ez 4:12-14). Daniel’s refusal to be defiled by pagan delicacies at Nebuchadnezzar’s Babylonian court (605 <span>BC<\/span>) illustrated his loyalty to God (Dn 1:8).<\/p>\n<p>From the prophet Isaiah’s day (740 <span>BC<\/span>) onward, the most abhorrent food to the Israelites was the meat of swine (Is 65:4; 66:3, 17). In the Maccabean period the “abomination of desolation,” which the Jewish hero Judas Maccabeus and his followers resisted to the death, included sacrifices of pigs on the temple altar in Jerusalem by the pagan ruler Antiochus Epiphanes (1 Macc 1:54, 62-63; 2 Macc 6:5; 7:1).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Symbolism\">Symbolism<\/p>\n<p>Certain food products were ruled out because of something they symbolized. God said not to eat blood: “Be sure that you do not eat the blood; for the blood is the life, and you shall not eat the life with the flesh” (Dt 12:23, <span>rsv<\/span>). Blood had a ritual function. It was used to make atonement on God’s altar and therefore was not to be eaten (Lv 17:11-12). The NT writers recognized the sacrificial blood of the OT as a “type” or foreshadowing of the blood of Jesus Christ shed on the cross as a sacrifice for sin (Heb 10:1, 4, 12; 1 Pt 1:18-19). A symbolic regard for maternal life may explain why one who came upon a bird’s nest was allowed to take the eggs or the young but had to leave the mother bird unharmed (Dt 22:6-7). The need to preserve a fragile desert ecosystem may also have been a factor.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ReactionsfromtheChurch\">Reactions from the Church<\/p>\n<p>At first the early church, with its Jewish background, found it difficult to break away from Hebrew dietary traditions. The apostle Peter was given a vision, repeated three times, about no longer calling either non-Jewish food or the non-Jews who ate it “unclean” (Acts 10:9-16; 11:1-10). Later, a council at Jerusalem officially decided not to retain Moses’ ceremonialism in the church, except that gentile Christians should abstain “from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood” (Acts 15:20, <span>niv<\/span>) in order not to offend Jewish Christians. That was an application of the NT teaching of consideration for those with sensitive consciences. “Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. . . . But the man who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin” (Rom 14:20, 23, <span>niv<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>Jewish dietary laws also have relevance to Christians because of certain OT promises. God promised, first to Abraham and, by reiteration or allusion, throughout the OT, that the Gentiles would be included in his covenant. By preserving the health of the Hebrew people, God was ensuring their continuation as a nation. According to the NT, the salvation of both Jews and Gentiles was achieved by Christ, a Jew. The nation through which Christ came was protected in order that God’s promise could be fulfilled. Thus, the dietary laws need not be seen as burdensome restrictions of the law; they were part of God’s way of working out his redemptive plan.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Cleanness and Uncleanness, Regulations Concerning; Leviticus, Book of.<\/p>","summary_ro":"DIETARY LAWS* Regulations of food preparation and consumption provided by God for his people in OT times. The dietary laws formed part of broader regulations on “cleanness” that were designed to maintain Israel’s status as a holy people. Preview • Holiness and Dietary Law • Before Moses • The Mosaic Law • After Moses • Symbolism • Reactions from the Church Holiness and Dietary Law Biblical laws concerning diet and cleanness were based on the idea of holiness. The underlying meaning of the Heb...","summary_en":"DIETARY LAWS* Regulations of food preparation and consumption provided by God for his people in OT times. The dietary laws formed part of broader regulations on “cleanness” that were designed to maintain Israel’s status as a holy people. Preview • Holiness and Dietary Law • Before Moses • The Mosaic Law • After Moses • Symbolism • Reactions from the Church Holiness and Dietary Law Biblical laws concerning diet and cleanness were based on the idea of holiness. The underlying meaning of the Heb...","source":"Articles\/D.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":44082,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Leviticul 3:9","title_en":"Study Note: Leviticul 3:9","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:9<\/strong> <em>broad tail:<\/em> Sheep in this part of the ancient Near East had broad, fatty tails that were burned on the altar with the rest of the fat.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:9<\/strong> <em>broad tail:<\/em> Sheep in this part of the ancient Near East had broad, fatty tails that were burned on the altar with the rest of the fat.<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:9 broad tail: Sheep in this part of the ancient Near East had broad, fatty tails that were burned on the altar with the rest of the fat.","summary_en":"3:9 broad tail: Sheep in this part of the ancient Near East had broad, fatty tails that were burned on the altar with the rest of the fat.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":71708,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Leviticul 3:9","title_en":"Study Note: Leviticul 3:9","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:9<\/strong> <em>broad tail:<\/em> Sheep in this part of the ancient Near East had broad, fatty tails that were burned on the altar with the rest of the fat.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:9<\/strong> <em>broad tail:<\/em> Sheep in this part of the ancient Near East had broad, fatty tails that were burned on the altar with the rest of the fat.<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:9 broad tail: Sheep in this part of the ancient Near East had broad, fatty tails that were burned on the altar with the rest of the fat.","summary_en":"3:9 broad tail: Sheep in this part of the ancient Near East had broad, fatty tails that were burned on the altar with the rest of the fat.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":99334,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Leviticul 3:9","title_en":"Study Note: Leviticul 3:9","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:9<\/strong> <em>broad tail:<\/em> Sheep in this part of the ancient Near East had broad, fatty tails that were burned on the altar with the rest of the fat.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:9<\/strong> <em>broad tail:<\/em> Sheep in this part of the ancient Near East had broad, fatty tails that were burned on the altar with the rest of the fat.<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:9 broad tail: Sheep in this part of the ancient Near East had broad, fatty tails that were burned on the altar with the rest of the fat.","summary_en":"3:9 broad tail: Sheep in this part of the ancient Near East had broad, fatty tails that were burned on the altar with the rest of the fat.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":126960,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Leviticul 3:9","title_en":"Study Note: Leviticul 3:9","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:9<\/strong> <em>broad tail:<\/em> Sheep in this part of the ancient Near East had broad, fatty tails that were burned on the altar with the rest of the fat.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:9<\/strong> <em>broad tail:<\/em> Sheep in this part of the ancient Near East had broad, fatty tails that were burned on the altar with the rest of the fat.<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:9 broad tail: Sheep in this part of the ancient Near East had broad, fatty tails that were burned on the altar with the rest of the fat.","summary_en":"3:9 broad tail: Sheep in this part of the ancient Near East had broad, fatty tails that were burned on the altar with the rest of the fat.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"11":[{"id":44083,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Leviticul 3:11","title_en":"Study Note: Leviticul 3:11","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:11<\/strong> <em>special gift:<\/em> See study note on 1:9. • Offerings of <em>food<\/em> were called “God’s food” (21:6, 8, 17, 21, 22; Num 28:2). However, Scripture is clear that the Lord did not eat the offerings, as pagans believed their deities did (Ps 50:9-13). Instead, these offerings belonged to God, and the priest ate a portion of this food as God’s representative (Lev 21:21-22). These offerings sustained the priest and his family.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:11<\/strong> <em>special gift:<\/em> See study note on 1:9. • Offerings of <em>food<\/em> were called “God’s food” (21:6, 8, 17, 21, 22; Num 28:2). However, Scripture is clear that the Lord did not eat the offerings, as pagans believed their deities did (Ps 50:9-13). Instead, these offerings belonged to God, and the priest ate a portion of this food as God’s representative (Lev 21:21-22). These offerings sustained the priest and his family.<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:11 special gift: See study note on 1:9. • Offerings of food were called “God’s food” (21:6, 8, 17, 21, 22; Num 28:2). However, Scripture is clear that the Lord did not eat the offerings, as pagans believed their deities did (Ps 50:9-13). Instead, these offerings belonged to God, and the priest ate a portion of this food as God’s representative (Lev 21:21-22). These offerings sustained the priest and his family.","summary_en":"3:11 special gift: See study note on 1:9. • Offerings of food were called “God’s food” (21:6, 8, 17, 21, 22; Num 28:2). However, Scripture is clear that the Lord did not eat the offerings, as pagans believed their deities did (Ps 50:9-13). Instead, these offerings belonged to God, and the priest ate a portion of this food as God’s representative (Lev 21:21-22). These offerings sustained the priest and his family.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":71709,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Leviticul 3:11","title_en":"Study Note: Leviticul 3:11","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:11<\/strong> <em>special gift:<\/em> See study note on 1:9. • Offerings of <em>food<\/em> were called “God’s food” (21:6, 8, 17, 21, 22; Num 28:2). However, Scripture is clear that the Lord did not eat the offerings, as pagans believed their deities did (Ps 50:9-13). Instead, these offerings belonged to God, and the priest ate a portion of this food as God’s representative (Lev 21:21-22). These offerings sustained the priest and his family.