4 He shall lay his hand on the head of the burnt offering, and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him.
*Minor differences ignored. Grouped by changes, with first version listed as example.
And he shall put his hand upon the head of the burnt offering - The usual ceremony. By it the sacrificer identified himself with his victim Leviticus 3:2, Leviticus 3:8; Leviticus 4:15; Leviticus 8:14; Romans 12:1.
To make atonement for him - This phrase belongs more especially to the sin-offerings and the trespass-offerings (compare Leviticus 4:20, Leviticus 4:26, Leviticus 4:31, Leviticus 4:35; Leviticus 5:16, Leviticus 5:18; Leviticus 6:7, etc.) It is not used in reference to the peace-offerings, and but rarely in reference to the burnt-offerings. It should be noticed that it is here introduced in close connection with the imposition of hands by the worshipper, not, as it is when it refers to the sin-offering, with the special functions of the priest, Leviticus 4:26, Leviticus 4:35; 2-Chronicles 29:23.
He shall put his hand upon the head of the burnt-offering - By the imposition of hands the person bringing the victim acknowledged,
1. The sacrifice as his own.
2. That he offered it as an atonement for his sins.
3. That he was worthy of death because he had sinned, having forfeited his life by breaking the law.
4. That he entreated God to accept the life of the innocent animal in place of his own.
5. And all this, to be done profitably, must have respect to Him whose life, in the fullness of time, should be made a sacrifice for sin.
6. The blood was to be sprinkled round about upon the altar, Leviticus 1:5, as by the sprinkling of blood the atonement was made; for the blood was the life of the beast, and it was always supposed that life went to redeem life.
See Clarke on Exodus 29:10 (note). On the required perfection of the sacrifice see Clarke on Exodus 12:5 (note). It has been sufficiently remarked by learned men that almost all the people of the earth had their burnt-offerings, on which also they placed the greatest dependence. It was a general maxim through the heathen world, that there was no other way to appease the incensed gods; and they sometimes even offered human sacrifices, from the supposition, as Caesar expresses it, that life was necessary to redeem life, and that the gods would be satisfied with nothing less. "Quod pro vita hominis nisi vita hominis redditur, non posse aliter deorum immortalium numen placari arbitrantur." - Com. de Bell. Galatians., lib. vi. But this was not the case only with the Gauls, for we see, by Ovid, Fast., lib. vi., that it was a commonly received maxim among more polished people: -
" - Proverbs parvo victima parva cadit.
Cor pro corde, precor, pro fibris sumite fibras.
Hanc animam vobis pro meliore damus."
See the whole of this passage in the above work, from ver. 135 to 163.
And he shall put his hand on the head of the burnt offering,.... According to the Targum of Jonathan, it was his right hand; but it is generally thought by the Jewish writers that both hands were laid on; so Ben Gersom and Aben Ezra, with whom Maimonides (e) agrees, who says, he that lays on hands ought to lay on with all his strength, with both his hands upon the head of the beast, as it is said, "upon the head of the burnt offering": not upon the neck, nor upon the sides; and there should be nothing between his hands and the beast: and as the same writer says (f), it must be his own hand, and not the hand of his wife, nor the hand of his servant, nor his messenger; and who also observes (g), that at the same time he made confession over the burnt offering both of his sins committed against affirmative and negative precepts: and indeed by this action he owned that he had sinned, and deserved to die as that creature he brought was about to do, and that he expected pardon of his sin through the death of the great sacrifice that was a type of. Moreover, this action signified the transferring of his sins from himself to this sacrifice, which was to be offered up to make atonement for them; so Gersom observes; see Leviticus 16:21. This denotes the translation of our sins from us, and the imputation of them to Christ, who was offered up in our room and stead, to make atonement for them, as follows:
and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him: that is, the burnt offering should be accepted in his room and stead, and hereby an atonement of his sins should be made for him, typical of that true, real, and full atonement made by the sacrifice of Christ, which this led his faith unto.
(e) Hilchot Maaseh Hakorbanot, c. 3. sect. 13. (f) Hilchot Maaseh Hakorbanot, c. 3. sect. 8. Vid. T. Bab. Menachot, fol. 93. 2. (g) Ib. sect. 14.
shall put his hand upon the head--This was a significant act which implied not only that the offerer devoted the animal to God, but that he confessed his consciousness of sin and prayed that his guilt and its punishment might be transferred to the victim.
and it shall be--rather, "that it may be an acceptable atonement."
