Leviticus 1:12

The law allowed poorer Israelites to offer smaller animals so that atonement (a sacrifice that removes guilt and restores fellowship with God) would be more affordable. The way these animals were offered was very similar to the way bulls were offered (Leviticus 1:3–9).

burnt offering (Hebrew ‘olah, which means “what goes up”): The Hebrew word suggests the animal rises up in flame and smoke. Its hide was not burned, but given to the officiating priest as payment (Leviticus 7:8). They completely burned this offering on the altar (1:9).

Its purpose was to turn away God’s judgment against sin. It also makes the worshiper clean in a ceremonial way and restores his or her relationship with God (compare Romans 3:25; 8:3; 2 Corinthians 5:18–21). The whole burnt offering appears first in this list of offerings (Leviticus 1–7). It sets a pattern for the offerings that follow. It is the most common offering for atonement.

if his offering be of the flocks--Those who could not afford the expense of a bullock might offer a ram or a he-goat, and the same ceremonies were to be observed in the act of offering.

Here we have the laws concerning the burnt-offerings, which were of the flock or of the fowls. Those of the middle rank, that could not well afford to offer a bullock, would bring a sheep or a goat; and those that were not able to do that should be accepted of God if they brought a turtle-dove or a pigeon. For God, in his law and in his gospel, as well as in his providence, considers the poor. It is observable that those creatures were chosen for sacrifice which were most mild and gentle, harmless and inoffensive, to typify the innocence and meekness that were in Christ, and to teach the innocence and meekness that should be in Christians. Directions are here given, 1. Concerning the burnt-offerings of the flock, Lev 1:10. The method of managing these is much the same with that of the bullocks; only it is ordered here that the sacrifice should be killed on the side of the altar northward, which, though mentioned here only, was probably to be observed concerning the former, and other sacrifices. Perhaps on that side of the altar there was the largest vacant space, and room for the priests to turn them in. It was of old observed that fair weather comes out of the north, and that the north wind drives away rain; and by these sacrifices the storms of God's wrath are scattered, and the light of God's countenance is obtained, which is more pleasant than the brightest fairest weather. 2. Concerning those of the fowls. They must be either turtle-doves (and, if so, "they must be old turtles," say the Jews), or pigeons, and, if so, they must be young pigeons. What was most acceptable at men's tables must be brought to God's altar. In the offering of these fowls, (1.) The head must be wrung off, "quite off," say some; others think only pinched, so as to kill the bird, and yet leave the head hanging to the body. But it seems more likely that it was to be quite separated, for it was to be burnt first. (2.) The blood was to be wrung out at the side of the altar. (3.) The garbages with the feathers were to be thrown by upon the dunghill. (4.) The body was to be opened, sprinkled with salt, and then burnt upon the altar. "This sacrifice of birds," the Jews say, "was one of the most difficult services the priests had to do," to teach those that minister in holy things to be as solicitous for the salvation of the poor as for that of the rich, and that the services of the poor are as acceptable to God, if they come from an upright heart, as the services of the rich, for he accepts according to what a man hath, and not according to what he hath not, Co2 8:12. The poor man's turtle-doves, or young pigeons, are here said to be an offering of a sweet-smelling savour, as much as that of an ox or bullock that hath horns or hoofs. Yet, after all, to love God with all our heart, and to love our neighbour as ourselves, is better than all burnt-offerings and sacrifices, Mar 12:33.

And he shall kill the bullock. The ceremony of killing is subjoined, viz., that the priest should prepare the victim itself, and pour its blood upon the altar, for it was not allowable for a private person to kill the victim with his own hands, but what the priest did in their name was transferred to them. [250] But this is worth remarking, that although they brought the pledge of reconciliation from their home, yet that the ministers of expiation were to be sought elsewhere, since no one was competent for so illustrious an office, save he who was graced by the holy unction of God. It was, therefore, plainly manifested that all mortals are unworthy of coming near God to propitiate Him, and that the hands of all are in a manner polluted or profane except those which God himself has purged. For the honor of sacrificing came from nowhere else but from the grace of the Spirit, of which the external anointing was a pledge. We now understand how it was that individuals offered sacrifices to God, and yet that the priest alone performed this office. The altar was sprinkled with the blood, that the people might know that the blood poured from the victim did not fall on the ground, but was consecrated to God, and breathed, as it were, a sweet savor; just as now the blood of Christ appears before His face. I pass by the rest, since it does not seem worth while to enlarge on the third kind of offering, i.e., of the birds. Yet we must recollect that thus far Moses only speaks of the burnt-offerings, whose flesh was burned; for this was not the case with all, as we shall see hereafter. Although, then, it is twice said that "the priests shall lay the parts, the head and the fat," etc., we must not understand it as if he only commanded the fat and the head to be burned, but that nothing was to be left the skin. Some think that phdr pheder, [251] is a dissevered head, nor do I reject their opinion, provided we do not exclude the fat. Whatever was filthy in the victim, God would have to be washed, that it might not contaminate it. The question now arises why it was burned either wholly or partially. My own opinion is, that by the fire the efficacy of the Spirit is represented, on which all the profit of the sacrifices depends; for unless Christ had suffered in the Spirit, He would not have been a propitiatory sacrifice. Fire, then, was as the condiment which gave their true savor to the sacrifices, because the blood of Christ was to be consecrated by the Spirit, that it might cleanse us from all the stains of our sins. This God would have more fully represented in the burnt-offerings, yet no victim was offered of which some part was not consumed by fire.