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:11<\/strong> <em>special gift:<\/em> See study note on 1:9. • Offerings of <em>food<\/em> were called “God’s food” (21:6, 8, 17, 21, 22; Num 28:2). However, Scripture is clear that the Lord did not eat the offerings, as pagans believed their deities did (Ps 50:9-13). Instead, these offerings belonged to God, and the priest ate a portion of this food as God’s representative (Lev 21:21-22). These offerings sustained the priest and his family.<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:11 special gift: See study note on 1:9. • Offerings of food were called “God’s food” (21:6, 8, 17, 21, 22; Num 28:2). However, Scripture is clear that the Lord did not eat the offerings, as pagans believed their deities did (Ps 50:9-13). Instead, these offerings belonged to God, and the priest ate a portion of this food as God’s representative (Lev 21:21-22). These offerings sustained the priest and his family.","summary_en":"3:11 special gift: See study note on 1:9. • Offerings of food were called “God’s food” (21:6, 8, 17, 21, 22; Num 28:2). However, Scripture is clear that the Lord did not eat the offerings, as pagans believed their deities did (Ps 50:9-13). Instead, these offerings belonged to God, and the priest ate a portion of this food as God’s representative (Lev 21:21-22). These offerings sustained the priest and his family.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":99335,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Leviticul 3:11","title_en":"Study Note: Leviticul 3:11","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:11<\/strong> <em>special gift:<\/em> See study note on 1:9. • Offerings of <em>food<\/em> were called “God’s food” (21:6, 8, 17, 21, 22; Num 28:2). However, Scripture is clear that the Lord did not eat the offerings, as pagans believed their deities did (Ps 50:9-13). Instead, these offerings belonged to God, and the priest ate a portion of this food as God’s representative (Lev 21:21-22). These offerings sustained the priest and his family.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:11<\/strong> <em>special gift:<\/em> See study note on 1:9. • Offerings of <em>food<\/em> were called “God’s food” (21:6, 8, 17, 21, 22; Num 28:2). However, Scripture is clear that the Lord did not eat the offerings, as pagans believed their deities did (Ps 50:9-13). Instead, these offerings belonged to God, and the priest ate a portion of this food as God’s representative (Lev 21:21-22). These offerings sustained the priest and his family.<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:11 special gift: See study note on 1:9. • Offerings of food were called “God’s food” (21:6, 8, 17, 21, 22; Num 28:2). However, Scripture is clear that the Lord did not eat the offerings, as pagans believed their deities did (Ps 50:9-13). Instead, these offerings belonged to God, and the priest ate a portion of this food as God’s representative (Lev 21:21-22). These offerings sustained the priest and his family.","summary_en":"3:11 special gift: See study note on 1:9. • Offerings of food were called “God’s food” (21:6, 8, 17, 21, 22; Num 28:2). However, Scripture is clear that the Lord did not eat the offerings, as pagans believed their deities did (Ps 50:9-13). Instead, these offerings belonged to God, and the priest ate a portion of this food as God’s representative (Lev 21:21-22). These offerings sustained the priest and his family.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":126961,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Leviticul 3:11","title_en":"Study Note: Leviticul 3:11","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:11<\/strong> <em>special gift:<\/em> See study note on 1:9. • Offerings of <em>food<\/em> were called “God’s food” (21:6, 8, 17, 21, 22; Num 28:2). However, Scripture is clear that the Lord did not eat the offerings, as pagans believed their deities did (Ps 50:9-13). Instead, these offerings belonged to God, and the priest ate a portion of this food as God’s representative (Lev 21:21-22). These offerings sustained the priest and his family.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:11<\/strong> <em>special gift:<\/em> See study note on 1:9. • Offerings of <em>food<\/em> were called “God’s food” (21:6, 8, 17, 21, 22; Num 28:2). However, Scripture is clear that the Lord did not eat the offerings, as pagans believed their deities did (Ps 50:9-13). Instead, these offerings belonged to God, and the priest ate a portion of this food as God’s representative (Lev 21:21-22). These offerings sustained the priest and his family.<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:11 special gift: See study note on 1:9. • Offerings of food were called “God’s food” (21:6, 8, 17, 21, 22; Num 28:2). However, Scripture is clear that the Lord did not eat the offerings, as pagans believed their deities did (Ps 50:9-13). Instead, these offerings belonged to God, and the priest ate a portion of this food as God’s representative (Lev 21:21-22). These offerings sustained the priest and his family.","summary_en":"3:11 special gift: See study note on 1:9. • Offerings of food were called “God’s food” (21:6, 8, 17, 21, 22; Num 28:2). However, Scripture is clear that the Lord did not eat the offerings, as pagans believed their deities did (Ps 50:9-13). Instead, these offerings belonged to God, and the priest ate a portion of this food as God’s representative (Lev 21:21-22). These offerings sustained the priest and his family.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"12":[{"id":44084,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Leviticul 3:12","title_en":"Study Note: Leviticul 3:12","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:12-16<\/strong> The offering of goats followed a similar pattern as for cattle and sheep. Both goats and sheep were considered offerings from the flock (see 3:6).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:12-16<\/strong> The offering of goats followed a similar pattern as for cattle and sheep. Both goats and sheep were considered offerings from the flock (see 3:6).<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:12-16 The offering of goats followed a similar pattern as for cattle and sheep. Both goats and sheep were considered offerings from the flock (see 3:6).","summary_en":"3:12-16 The offering of goats followed a similar pattern as for cattle and sheep. Both goats and sheep were considered offerings from the flock (see 3:6).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":71710,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Leviticul 3:12","title_en":"Study Note: Leviticul 3:12","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:12-16<\/strong> The offering of goats followed a similar pattern as for cattle and sheep. Both goats and sheep were considered offerings from the flock (see 3:6).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:12-16<\/strong> The offering of goats followed a similar pattern as for cattle and sheep. Both goats and sheep were considered offerings from the flock (see 3:6).<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:12-16 The offering of goats followed a similar pattern as for cattle and sheep. Both goats and sheep were considered offerings from the flock (see 3:6).","summary_en":"3:12-16 The offering of goats followed a similar pattern as for cattle and sheep. Both goats and sheep were considered offerings from the flock (see 3:6).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":99336,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Leviticul 3:12","title_en":"Study Note: Leviticul 3:12","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:12-16<\/strong> The offering of goats followed a similar pattern as for cattle and sheep. Both goats and sheep were considered offerings from the flock (see 3:6).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:12-16<\/strong> The offering of goats followed a similar pattern as for cattle and sheep. Both goats and sheep were considered offerings from the flock (see 3:6).<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:12-16 The offering of goats followed a similar pattern as for cattle and sheep. Both goats and sheep were considered offerings from the flock (see 3:6).","summary_en":"3:12-16 The offering of goats followed a similar pattern as for cattle and sheep. Both goats and sheep were considered offerings from the flock (see 3:6).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":126962,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Leviticul 3:12","title_en":"Study Note: Leviticul 3:12","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:12-16<\/strong> The offering of goats followed a similar pattern as for cattle and sheep. Both goats and sheep were considered offerings from the flock (see 3:6).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:12-16<\/strong> The offering of goats followed a similar pattern as for cattle and sheep. Both goats and sheep were considered offerings from the flock (see 3:6).<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:12-16 The offering of goats followed a similar pattern as for cattle and sheep. Both goats and sheep were considered offerings from the flock (see 3:6).","summary_en":"3:12-16 The offering of goats followed a similar pattern as for cattle and sheep. Both goats and sheep were considered offerings from the flock (see 3:6).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"16":[{"id":9593,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Laws*, Dietary","title_en":"Laws*, Dietary","content_ro":"<h3>DIETARY LAWS*<\/h3>\n<p>Regulations of food preparation and consumption provided by God for his people in OT times. The dietary laws formed part of broader regulations on “cleanness” that were designed to maintain Israel’s status as a holy people.