"he (the offerer) shall lay his hand upon the head of the burnt-offering." The laying on of hands, by which, to judge from the verb סמך to lean upon, we are to understand a forcible pressure of the hand upon the head of the victim, took place in connection with all the slain-offerings (the offering of pigeons perhaps excepted), and is expressly enjoined in the laws for the burnt-offerings, the peace-offerings (Leviticus 3:2, Leviticus 3:7, Leviticus 3:13), and the sin-offerings (Leviticus 4:4, Leviticus 4:15, Leviticus 4:24, Leviticus 4:29, Leviticus 4:33), that is to say, in every case in which the details of the ceremonial are minutely described. But if the description is condensed, then no allusion is made to it: e.g., in the burnt-offering of sheep and goats (Leviticus 1:11), the sin-offering (Leviticus 5:6), and the trespass-offering (Leviticus 5:15, Leviticus 5:18, 25). This ceremony was not a sign of the removal of something from his own power and possession, or the surrender and dedication of it to God, as Rosenmller and Knobel
(Note: Hence Knobel's assertion (at Leviticus 7:2), that the laying on of the hand upon the head of the animal, which is prescribed in the case of all the other sacrifices, was omitted in that of the trespass-offering alone, needs correction, and there is no foundation for the conclusion, that it did not take place in connection with the trespass-offering.)
affirm; nor an indication of ownership and of a readiness to give up his own to Jehovah, as Bhr maintains; nor a symbol of the imputation of sin, as Kurtz supposes:
(Note: This was the view held by some of the Rabbins and of the earlier theologians, e.g., Calovius, bibl. ill. ad Leviticus. i. 4, Lundius and others, but by no means by "most of the Rabbins, some of the fathers, and most of the earlier archaeologists and doctrinal writers," as is affirmed by Bhr (ii. p. 336), who supports his assertion by passages from Outram, which refer to the sin-offering only, but which Bhr transfers without reserve to all the bleeding sacrifices, thus confounding substitution with the imputation of sin, in his antipathy to the orthodox doctrine of satisfaction. Outram's general view of this ceremony is expressed clearly enough in the following passages: "ritus erat ea notandi ac designandi, quae vel morti devota erant, vel Dei gratiae commendata, vel denique gravi alicui muneri usuique sacro destinata. Eique ritui semper adhiberi solebant verba aliqua explicata, quae rei susceptae rationi maxime congruere viderentur" (l.c. 8 and 9). With reference to the words which explained the imposition of hands he observes: "ita ut sacris piacularibus culparum potissimum confessiones cum poenae deprecatione junctas, voluntariis bonorum precationes, eucharisticus autem et votivis post res prosperas impetratas periculave depulsa factis laudes et gratiarum actiones, omnique denique victimarum generi ejusmodi preces adjunctas putem, quae cuique maxime conveniebant" (c. 9).)
but the symbol of a transfer of the feelings and intentions by which the offerer was actuated in presenting his sacrifice, whereby he set apart the animal as a sacrifice, representing his own person in one particular aspect. Now, so far as the burnt-offering expressed the intention of the offerer to consecrate his life and labour to the Lord, and his desire to obtain the expiation of the sin which still clung to all his works and desires, in order that they might become well-pleasing to God, he transferred the consciousness of his sinfulness to the victim by the laying on of hands, even in the case of the burnt-offering. But this was not all: he also transferred the desire to walk before God in holiness and righteousness, which he could not do without the grace of God. This, and no more than this, is contained in the words, "that it may become well-pleasing to him, to make atonement for him." כּפּר with Seghol (Ges. 52), to expiate (from the Kal כּפר, which is not met with in Hebrew, the word in Genesis 6:14 being merely a denom. verb, but which signifies texit in Arabic), is generally construed with על like verbs of covering, and in the laws of sacrifice with the person as the object ("for him," Leviticus 4:26, Leviticus 4:31, Leviticus 4:35; Leviticus 5:6, Leviticus 5:10., Leviticus 14:20, Leviticus 14:29, etc.; "for them," Leviticus 4:20; Leviticus 10:17; "for her," Leviticus 12:7; for a soul, Leviticus 17:11; Exodus 30:15, cf. Numbers 8:12), and in the case of the sin-offerings with a second object governed either by על or מן (חטּאתו על עליו Leviticus 4:35; Leviticus 5:13, Leviticus 5:18, or מחטּאתו עליו Leviticus 4:26; Leviticus 5:6, etc., to expiate him over or on account of his sin); also, though not so frequently, with בּעד pers., ἐξιλάζεσθαι περὶ αὐτοῦ (Leviticus 16:6, Leviticus 16:24; 2-Chronicles 30:18), and חטּאת בּעד, ἐξιλάζεσθαι περὶ τῆς ἁμαρτίας (Exodus 32:30), and with ל pers., to permit expiation to be made (Deuteronomy 21:8; Ezekiel 16:63); also with the accusative of the object, though in prose only in connection with the expiation of inanimate objects defiled by sin (Leviticus 16:33).
The expiation was always made or completed by the priest, as the sanctified mediator between Jehovah and the people, or, previous to the institution of the Aaronic priesthood, by Moses, the chosen mediator of the covenant, not by "Jehovah from whom the expiation proceeded," as Bhr supposes. For although all expiation has its ultimate foundation in the grace of God, which desires not the death of the sinner, but his redemption and salvation, and to this end has opened a way of salvation, and sanctified sacrifice as the means of expiation and mercy; it is not Jehovah who makes the expiation, but this is invariably the office or work of a mediator, who intervenes between the holy God and sinful man, and by means of expiation averts the wrath of God from the sinner, and brings the grace of God to bear upon him. It is only in cases where the word is used in the secondary sense of pardoning sin, or showing mercy, that God is mentioned as the subject (e.g., Deuteronomy 21:8; Psalm 65:4; Psalm 78:38; Jeremiah 17:23).