Footnotes:

[249] Lat., "piaculum." Fr., "mais aussi de la malediction a cause du peche."

[250] "It is interesting to notice here, (says Bonar, in loco,) that Outram, Witzius, and others, seem to have proved that in patriarchal ages every man might offer his own sacrifice. The patriarchal ages were taught that every man must take Christ for himself personally. In the Mosaic economy, however, this is altered; there is another truth to be shewn forth. Any one (2 Chronicles 30:17) might kill the animal -- any common Levite, or even the offerer himself -- for there may be many executioners of God's wrath. Earth and hell were used in executing the Father's purpose toward the Prince of Life. But there is only one appointed way for dispensing mercy, and therefore only priests must engage in that act that signified the bestowal of pardon." He appears, however, to be singular in his opinion that any but a Levite might kill the victim.

[251] This word only occurs here, and in ver. 12, and chap. 8:20. S.M. says that the Jewish expositors declare it to mean that fat, or network of fat which is found upon the liver, and with which the severance (locus de-collationis) of the head was covered, when the head was put upon the fire. It is not easy to discover who may have said that it meant a dissevered head. -- W. "Some translate it (says Poole, in loco) the body, or the trunk of the body, (whence, perhaps, C.'s error.) So the ancient Hebrews quoted in Fagius; so Vatablus, Grotius, Malvenda, Mercerus in Bochart."

Cut it into his pieces - See Clarke's note on Gen 15:10.

And he shall cut it into his pieces, with his head and his fat,.... Or "his body", as the Targum of Jonathan; this was to be cut in pieces in the same manner as the bullock; see Gill on Leviticus 1:6,

and the priest shall lay them in order on the wood that is on the fire, which is on the altar; See Gill on Leviticus 1:8.

With regard to the mode of sacrificing, the instructions already given for the oxen applied to the flock (i.e., to the sheep and goats) as well, so that the leading points are repeated here, together with a more precise description of the place for slaughtering, viz., "by the side of the altar towards the north," i.e., on the north side of the altar. This was the rule with all the slain-offerings; although it is only in connection with the burnt-offerings, sin-offerings, and trespass-offerings (Lev 4:24, Lev 4:29, Lev 4:33; Lev 6:18; Lev 7:2; Lev 14:13) that it is expressly mentioned, whilst the indefinite expression "at the door (in front) of the tabernacle" is applied to the peace-offerings in Lev 3:2, Lev 3:8, Lev 3:13, as it is to the trespass-offerings in Lev 4:4, from which the Rabbins have inferred, though hardly upon good ground, that the peace-offerings could be slaughtered in any part of the court. The northern side of the altar was appointed as the place of slaughtering, however, not from the idea that the Deity dwelt in the north (Ewald), for such an idea is altogether foreign to Mosaism, but, as Knobel supposes, probably because the table of shew-bread, with the continual meat-offering, stood on the north side in the holy place. Moreover, the eastern side of the altar in the court was the place for the refuse, or heap of ashes (Lev 1:16); the ascent to the altar was probably on the south side, as Josephus affirms that it was in the second temple (J. de bell. jud. v. 5, 6); and the western side, or the space between the altar and the entrance to the holy place, would unquestionably have been the most unsuitable of all for the slaughtering. In Lev 1:12 וגו ואת־ראשׁו is to be connected per zeugma with לנתחיו htiw amguez , "let him cut it up according to its parts, and (sever) its head and its fat."