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Holiness and Dietary Law<\/p>\n<p>• Before Moses<\/p>\n<p>• The Mosaic Law<\/p>\n<p>• After Moses<\/p>\n<p>• Symbolism<\/p>\n<p>• Reactions from the Church<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"HolinessandDietaryLaw\">Holiness and Dietary Law<\/p>\n<p>Biblical laws concerning diet and cleanness were based on the idea of holiness. The underlying meaning of the Hebrew word for “holiness” is difficult to ascertain but most probably was “to cut,” or “to be separate,” or “to set apart.” The Lord told Israel, “You shall be holy to me; for I the <span>Lord<\/span> am holy, and have separated you from the peoples, that you should be mine” (Lv 20:26, <span>rsv<\/span>). God is the supreme example of holiness; he is the one uniquely separate in his character and being (Is 6:3). But God wanted his covenant people to be holy, too. One of the ways that God made the Israelites different from the other peoples of the world was by giving them dietary laws: “I am the <span>Lord<\/span> your God; consecrate yourselves and be holy, because I am holy” (Lv 11:44, <span>niv<\/span>). Keeping the dietary laws did not automatically make the people “holy” (i.e., separated to God); rather, it was one of the ways OT believers could show their gratitude to God for his deliverance.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"BeforeMoses\">Before Moses<\/p>\n<p>From the Creation, God approved all varieties of fruit and vegetables as legitimate, clean food (Gn 1:29). After the fall of humanity, God distinguished between clean and unclean animals. At the time of Noah, God directed that additional specimens of clean animals be taken aboard the ark (7:2; 8:20). After the Flood, God prohibited the eating of blood because blood represented life (9:4). To commemorate the patriarch Jacob’s wrestling with the Angel of the Lord, Jacob’s descendants refrained from eating a certain hip muscle (32:32), though that was not a command from God.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheMosaicLaw\">The Mosaic Law<\/p>\n<p>The primary revelation of the Lord’s dietary standards for Israel was given through Moses. Dietary laws are found among the ceremonial regulations received at Mt Sinai (Lv 11). Moses repeated many of those laws 39 years later, shortly before the people entered the Promised Land (Dt 14:3-21). The dietary laws concerned only animal products, except for the prohibition of wine to certain people (Lv 10:9; Nm 6:3-4; cf. Jgs 13:14; Jer 35:6).<\/p>\n<p>Five categories of living things were regulated for food. To be edible an animal had to have cloven (divided) hooves and had to chew its cud. According to Leviticus, that requirement ruled out camels, horses, rabbits, and pigs (Lv 11:2-8). Sea life had to have fins and scales (vv 9-12). Birds were edible if they were not predatory (vv 13-19); Moses went on to list 20 species specifically prohibited because they were birds of prey or scavengers. Winged insects were forbidden (vv 22-23) except for certain types of locusts and grasshoppers (food commonly eaten by desert nomads). Finally, “the animals that move about on the ground,” including reptiles and rodents (vv 29-31, <span>niv<\/span>), were ruled out.<\/p>\n<p>Further prohibitions were made about food that otherwise would have been considered clean. For example, nothing found already dead (Dt 14:21) or that had been torn by beasts (Lv 17:15) was to be eaten. Food could become defiled by contact with some other thing that was unclean, like a dead mouse that happened to fall into a food container (11:32-34). A young goat was not to be boiled in its mother’s milk (Ex 23:19; 34:26; Dt 14:21). When clean animals were slaughtered, their blood was to be drained out (Lv 17:14). All pieces of fat (3:16; 7:23), especially a sheep’s fat tail (Ex 29:22; Lv 3:9), were restricted for use in sacrifices to the Lord. Through Moses the Lord reiterated the prohibition against eating blood (Lv 17:10; 19:26; Dt 12:16; 15:23).<\/p>\n<p>Several reasons, stated in or inferred from Scripture, account for the dietary laws and apply to the Bible’s cleanness regulations in general. Some seem to be natural reasons; others may be symbolic or relational.<\/p>\n<h5>Hygiene<\/h5>\n<p>Some dietary laws, such as those against eating vermin or decomposing flesh, circumvented obvious health hazards and were given for the people’s protection. But hygiene alone cannot account for all the regulations; in fact, some foods that might have been acceptable from a hygienic viewpoint, such as rabbit or clams, were excluded.<\/p>\n<h5>Aversion<\/h5>\n<p>Worms and snakes are generally considered loathsome, whatever their actual food value. Such animals were not <em>kosher<\/em> (proper).<\/p>\n<h5>Relationship to Pagan Practice<\/h5>\n<p>Boiling a young goat in its mother’s milk has now been documented as a pagan rite among Moses’ contemporaries, the Canaanites. God’s people were not to imitate the practices of the peoples around them (Dt 18:9).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"AfterMoses\">After Moses<\/p>\n<p>The dietary laws given at Mt Sinai continued to be recognized throughout Israel’s history. Before the birth of Samson, the child’s mother was warned, “Now see to it that you drink no wine or other fermented drink and that you do not eat anything unclean” (Jgs 13:4, <span>niv<\/span>). During the Philistine wars of the next century (c. 1041 <span>BC<\/span>), King Saul’s soldiers sinned by disregarding requirements about the proper draining of blood from animals (1 Sm 14:32-34).<\/p>\n<p>Later, when the Israelites were exiled in heathen lands, they were faced with situations in which the selection of food and its preparation could render it unclean (Ez 4:12-14). Daniel’s refusal to be defiled by pagan delicacies at Nebuchadnezzar’s Babylonian court (605 <span>BC<\/span>) illustrated his loyalty to God (Dn 1:8).<\/p>\n<p>From the prophet Isaiah’s day (740 <span>BC<\/span>) onward, the most abhorrent food to the Israelites was the meat of swine (Is 65:4; 66:3, 17). In the Maccabean period the “abomination of desolation,” which the Jewish hero Judas Maccabeus and his followers resisted to the death, included sacrifices of pigs on the temple altar in Jerusalem by the pagan ruler Antiochus Epiphanes (1 Macc 1:54, 62-63; 2 Macc 6:5; 7:1).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Symbolism\">Symbolism<\/p>\n<p>Certain food products were ruled out because of something they symbolized. God said not to eat blood: “Be sure that you do not eat the blood; for the blood is the life, and you shall not eat the life with the flesh” (Dt 12:23, <span>rsv<\/span>). Blood had a ritual function. It was used to make atonement on God’s altar and therefore was not to be eaten (Lv 17:11-12). The NT writers recognized the sacrificial blood of the OT as a “type” or foreshadowing of the blood of Jesus Christ shed on the cross as a sacrifice for sin (Heb 10:1, 4, 12; 1 Pt 1:18-19). A symbolic regard for maternal life may explain why one who came upon a bird’s nest was allowed to take the eggs or the young but had to leave the mother bird unharmed (Dt 22:6-7). The need to preserve a fragile desert ecosystem may also have been a factor.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ReactionsfromtheChurch\">Reactions from the Church<\/p>\n<p>At first the early church, with its Jewish background, found it difficult to break away from Hebrew dietary traditions. The apostle Peter was given a vision, repeated three times, about no longer calling either non-Jewish food or the non-Jews who ate it “unclean” (Acts 10:9-16; 11:1-10). Later, a council at Jerusalem officially decided not to retain Moses’ ceremonialism in the church, except that gentile Christians should abstain “from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood” (Acts 15:20, <span>niv<\/span>) in order not to offend Jewish Christians. That was an application of the NT teaching of consideration for those with sensitive consciences. “Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. . . . But the man who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin” (Rom 14:20, 23, <span>niv<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>Jewish dietary laws also have relevance to Christians because of certain OT promises. God promised, first to Abraham and, by reiteration or allusion, throughout the OT, that the Gentiles would be included in his covenant. By preserving the health of the Hebrew people, God was ensuring their continuation as a nation. According to the NT, the salvation of both Jews and Gentiles was achieved by Christ, a Jew. The nation through which Christ came was protected in order that God’s promise could be fulfilled. Thus, the dietary laws need not be seen as burdensome restrictions of the law; they were part of God’s way of working out his redemptive plan.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Cleanness and Uncleanness, Regulations Concerning; Leviticus, Book of.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>DIETARY LAWS*<\/h3>\n<p>Regulations of food preparation and consumption provided by God for his people in OT times. The dietary laws formed part of broader regulations on “cleanness” that were designed to maintain Israel’s status as a holy people.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Holiness and Dietary Law<\/p>\n<p>• Before Moses<\/p>\n<p>• The Mosaic Law<\/p>\n<p>• After Moses<\/p>\n<p>• Symbolism<\/p>\n<p>• Reactions from the Church<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"HolinessandDietaryLaw\">Holiness and Dietary Law<\/p>\n<p>Biblical laws concerning diet and cleanness were based on the idea of holiness. The underlying meaning of the Hebrew word for “holiness” is difficult to ascertain but most probably was “to cut,” or “to be separate,” or “to set apart.” The Lord told Israel, “You shall be holy to me; for I the <span>Lord<\/span> am holy, and have separated you from the peoples, that you should be mine” (Lv 20:26, <span>rsv<\/span>). God is the supreme example of holiness; he is the one uniquely separate in his character and being (Is 6:3). But God wanted his covenant people to be holy, too. One of the ways that God made the Israelites different from the other peoples of the world was by giving them dietary laws: “I am the <span>Lord<\/span> your God; consecrate yourselves and be holy, because I am holy” (Lv 11:44, <span>niv<\/span>). Keeping the dietary laws did not automatically make the people “holy” (i.e., separated to God); rather, it was one of the ways OT believers could show their gratitude to God for his deliverance.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"BeforeMoses\">Before Moses<\/p>\n<p>From the Creation, God approved all varieties of fruit and vegetables as legitimate, clean food (Gn 1:29). After the fall of humanity, God distinguished between clean and unclean animals. At the time of Noah, God directed that additional specimens of clean animals be taken aboard the ark (7:2; 8:20). After the Flood, God prohibited the eating of blood because blood represented life (9:4). To commemorate the patriarch Jacob’s wrestling with the Angel of the Lord, Jacob’s descendants refrained from eating a certain hip muscle (32:32), though that was not a command from God.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheMosaicLaw\">The Mosaic Law<\/p>\n<p>The primary revelation of the Lord’s dietary standards for Israel was given through Moses. Dietary laws are found among the ceremonial regulations received at Mt Sinai (Lv 11). Moses repeated many of those laws 39 years later, shortly before the people entered the Promised Land (Dt 14:3-21). The dietary laws concerned only animal products, except for the prohibition of wine to certain people (Lv 10:9; Nm 6:3-4; cf. Jgs 13:14; Jer 35:6).<\/p>\n<p>Five categories of living things were regulated for food. To be edible an animal had to have cloven (divided) hooves and had to chew its cud. According to Leviticus, that requirement ruled out camels, horses, rabbits, and pigs (Lv 11:2-8). Sea life had to have fins and scales (vv 9-12). Birds were edible if they were not predatory (vv 13-19); Moses went on to list 20 species specifically prohibited because they were birds of prey or scavengers. Winged insects were forbidden (vv 22-23) except for certain types of locusts and grasshoppers (food commonly eaten by desert nomads). Finally, “the animals that move about on the ground,” including reptiles and rodents (vv 29-31, <span>niv<\/span>), were ruled out.<\/p>\n<p>Further prohibitions were made about food that otherwise would have been considered clean. For example, nothing found already dead (Dt 14:21) or that had been torn by beasts (Lv 17:15) was to be eaten. Food could become defiled by contact with some other thing that was unclean, like a dead mouse that happened to fall into a food container (11:32-34). A young goat was not to be boiled in its mother’s milk (Ex 23:19; 34:26; Dt 14:21). When clean animals were slaughtered, their blood was to be drained out (Lv 17:14). All pieces of fat (3:16; 7:23), especially a sheep’s fat tail (Ex 29:22; Lv 3:9), were restricted for use in sacrifices to the Lord. Through Moses the Lord reiterated the prohibition against eating blood (Lv 17:10; 19:26; Dt 12:16; 15:23).<\/p>\n<p>Several reasons, stated in or inferred from Scripture, account for the dietary laws and apply to the Bible’s cleanness regulations in general. Some seem to be natural reasons; others may be symbolic or relational.<\/p>\n<h5>Hygiene<\/h5>\n<p>Some dietary laws, such as those against eating vermin or decomposing flesh, circumvented obvious health hazards and were given for the people’s protection. But hygiene alone cannot account for all the regulations; in fact, some foods that might have been acceptable from a hygienic viewpoint, such as rabbit or clams, were excluded.<\/p>\n<h5>Aversion<\/h5>\n<p>Worms and snakes are generally considered loathsome, whatever their actual food value. Such animals were not <em>kosher<\/em> (proper).<\/p>\n<h5>Relationship to Pagan Practice<\/h5>\n<p>Boiling a young goat in its mother’s milk has now been documented as a pagan rite among Moses’ contemporaries, the Canaanites. God’s people were not to imitate the practices of the peoples around them (Dt 18:9).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"AfterMoses\">After Moses<\/p>\n<p>The dietary laws given at Mt Sinai continued to be recognized throughout Israel’s history. Before the birth of Samson, the child’s mother was warned, “Now see to it that you drink no wine or other fermented drink and that you do not eat anything unclean” (Jgs 13:4, <span>niv<\/span>). During the Philistine wars of the next century (c. 1041 <span>BC<\/span>), King Saul’s soldiers sinned by disregarding requirements about the proper draining of blood from animals (1 Sm 14:32-34).<\/p>\n<p>Later, when the Israelites were exiled in heathen lands, they were faced with situations in which the selection of food and its preparation could render it unclean (Ez 4:12-14). Daniel’s refusal to be defiled by pagan delicacies at Nebuchadnezzar’s Babylonian court (605 <span>BC<\/span>) illustrated his loyalty to God (Dn 1:8).<\/p>\n<p>From the prophet Isaiah’s day (740 <span>BC<\/span>) onward, the most abhorrent food to the Israelites was the meat of swine (Is 65:4; 66:3, 17). In the Maccabean period the “abomination of desolation,” which the Jewish hero Judas Maccabeus and his followers resisted to the death, included sacrifices of pigs on the temple altar in Jerusalem by the pagan ruler Antiochus Epiphanes (1 Macc 1:54, 62-63; 2 Macc 6:5; 7:1).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Symbolism\">Symbolism<\/p>\n<p>Certain food products were ruled out because of something they symbolized. God said not to eat blood: “Be sure that you do not eat the blood; for the blood is the life, and you shall not eat the life with the flesh” (Dt 12:23, <span>rsv<\/span>). Blood had a ritual function. It was used to make atonement on God’s altar and therefore was not to be eaten (Lv 17:11-12). The NT writers recognized the sacrificial blood of the OT as a “type” or foreshadowing of the blood of Jesus Christ shed on the cross as a sacrifice for sin (Heb 10:1, 4, 12; 1 Pt 1:18-19). A symbolic regard for maternal life may explain why one who came upon a bird’s nest was allowed to take the eggs or the young but had to leave the mother bird unharmed (Dt 22:6-7). The need to preserve a fragile desert ecosystem may also have been a factor.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ReactionsfromtheChurch\">Reactions from the Church<\/p>\n<p>At first the early church, with its Jewish background, found it difficult to break away from Hebrew dietary traditions. The apostle Peter was given a vision, repeated three times, about no longer calling either non-Jewish food or the non-Jews who ate it “unclean” (Acts 10:9-16; 11:1-10). Later, a council at Jerusalem officially decided not to retain Moses’ ceremonialism in the church, except that gentile Christians should abstain “from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood” (Acts 15:20, <span>niv<\/span>) in order not to offend Jewish Christians. That was an application of the NT teaching of consideration for those with sensitive consciences. “Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. . . . But the man who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin” (Rom 14:20, 23, <span>niv<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>Jewish dietary laws also have relevance to Christians because of certain OT promises. God promised, first to Abraham and, by reiteration or allusion, throughout the OT, that the Gentiles would be included in his covenant. By preserving the health of the Hebrew people, God was ensuring their continuation as a nation. According to the NT, the salvation of both Jews and Gentiles was achieved by Christ, a Jew. The nation through which Christ came was protected in order that God’s promise could be fulfilled. Thus, the dietary laws need not be seen as burdensome restrictions of the law; they were part of God’s way of working out his redemptive plan.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Cleanness and Uncleanness, Regulations Concerning; Leviticus, Book of.<\/p>","summary_ro":"DIETARY LAWS* Regulations of food preparation and consumption provided by God for his people in OT times. The dietary laws formed part of broader regulations on “cleanness” that were designed to maintain Israel’s status as a holy people. Preview • Holiness and Dietary Law • Before Moses • The Mosaic Law • After Moses • Symbolism • Reactions from the Church Holiness and Dietary Law Biblical laws concerning diet and cleanness were based on the idea of holiness. The underlying meaning of the Heb...","summary_en":"DIETARY LAWS* Regulations of food preparation and consumption provided by God for his people in OT times. The dietary laws formed part of broader regulations on “cleanness” that were designed to maintain Israel’s status as a holy people. Preview • Holiness and Dietary Law • Before Moses • The Mosaic Law • After Moses • Symbolism • Reactions from the Church Holiness and Dietary Law Biblical laws concerning diet and cleanness were based on the idea of holiness. The underlying meaning of the Heb...","source":"Articles\/D.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"17":[{"id":22696,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Biblical Concept of Law","title_en":"Biblical Concept of Law","content_ro":"<h3>LAW, Biblical Concept of<\/h3>\n<p>God’s means of consecrating his people to himself. The nature and content of “law” may change, but the goal remains the same: maturity and conformity to the image of God.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Historical Context<\/p>\n<p>• Law in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>• Israelite Law and the Ancient Near East<\/p>\n<p>• Old Testament Laws<\/p>\n<p>• Purposes of the Law<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"HistoricalContext\">Historical Context<\/p>\n<p>When man was created in God’s image, he received glory, rule, and provision for his daily sustenance from the Creator-King (Gn 1:27-30). However, in his exalted status as ruler over God’s creation on earth, man had to prove his loyalty to the Lord. For this purpose God set up a simple test: the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Man was prohibited from eating the fruit of that tree (2:17). His disobedience marked him as unfit for fellowship with the great King. He was rebellious and by nature full of treachery, as the subsequent accounts of Cain (4:1-16), the generation of the Flood (6:1-13), Ham and Canaan (9:18-26; 10:6-20), and the Tower of Babel (11:1-9) demonstrate.<\/p>\n<p>Yet in the midst of all this the Lord graciously called Abraham. He promised to bless him, his seed, and the families of the earth that would join in a common expression of faith (Gn 12:2-3; 17:4-7). Abraham responded to God in faith (15:6), willingly observed the ritual of circumcision as a sign of the covenant (17:10; cf. 21:4), and walked before God with integrity of heart (17:1). Abraham subsequently learned that God had sovereignly and graciously chosen him with the purpose that Abraham’s family might distinguish itself from the nations “by doing righteousness and justice” (18:19). The Lord was pleased with his servant Abraham, who, though he had not received detailed laws, was a man of integrity. His heart was right with God, so that he willingly did what God commanded.<\/p>\n<p>The father of faith was the father of the faithful; the Lord testified that Abraham “obeyed me and kept my requirements, my commands, my decrees and my laws” (Gn 26:5, <span>niv<\/span>). His faith resulted in the fruits of righteousness (Jas 2:21-24).<\/p>\n<p>However, Israel, blessed by the Lord in the increase of descendants, the exodus, the crossing of the Red Sea, and his presence, did not respond to him in faith. They murmured and complained at Mt Sinai, at Kadesh-barnea, and in the plains of Moab. They proved themselves to be a rebellious and stiff-necked people (Ex 32:9; 33:3, 5; 34:9; Dt 9:6, 13). Though they had shown their character, the Lord was faithful to Abraham by covenanting himself to them. Israel became his people, his royal priesthood, his holy nation (Ex 19:5-6; Dt 26:18-19). He gave Israel the Ten Commandments, the law, and the covenant, symbolized by the two tablets of the testimony (Ex 32:15-16). Even after Moses had broken them in anger because of the people’s idolatrous worship of the golden calf, the Lord renewed his covenant by writing again the words of the covenant (34:28). On one hand, the context in which the law was given reflects God’s grace and forbearance with Israel’s sins (vv 6-7) and his determination to use Israel in the unfolding of his plan of redemption for the world. On the other hand, the context reflects Israel’s immaturity and stubbornness. Therefore, the law in the OT has positive and negative purposes.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"LawintheOldTestament\">Law in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>The OT has many words for God’s law. The most general word is <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">Torah<\/span><em>,<\/em> which signifies instruction of any kind: religious and secular, written and oral, divine and human. Law in Israel was God’s law, mediated through Moses (Ex 20:19; Dt 5:23-27). Because Israel rejected the direct revelation of God’s oracles, the law was mediated through Moses the servant of God (Jn 1:17).<\/p>\n<p>Synonyms for law are, in various translations, word (cf. Ex 24:3; 34:27), judgment (cf. Ex 24:3), decree (cf. Nm 30:16; Dt 4:1), ordinance (cf. Nm 9:12, 14; Dt 6:2), command(ment) (cf. Dt 6:1, 25), statutes (Lv 3:17; 10:11), precepts (a Hebrew word used only in Psalms; cf. 119:4, 15, 27, 40, 45, 56, 63, 69, 78, 87, 93, 94, 100, 104, 110, 128, 134, 141, 159, 168, 173), stipulations, requirements, testimonies (cf. Dt 4:45; 6:20; 1 Kgs 2:3), precept (a Hebrew term not in the Pentateuch; cf. Ps 119:15), or simply the “way(s)” (cf. 1 Kgs 2:3; Pss 18:21; 25:9; 37:34).<\/p>\n<p>These words form a semantic field, and it is far from easy to distinguish clearly among the various forms of laws. Generally “the words” pertain to the duties of man toward God, especially the Ten Commandments (Ex 20:1; 34:27). The “judgments” contain civil regulations and duties to one’s fellows and to the social environment (21:1–23:9); these are often in the form of “if . . . then. . . .” In Leviticus and in cultic formulations the word “ordinances” has the technical sense of cultic regulations—the ceremonial laws. However, in other contexts, especially in a series of synonyms for law, it signifies any expectation or regulation. The “commandments” are those regulations given by a higher authority. Though the OT has many words for law, the connotation of one word is often indistinguishable from that of other words, especially in series such as “the decrees and laws” (Dt 4:1, 5; 5:1), “the commands, decrees and laws” (6:1), “walk in his ways, and keep his decrees and commands, his laws and requirements, as written in the Law of Moses” (1 Kgs 2:3, <span>niv<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>The motivation for keeping the divine law lies in the acts and presence of the Lord. The prologue to the Decalogue reminds us of God’s mighty acts: “I am the <span>Lord<\/span> your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage” (Ex 20:2, <span>rsv<\/span>). In the historic acts of Israel’s redemption, revelation at Mt Sinai, and consecration of Israel to be his people, he involved himself with Israel as a “father.” He adopted Israel to sonship and consecrated them; that is, he declared them holy (Ex 19:6; 31:13; Lv 20:8; 22:32; cf. Rom 9:4). Sometimes the two concepts of redemption and consecration are placed together, but whether they are or not, they are inseparable: “I am the <span>Lord<\/span>, who makes you holy” (Lv 22:32b, <span>niv<\/span>). The ground of obedience can be stated simply by an appeal to God’s name: “I am Yahweh” (cf. Lv 18:6, 21, 30; 19:10, 14, 16, 18, 28, 30-31, 34, 36-37). The requisite of practical holiness is also based on the experience of God’s presence. The Lord commanded Israel to be holy because he is holy (Lv 11:44-45; 19:2). The “holy one of Israel” dwelt in the midst of his people (Ex 25:8; 29:45; Nm 5:3; 35:34).<\/p>\n<p>How could rebellious Israel grasp what God required, if it were not by precise moral, social, civil, and cultic regulations? The Lord had observed that they did not have “the heart” to serve him as a covenant-loyal people (Dt 5:29). By Israel’s very nature, it could not develop an adequate moral and cultic system to please God. Because of the people’s hardness of heart, God had to reveal (i.e., “spell out”) his will.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"IsraeliteLawandtheAncientNearEast\">Israelite Law and the Ancient Near East<\/p>\n<p>Israel’s law reflected the practices of its ancient Near Eastern context. Ancient Babylonian law codes (Eshnunna, Hammurabi) show similarities with the biblical codes. The similarities go beyond similarity of cases and include legal formulations (casuistic law). Israelite law is distinct in that it is divine law. Moses is the mediator and not the promulgator of the law, as was the practice of a king who, like Hammurabi, put into force a legal code. The Lord himself gave Israel its laws (cf. Dt 4:5-8). The laws in the ancient Near East dealt with the ordering of society. But Israel’s laws were given to regulate every aspect of life: personal, familial, social, and cultic. The laws were to teach Israel to distinguish between holy and profane, between clean and unclean, and between just and unjust.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"OldTestamentLaws\">Old Testament Laws<\/p>\n<p>The legal corpus of the OT is not given in one book or in one section. Moreover, the laws reflect the development from the desert context (Exodus) to the context of the land (Deuteronomy). The OT legal material is complex, full of variations and duplications. It is found in Exodus (chs 20–24; 25–31), Leviticus, Numbers (chs 3–6; 8–10; 15; 18; 19; 28–30), and Deuteronomy (chs 5–26).<\/p>\n<h5>The Ten Commandments<\/h5>\n<p>The commandments are simply designated as “the words” of God (Ex 20:1). They appear in Exodus 20:1-17 and in Deuteronomy 5:6-21, but minor variations and individual commandments occur in other contexts (e.g., Ex 34:14, 17, 21; Lv 19:1-8; Dt 27:15-16). As a part of the covenant, the commandments were first addressed to Israel; they now form the basis of morality in Christianity. The abiding relevance of the moral law is clear from the NT. Our Lord established his authority as interpreter of all the commandments (Mt 5:17-48; 12:1-14; 23:23-24). He summarized the law in terms of love for God and man (cf. Mt 22:37-40; Mk 12:28-34; Lk 10:27; cf. Rom 13:8-9; Gal 5:14). Since he is also the Lord of the Sabbath, the Sabbath cannot be divorced from the other commandments (Mt 12:8). The apostle Paul also upheld the law, as his “ethics of the Spirit” reflects an internalization of the law of God in the hearts of believers (cf. Rom 8:1-17; 12:1–15:13; 1 Cor 2:6-16; 5:1-8; 10:23–11:1; Gal 5:13–6:10; Eph 4:17–6:9; Phil 2:1-18; Col 3:1–4:6; 1 Thes 4:1-12; 5:12-24; 2 Thes 3:6-15; 1 Tm 6:3-10; Ti 3:1-11).<\/p>\n<p>The commandments were written on both sides of the two tablets by the Lord (Ex 32:15-16). It is unclear whether the tablets were duplicate copies, how the commandments were divided, and how the commandments were numbered. They were kept in the ark of the covenant as a testimony to the covenant (40:20).<\/p>\n<h5>The Book of the Covenant (Ex 20:23–23:19)<\/h5>\n<p>The purpose of the covenant code was to exemplify and to set into motion the legal machinery by which Israel as a nation could reflect God’s concern for justice, love, peace, and the value of life. The laws in the Book of the Covenant are mainly of the casuistic type. They regulate life in an agricultural society with servants, donkeys, bulls, oxen, sheep, and fields of grain. The regulations pertain to relations with women (including widows), aliens, orphans; to legal concerns (liability, damages, ownership); as well as to religious obligations (altar, Sabbath). Often the law requires restitution, but restitution is not the rule when human life is involved (Ex 21:12-29; 22:2-3), especially when it involves one’s family (21:15-17, 22-25). The penal code attached to the case laws makes clear the value of human life, which is protected by the <em>lex talionis<\/em> (“law of retaliation”). The <em>lex talionis<\/em> does not point to a lack of forgiveness under the OT but rather was intended to be a legal principle giving coherence and justice to a society. The Book of the Covenant explicates by means of principles and cases how Israel must live together as a nation embracing the law of God and applying it <em>justly<\/em> (without discrimination or twisting of rights), <em>lovingly<\/em> (with a concern for the parties involved), and <em>peaceably.<\/em><\/p>\n<h5>The Priestly Law<\/h5>\n<p>God’s concern for holiness and purity comes to expression in the priestly laws (Ex 25–31; 35–40; Lv 1–27; Nm 4–10). The regulations pertain to the construction of the tabernacle, the consecration and ordination of priests, the offerings and sacrifices, rules of purity, the holy days, and vows.<\/p>\n<p>The tabernacle was set in the middle of Israel’s camp in the wilderness. It symbolized the presence of God with his people. The priests and Levites were encamped around the tabernacle to serve and protect God’s holiness. All the tribes were situated around the tabernacle, and though the members of the tribes did not have access to all parts of the tabernacle, they had to be ritually clean to live in the camp. Anyone who was ritually defiled (Lv 13:46; Nm 5:1-3) or had sinned grievously was put outside the camp (Lv 24:10-23; Nm 15:32-36). This regulation even included objects that had become defiled (Lv 8:17; 9:11).<\/p>\n<p>By means of prescribed offerings and sacrifices (Lv 1–7; 16; Nm 15:1-31; 28), God assured Israel, individually and corporately, of forgiveness when it had unwittingly sinned. The offerings and sacrifices concretely embodied the purpose of the offerer, whether forgiveness, dedication, or fellowship.<\/p>\n<p>The priests and Levites taught the law of God (Dt 31:9-13), applied its regulations, and served in courts (17:8-13).<\/p>\n<h5>The Holiness Code (Lv 17–26)<\/h5>\n<p>The holiness code forms a significant part of the book of Leviticus. Here Moses addressed all of Israel (cf. Lv 17:2; 18:2; 19:2; 20:2; 21:24; 23:2; 24:2; 25:2; 26:46; 27:2).<\/p>\n<p>The laws are in the form of prohibitions and direct commands. They pertain to the place of sacrifice and the prohibition of eating meat with blood in it (ch 17); the prohibition of sexual relations with specified family members (ch 18); and regulations promoting godliness, holiness, justice, and love in society (ch 19). The penal code applies penalties to those who sin against the regulations (ch 20; 24:10-23). Chapters 21–24 apply the cultic regulations to the priests and to all Israelites. The institutions of the sabbatical year and the Year of Jubilee regulate the remission of debts, freedom of people, and restitution of land (ch 25).<\/p>\n<p>The holiness code spells out the qualities required of a holy people: devotion to God (offerings, sacrifices, priests) and love for man (Lv 19:18b) demonstrated in concern for justice, peace, freedom, the value of human life, and a concern for the family. Many of the laws reflect the spirit of the Decalogue (ch 19).<\/p>\n<p>Both promises and curses are attached to the holiness code (ch 26). The curses predict exile as a consequence of breaking the laws. But always underlying the laws and penalties is the grace of the Lord, who promises freely to forgive the people’s sins and to renew the broken covenant (26:44-45).<\/p>\n<h5>Laws of Deuteronomy<\/h5>\n<p>The Deuteronomic laws are explications and new applications of the Book of the Covenant in view of Israel’s new historical situation. Israel was about to enter the Promised Land when Moses outlined to them the law of God (Dt 1:5). The impersonal element of the Book of the Covenant is here transformed by personal appeal. Moses strongly appeals to Israel to be loyal to the Lord, the covenant, and the covenantal stipulations. The Deuteronomic laws envision the people in the land of promise, with a central sanctuary (12:5, 11-18; 14:23; 15:20; 16:5-7, 16, 21; 17:8; 18:6; 26:2; 31:11) and with a king (17:14-20). The blessings and the curses motivate covenant loyalty (ch 28). However, Israel is also here assured that even if it breaks God’s law, the Lord remains gracious and forgiving.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PurposesoftheLaw\">Purposes of the Law<\/p>\n<p>The law revealed at Mt Sinai was intended to lead Israel closer to God. Rebellious though they were, God used the law as his righteous instrument to teach, in a very specific way, what sin is (cf. Rom 5:20; 7:7-8) and how they should walk on a path that kept them undefiled by sin and holy to the Lord. The law was the teacher and the keeper of Israel (Gal 3:24). The detailed explications of the laws in all areas of life (work, society, family, cult, and nation) had an important place in God’s dealings with Israel. Israel was a nation in a special land, with a theocratic government, and was in need of a legislative corpus. Moreover, Israel’s condition at Mt Sinai was such that it could not receive direct revelation. The revelation had to be mediated through Moses. It had to be set forth in detail because Israel had no intuitive grasp of what the revelation of God’s holiness, justice, righteousness, love, and forebearance required of them. They had adopted Egyptian ways and had to learn the divine will by revelation. However, Moses and the prophets emphasize that the purpose of the law is not strict adherence to the law for its own sake (legalism) or for a reward (Pharisaism). Keeping the law is an act of devotion to God, for the sake of God. Our Lord confirmed the purpose of the law: to establish a dynamic way of life in which one continually seeks God’s kingdom and his righteousness (Mt 6:33).<\/p>\n<p>The law of God is his means of sanctification. He consecrated Israel by an act of grace, and he required Israel to remain holy. Jesus confirmed those uses of the law whereby one may know his sinfulness and by which he may be driven to Christ. On the cross our Lord carried the penalties of the law, fulfilled in a greater way the tabernacle\/temple presence of God, fulfilled the Father’s expectations of atonement, and demonstrated the love of the Father. He, the Son and greater than Moses, gave the essence of the law in the summary of God’s requirements: love of God and love of neighbor (Mt 23:23-24; Lk 11:42-44). Jesus taught that the purpose of obedience is not primarily to receive a reward but to serve as salt (Mt 5:13) and light (Mt 5:14-16; cf. Eph 4:17–5:20), and to bear fruit (Jn 15:1-17). The purpose of the law of God is the gradual transformation of the children of God to reflect the image of the Son (Rom 8:29; 2 Cor 3:18; Col 3:10), to be an imitation of the Father (Eph 5:1-2), and to be filled with the Spirit of God (Gal 5:18, 22-24). For this purpose Jesus gave us the Beatitudes and the Sermon on the Mount, which summarize the intent of the teaching of Moses and the prophets (Mt 5–7).<\/p>\n<p>The purpose of the law is to transform regenerated believers into maturity. Spiritual maturity is not a privilege that was reserved for believers after Christ; OT saints also walked with God (Enoch, Gn 5:22-24; Noah, 6:9; Abraham, 17:1). These were mature men who lived with integrity in the presence of God (cf. Gn 17:1; Dt 18:13; Pss 15:1-2; 18:26; 101:2, 6; 119:80; Prv 11:5).<\/p>\n<p>Maturity, or integrity, is that response to God whereby the believer no longer needs to live by individual stipulations or in fear of mistakes and sins of omission, but delights in doing the Lord’s will (Pss 1:2; 112:1). Since the coming of Christ and Pentecost, the Holy Spirit has been poured out on every believer. He has come not only to internalize the law of God (Jer 31:33) but also to help us develop Christian maturity by giving the fruits of godliness in greater fullness (Gal 5:22-24). Whereas maturity and freedom were experienced by some OT saints, it is God’s gift to all his children in Christ (Acts 2:39; 1 Cor 12:13). The purpose is still the same, “so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped [mature] for every good work” (2 Tm 3:17, <span>niv<\/span>), but the means to accomplish this and the status of the child of God is so much better since Pentecost.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Civil Law and Justice; Cleanness and Uncleanness, Regulations Concerning; Criminal Law and Punishment; Galatians, Letter to the; Hammurabi, Law Code of; Justification; Romans, Letter to the; Commandments, The Ten; Torah; Tradition.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>LAW, Biblical Concept of<\/h3>\n<p>God’s means of consecrating his people to himself. The nature and content of “law” may change, but the goal remains the same: maturity and conformity to the image of God.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Historical Context<\/p>\n<p>• Law in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>• Israelite Law and the Ancient Near East<\/p>\n<p>• Old Testament Laws<\/p>\n<p>• Purposes of the Law<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"HistoricalContext\">Historical Context<\/p>\n<p>When man was created in God’s image, he received glory, rule, and provision for his daily sustenance from the Creator-King (Gn 1:27-30). However, in his exalted status as ruler over God’s creation on earth, man had to prove his loyalty to the Lord. For this purpose God set up a simple test: the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Man was prohibited from eating the fruit of that tree (2:17). His disobedience marked him as unfit for fellowship with the great King. He was rebellious and by nature full of treachery, as the subsequent accounts of Cain (4:1-16), the generation of the Flood (6:1-13), Ham and Canaan (9:18-26; 10:6-20), and the Tower of Babel (11:1-9) demonstrate.<\/p>\n<p>Yet in the midst of all this the Lord graciously called Abraham. He promised to bless him, his seed, and the families of the earth that would join in a common expression of faith (Gn 12:2-3; 17:4-7). Abraham responded to God in faith (15:6), willingly observed the ritual of circumcision as a sign of the covenant (17:10; cf. 21:4), and walked before God with integrity of heart (17:1). Abraham subsequently learned that God had sovereignly and graciously chosen him with the purpose that Abraham’s family might distinguish itself from the nations “by doing righteousness and justice” (18:19). The Lord was pleased with his servant Abraham, who, though he had not received detailed laws, was a man of integrity. His heart was right with God, so that he willingly did what God commanded.<\/p>\n<p>The father of faith was the father of the faithful; the Lord testified that Abraham “obeyed me and kept my requirements, my commands, my decrees and my laws” (Gn 26:5, <span>niv<\/span>). His faith resulted in the fruits of righteousness (Jas 2:21-24).<\/p>\n<p>However, Israel, blessed by the Lord in the increase of descendants, the exodus, the crossing of the Red Sea, and his presence, did not respond to him in faith. They murmured and complained at Mt Sinai, at Kadesh-barnea, and in the plains of Moab. They proved themselves to be a rebellious and stiff-necked people (Ex 32:9; 33:3, 5; 34:9; Dt 9:6, 13). Though they had shown their character, the Lord was faithful to Abraham by covenanting himself to them. Israel became his people, his royal priesthood, his holy nation (Ex 19:5-6; Dt 26:18-19). He gave Israel the Ten Commandments, the law, and the covenant, symbolized by the two tablets of the testimony (Ex 32:15-16). Even after Moses had broken them in anger because of the people’s idolatrous worship of the golden calf, the Lord renewed his covenant by writing again the words of the covenant (34:28). On one hand, the context in which the law was given reflects God’s grace and forbearance with Israel’s sins (vv 6-7) and his determination to use Israel in the unfolding of his plan of redemption for the world. On the other hand, the context reflects Israel’s immaturity and stubbornness. Therefore, the law in the OT has positive and negative purposes.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"LawintheOldTestament\">Law in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>The OT has many words for God’s law. The most general word is <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">Torah<\/span><em>,<\/em> which signifies instruction of any kind: religious and secular, written and oral, divine and human. Law in Israel was God’s law, mediated through Moses (Ex 20:19; Dt 5:23-27). Because Israel rejected the direct revelation of God’s oracles, the law was mediated through Moses the servant of God (Jn 1:17).<\/p>\n<p>Synonyms for law are, in various translations, word (cf. Ex 24:3; 34:27), judgment (cf. Ex 24:3), decree (cf. Nm 30:16; Dt 4:1), ordinance (cf. Nm 9:12, 14; Dt 6:2), command(ment) (cf. Dt 6:1, 25), statutes (Lv 3:17; 10:11), precepts (a Hebrew word used only in Psalms; cf. 119:4, 15, 27, 40, 45, 56, 63, 69, 78, 87, 93, 94, 100, 104, 110, 128, 134, 141, 159, 168, 173), stipulations, requirements, testimonies (cf. Dt 4:45; 6:20; 1 Kgs 2:3), precept (a Hebrew term not in the Pentateuch; cf. Ps 119:15), or simply the “way(s)” (cf. 1 Kgs 2:3; Pss 18:21; 25:9; 37:34).<\/p>\n<p>These words form a semantic field, and it is far from easy to distinguish clearly among the various forms of laws. Generally “the words” pertain to the duties of man toward God, especially the Ten Commandments (Ex 20:1; 34:27). The “judgments” contain civil regulations and duties to one’s fellows and to the social environment (21:1–23:9); these are often in the form of “if . . . then. . . .” In Leviticus and in cultic formulations the word “ordinances” has the technical sense of cultic regulations—the ceremonial laws. However, in other contexts, especially in a series of synonyms for law, it signifies any expectation or regulation. The “commandments” are those regulations given by a higher authority. Though the OT has many words for law, the connotation of one word is often indistinguishable from that of other words, especially in series such as “the decrees and laws” (Dt 4:1, 5; 5:1), “the commands, decrees and laws” (6:1), “walk in his ways, and keep his decrees and commands, his laws and requirements, as written in the Law of Moses” (1 Kgs 2:3, <span>niv<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>The motivation for keeping the divine law lies in the acts and presence of the Lord. The prologue to the Decalogue reminds us of God’s mighty acts: “I am the <span>Lord<\/span> your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage” (Ex 20:2, <span>rsv<\/span>). In the historic acts of Israel’s redemption, revelation at Mt Sinai, and consecration of Israel to be his people, he involved himself with Israel as a “father.” He adopted Israel to sonship and consecrated them; that is, he declared them holy (Ex 19:6; 31:13; Lv 20:8; 22:32; cf. Rom 9:4). Sometimes the two concepts of redemption and consecration are placed together, but whether they are or not, they are inseparable: “I am the <span>Lord<\/span>, who makes you holy” (Lv 22:32b, <span>niv<\/span>). The ground of obedience can be stated simply by an appeal to God’s name: “I am Yahweh” (cf. Lv 18:6, 21, 30; 19:10, 14, 16, 18, 28, 30-31, 34, 36-37). The requisite of practical holiness is also based on the experience of God’s presence. The Lord commanded Israel to be holy because he is holy (Lv 11:44-45; 19:2). The “holy one of Israel” dwelt in the midst of his people (Ex 25:8; 29:45; Nm 5:3; 35:34).<\/p>\n<p>How could rebellious Israel grasp what God required, if it were not by precise moral, social, civil, and cultic regulations? The Lord had observed that they did not have “the heart” to serve him as a covenant-loyal people (Dt 5:29). By Israel’s very nature, it could not develop an adequate moral and cultic system to please God. Because of the people’s hardness of heart, God had to reveal (i.e., “spell out”) his will.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"IsraeliteLawandtheAncientNearEast\">Israelite Law and the Ancient Near East<\/p>\n<p>Israel’s law reflected the practices of its ancient Near Eastern context. Ancient Babylonian law codes (Eshnunna, Hammurabi) show similarities with the biblical codes. The similarities go beyond similarity of cases and include legal formulations (casuistic law). Israelite law is distinct in that it is divine law. Moses is the mediator and not the promulgator of the law, as was the practice of a king who, like Hammurabi, put into force a legal code. The Lord himself gave Israel its laws (cf. Dt 4:5-8). The laws in the ancient Near East dealt with the ordering of society. But Israel’s laws were given to regulate every aspect of life: personal, familial, social, and cultic. The laws were to teach Israel to distinguish between holy and profane, between clean and unclean, and between just and unjust.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"OldTestamentLaws\">Old Testament Laws<\/p>\n<p>The legal corpus of the OT is not given in one book or in one section. Moreover, the laws reflect the development from the desert context (Exodus) to the context of the land (Deuteronomy). The OT legal material is complex, full of variations and duplications. It is found in Exodus (chs 20–24; 25–31), Leviticus, Numbers (chs 3–6; 8–10; 15; 18; 19; 28–30), and Deuteronomy (chs 5–26).<\/p>\n<h5>The Ten Commandments<\/h5>\n<p>The commandments are simply designated as “the words” of God (Ex 20:1). They appear in Exodus 20:1-17 and in Deuteronomy 5:6-21, but minor variations and individual commandments occur in other contexts (e.g., Ex 34:14, 17, 21; Lv 19:1-8; Dt 27:15-16). As a part of the covenant, the commandments were first addressed to Israel; they now form the basis of morality in Christianity. The abiding relevance of the moral law is clear from the NT. Our Lord established his authority as interpreter of all the commandments (Mt 5:17-48; 12:1-14; 23:23-24). He summarized the law in terms of love for God and man (cf. Mt 22:37-40; Mk 12:28-34; Lk 10:27; cf. Rom 13:8-9; Gal 5:14). Since he is also the Lord of the Sabbath, the Sabbath cannot be divorced from the other commandments (Mt 12:8). The apostle Paul also upheld the law, as his “ethics of the Spirit” reflects an internalization of the law of God in the hearts of believers (cf. Rom 8:1-17; 12:1–15:13; 1 Cor 2:6-16; 5:1-8; 10:23–11:1; Gal 5:13–6:10; Eph 4:17–6:9; Phil 2:1-18; Col 3:1–4:6; 1 Thes 4:1-12; 5:12-24; 2 Thes 3:6-15; 1 Tm 6:3-10; Ti 3:1-11).<\/p>\n<p>The commandments were written on both sides of the two tablets by the Lord (Ex 32:15-16). It is unclear whether the tablets were duplicate copies, how the commandments were divided, and how the commandments were numbered. They were kept in the ark of the covenant as a testimony to the covenant (40:20).<\/p>\n<h5>The Book of the Covenant (Ex 20:23–23:19)<\/h5>\n<p>The purpose of the covenant code was to exemplify and to set into motion the legal machinery by which Israel as a nation could reflect God’s concern for justice, love, peace, and the value of life. The laws in the Book of the Covenant are mainly of the casuistic type. They regulate life in an agricultural society with servants, donkeys, bulls, oxen, sheep, and fields of grain. The regulations pertain to relations with women (including widows), aliens, orphans; to legal concerns (liability, damages, ownership); as well as to religious obligations (altar, Sabbath). Often the law requires restitution, but restitution is not the rule when human life is involved (Ex 21:12-29; 22:2-3), especially when it involves one’s family (21:15-17, 22-25). The penal code attached to the case laws makes clear the value of human life, which is protected by the <em>lex talionis<\/em> (“law of retaliation”). The <em>lex talionis<\/em> does not point to a lack of forgiveness under the OT but rather was intended to be a legal principle giving coherence and justice to a society. The Book of the Covenant explicates by means of principles and cases how Israel must live together as a nation embracing the law of God and applying it <em>justly<\/em> (without discrimination or twisting of rights), <em>lovingly<\/em> (with a concern for the parties involved), and <em>peaceably.<\/em><\/p>\n<h5>The Priestly Law<\/h5>\n<p>God’s concern for holiness and purity comes to expression in the priestly laws (Ex 25–31; 35–40; Lv 1–27; Nm 4–10). The regulations pertain to the construction of the tabernacle, the consecration and ordination of priests, the offerings and sacrifices, rules of purity, the holy days, and vows.<\/p>\n<p>The tabernacle was set in the middle of Israel’s camp in the wilderness. It symbolized the presence of God with his people. The priests and Levites were encamped around the tabernacle to serve and protect God’s holiness. All the tribes were situated around the tabernacle, and though the members of the tribes did not have access to all parts of the tabernacle, they had to be ritually clean to live in the camp. Anyone who was ritually defiled (Lv 13:46; Nm 5:1-3) or had sinned grievously was put outside the camp (Lv 24:10-23; Nm 15:32-36). This regulation even included objects that had become defiled (Lv 8:17; 9:11).<\/p>\n<p>By means of prescribed offerings and sacrifices (Lv 1–7; 16; Nm 15:1-31; 28), God assured Israel, individually and corporately, of forgiveness when it had unwittingly sinned. The offerings and sacrifices concretely embodied the purpose of the offerer, whether forgiveness, dedication, or fellowship.<\/p>\n<p>The priests and Levites taught the law of God (Dt 31:9-13), applied its regulations, and served in courts (17:8-13).<\/p>\n<h5>The Holiness Code (Lv 17–26)<\/h5>\n<p>The holiness code forms a significant part of the book of Leviticus. Here Moses addressed all of Israel (cf. Lv 17:2; 18:2; 19:2; 20:2; 21:24; 23:2; 24:2; 25:2; 26:46; 27:2).<\/p>\n<p>The laws are in the form of prohibitions and direct commands. They pertain to the place of sacrifice and the prohibition of eating meat with blood in it (ch 17); the prohibition of sexual relations with specified family members (ch 18); and regulations promoting godliness, holiness, justice, and love in society (ch 19). The penal code applies penalties to those who sin against the regulations (ch 20; 24:10-23). Chapters 21–24 apply the cultic regulations to the priests and to all Israelites. The institutions of the sabbatical year and the Year of Jubilee regulate the remission of debts, freedom of people, and restitution of land (ch 25).<\/p>\n<p>The holiness code spells out the qualities required of a holy people: devotion to God (offerings, sacrifices, priests) and love for man (Lv 19:18b) demonstrated in concern for justice, peace, freedom, the value of human life, and a concern for the family. Many of the laws reflect the spirit of the Decalogue (ch 19).<\/p>\n<p>Both promises and curses are attached to the holiness code (ch 26). The curses predict exile as a consequence of breaking the laws. But always underlying the laws and penalties is the grace of the Lord, who promises freely to forgive the people’s sins and to renew the broken covenant (26:44-45).<\/p>\n<h5>Laws of Deuteronomy<\/h5>\n<p>The Deuteronomic laws are explications and new applications of the Book of the Covenant in view of Israel’s new historical situation. Israel was about to enter the Promised Land when Moses outlined to them the law of God (Dt 1:5). The impersonal element of the Book of the Covenant is here transformed by personal appeal. Moses strongly appeals to Israel to be loyal to the Lord, the covenant, and the covenantal stipulations. The Deuteronomic laws envision the people in the land of promise, with a central sanctuary (12:5, 11-18; 14:23; 15:20; 16:5-7, 16, 21; 17:8; 18:6; 26:2; 31:11) and with a king (17:14-20). The blessings and the curses motivate covenant loyalty (ch 28). However, Israel is also here assured that even if it breaks God’s law, the Lord remains gracious and forgiving.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PurposesoftheLaw\">Purposes of the Law<\/p>\n<p>The law revealed at Mt Sinai was intended to lead Israel closer to God. Rebellious though they were, God used the law as his righteous instrument to teach, in a very specific way, what sin is (cf. Rom 5:20; 7:7-8) and how they should walk on a path that kept them undefiled by sin and holy to the Lord. The law was the teacher and the keeper of Israel (Gal 3:24). The detailed explications of the laws in all areas of life (work, society, family, cult, and nation) had an important place in God’s dealings with Israel. Israel was a nation in a special land, with a theocratic government, and was in need of a legislative corpus. Moreover, Israel’s condition at Mt Sinai was such that it could not receive direct revelation. The revelation had to be mediated through Moses. It had to be set forth in detail because Israel had no intuitive grasp of what the revelation of God’s holiness, justice, righteousness, love, and forebearance required of them. They had adopted Egyptian ways and had to learn the divine will by revelation. However, Moses and the prophets emphasize that the purpose of the law is not strict adherence to the law for its own sake (legalism) or for a reward (Pharisaism). Keeping the law is an act of devotion to God, for the sake of God. Our Lord confirmed the purpose of the law: to establish a dynamic way of life in which one continually seeks God’s kingdom and his righteousness (Mt 6:33).<\/p>\n<p>The law of God is his means of sanctification. He consecrated Israel by an act of grace, and he required Israel to remain holy. Jesus confirmed those uses of the law whereby one may know his sinfulness and by which he may be driven to Christ. On the cross our Lord carried the penalties of the law, fulfilled in a greater way the tabernacle\/temple presence of God, fulfilled the Father’s expectations of atonement, and demonstrated the love of the Father. He, the Son and greater than Moses, gave the essence of the law in the summary of God’s requirements: love of God and love of neighbor (Mt 23:23-24; Lk 11:42-44). Jesus taught that the purpose of obedience is not primarily to receive a reward but to serve as salt (Mt 5:13) and light (Mt 5:14-16; cf. Eph 4:17–5:20), and to bear fruit (Jn 15:1-17). The purpose of the law of God is the gradual transformation of the children of God to reflect the image of the Son (Rom 8:29; 2 Cor 3:18; Col 3:10), to be an imitation of the Father (Eph 5:1-2), and to be filled with the Spirit of God (Gal 5:18, 22-24). For this purpose Jesus gave us the Beatitudes and the Sermon on the Mount, which summarize the intent of the teaching of Moses and the prophets (Mt 5–7).<\/p>\n<p>The purpose of the law is to transform regenerated believers into maturity. Spiritual maturity is not a privilege that was reserved for believers after Christ; OT saints also walked with God (Enoch, Gn 5:22-24; Noah, 6:9; Abraham, 17:1). These were mature men who lived with integrity in the presence of God (cf. Gn 17:1; Dt 18:13; Pss 15:1-2; 18:26; 101:2, 6; 119:80; Prv 11:5).<\/p>\n<p>Maturity, or integrity, is that response to God whereby the believer no longer needs to live by individual stipulations or in fear of mistakes and sins of omission, but delights in doing the Lord’s will (Pss 1:2; 112:1). Since the coming of Christ and Pentecost, the Holy Spirit has been poured out on every believer. He has come not only to internalize the law of God (Jer 31:33) but also to help us develop Christian maturity by giving the fruits of godliness in greater fullness (Gal 5:22-24). Whereas maturity and freedom were experienced by some OT saints, it is God’s gift to all his children in Christ (Acts 2:39; 1 Cor 12:13). The purpose is still the same, “so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped [mature] for every good work” (2 Tm 3:17, <span>niv<\/span>), but the means to accomplish this and the status of the child of God is so much better since Pentecost.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Civil Law and Justice; Cleanness and Uncleanness, Regulations Concerning; Criminal Law and Punishment; Galatians, Letter to the; Hammurabi, Law Code of; Justification; Romans, Letter to the; Commandments, The Ten; Torah; Tradition.<\/p>","summary_ro":"LAW, Biblical Concept of God’s means of consecrating his people to himself. The nature and content of “law” may change, but the goal remains the same: maturity and conformity to the image of God. Preview • Historical Context • Law in the Old Testament • Israelite Law and the Ancient Near East • Old Testament Laws • Purposes of the Law Historical Context When man was created in God’s image, he received glory, rule, and provision for his daily sustenance from the Creator-King (Gn 1:27-30). Howe...","summary_en":"LAW, Biblical Concept of God’s means of consecrating his people to himself. The nature and content of “law” may change, but the goal remains the same: maturity and conformity to the image of God. Preview • Historical Context • Law in the Old Testament • Israelite Law and the Ancient Near East • Old Testament Laws • Purposes of the Law Historical Context When man was created in God’s image, he received glory, rule, and provision for his daily sustenance from the Creator-King (Gn 1:27-30). Howe...","source":"Articles\/L.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":44085,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Leviticul 3:17","title_en":"Study Note: Leviticul 3:17","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:17<\/strong> Human beings were not permitted to eat the <em>fat or blood<\/em> (see 1:5, 8 and study notes).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:17<\/strong> Human beings were not permitted to eat the <em>fat or blood<\/em> (see 1:5, 8 and study notes).<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:17 Human beings were not permitted to eat the fat or blood (see 1:5, 8 and study notes).","summary_en":"3:17 Human beings were not permitted to eat the fat or blood (see 1:5, 8 and study notes).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":71711,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Leviticul 3:17","title_en":"Study Note: Leviticul 3:17","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:17<\/strong> Human beings were not permitted to eat the <em>fat or blood<\/em> (see 1:5, 8 and study notes).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:17<\/strong> Human beings were not permitted to eat the <em>fat or blood<\/em> (see 1:5, 8 and study notes).<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:17 Human beings were not permitted to eat the fat or blood (see 1:5, 8 and study notes).","summary_en":"3:17 Human beings were not permitted to eat the fat or blood (see 1:5, 8 and study notes).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":99337,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Leviticul 3:17","title_en":"Study Note: Leviticul 3:17","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:17<\/strong> Human beings were not permitted to eat the <em>fat or blood<\/em> (see 1:5, 8 and study notes).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:17<\/strong> Human beings were not permitted to eat the <em>fat or blood<\/em> (see 1:5, 8 and study notes).<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:17 Human beings were not permitted to eat the fat or blood (see 1:5, 8 and study notes).","summary_en":"3:17 Human beings were not permitted to eat the fat or blood (see 1:5, 8 and study notes).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":126963,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Leviticul 3:17","title_en":"Study Note: Leviticul 3:17","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:17<\/strong> Human beings were not permitted to eat the <em>fat or blood<\/em> (see 1:5, 8 and study notes).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:17<\/strong> Human beings were not permitted to eat the <em>fat or blood<\/em> (see 1:5, 8 and study notes).<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:17 Human beings were not permitted to eat the fat or blood (see 1:5, 8 and study notes).","summary_en":"3:17 Human beings were not permitted to eat the fat or blood (see 1:5, 8 and study notes).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}]},"labels":{"article":"Articol","map":"Hartă","chart":"Diagramă","textbox":"Notă explicativă","picture":"Imagine","profile":"Profil","study_note":"Notă de studiu","theme_note":"Temă biblică"},"icons":{"article":"📖","map":"🗺️","chart":"📊","textbox":"💡","picture":"🖼️","profile":"👤","study_note":"📝","theme_note":"🎯"},"typeColors":{"article":"#d4af37","map":"#2d7d46","chart":"#3b82f6","textbox":"#8b5cf6","picture":"#ec4899","profile":"#f59e0b","study_note":"#06b6d4","theme_note":"#ef4444"}}
🔍
Niciun rezultat
Nu am găsit versete care să conțină textul căutat.
Leviticul 3
— 17 versete
Leviticul 3
📘 Info carte
Se încarcă...
📖 Resurse