(Note: The meaning "to make atonement" lies at the foundation in every passage in which the word is used metaphorically, such as Genesis 32:21, where Jacob seeks to expiate the face of his angry brother, i.e., to appease his wrath, with a present; or Proverbs 16:14, "the wrath of a king is as messengers of death, but a wise man expiates it, i.e., softens, pacifies it;" Isaiah 47:11, "Mischief (destruction) will fall upon thee, thou will not be able to expiate it," that is to say, to avert the wrath of God, which has burst upon thee in the calamity, by means of an expiatory sacrifice. Even in Isaiah 28:18, "and your covenant with death is disannulled" (annihilated) (וכפּר), the use of the word כפר is to be explained from the fact that the guilt, which brought the judgment in its train, could be cancelled by a sacrificial expiation (cf. Isaiah 6:7 and Isaiah 22:14); so that there is no necessity to resort to a meaning which is altogether foreign to the word, viz., that of covering up by blotting over. When Hoffmann therefore maintains that there is no other way of explaining the use of the word in these passages, than by the supposition that, in addition to the verb כפר to cover, there was another denominative verb, founded upon the word כּפר a covering, or payment, the stumblingblock in the use of the word lies simply this, that Hoffmann has taken a one-sided view of the idea of expiation, through overlooking the fact, that the expiation had reference to the wrath of God which hung over the sinner and had to be averted from him by means of expiation, as is clearly proved by Exodus 32:30 as compared with Exodus 32:10 and Exodus 32:22. The meaning of expiation which properly belongs to the verb כּפּר is not only retained in the nouns cippurim and capporeth, but lies at the root of the word copher, which is formed from the Kal, as we may clearly see from Exodus 30:12-16, where the Israelites are ordered to pay a copher at the census, to expiate their souls, i.e., to cover their souls from the death which threatens the unholy, when he draws near without expiation to a holy God. Vid., Oehler in Herzog's Cycl.)
The medium of expiation in the case of the sacrifice was chiefly the blood of the sacrificial animal that was sprinkled upon the altar (Leviticus 17:11); in addition to which, the eating of the flesh of the sin-offering by the priests is also called bearing the iniquity of the congregation to make atonement for them (Leviticus 10:17). In other cases it was the intercession of Moses (Exodus 32:30); also the fumigation with holy incense, which was a symbol of priestly intercession (Numbers 17:11). On one occasion it was the zeal of Phinehas, when he stabbed the Israelite with a spear for committing fornication with a Midianite (Numbers 25:8, Numbers 25:13). In the case of a murder committed by an unknown hand, it was the slaying of an animal in the place of the murderer who remained undiscovered (Deuteronomy 21:1-9); whereas in other cases blood-guiltiness (murder) could not be expiated in any other way than by the blood of the person by whom it had been shed (Numbers 35:33). In Isaiah 27:9, a divine judgment, by which the nation was punished, is so described, as serving to avert the complete destruction which threatened it. And lastly, it was in some cases a כּפר, such, for example, as the atonement-money paid at the numbering of the people (Exodus 30:12.), and the payment made in the case referred to in Exodus 21:30.
If, therefore, the idea of satisfaction unquestionably lay at the foundation of the atonement that was made, in all those cases in which it was effected by a penal judgment, or judicial poena; the intercession of the priest, or the fumigation which embodied it, cannot possibly be regarded as a satisfaction rendered to the justice of God, so that we cannot attribute the idea of satisfaction to every kind of sacrificial expiation. Still less can it be discerned in the slaying of the animal, when simply regarded as the shedding of blood. To this we may add, that in the laws for the sin-offering there is no reference at all to expiation; and in the case of the burnt-offering, the laying on of hands is described as the act by which it was to become well-pleasing to God, and to expiate the offerer. Now, if the laying on of hands was accompanied with a prayer, as the Jewish tradition affirms, and as we may most certainly infer from Deuteronomy 26:13, apart altogether from Leviticus 16:21, although no prayer is expressly enjoined; then in the case of the burnt-offerings and peace-offerings, it is in this prayer, or the imposition of hands which symbolized it, and by which the offerer substituted the sacrifice for himself and penetrated it with his spirit, that we must seek for the condition upon which the well-pleased acceptance of the sacrifice on the part of Fog depended, and in consequence of which it became an atonement for him; in other words, was fitted to cover him in the presence of the holiness of God.
He shall put his hand - Both his hands, Leviticus 8:14, Leviticus 8:18, and Leviticus 16:21. Whereby he signified, that he willingly gave it to the Lord. That he judged himself worthy of that death which it suffered in his stead; and that he laid his sins upon it with an eye to him upon whom God would lay the iniquity of us all, Isaiah 53:6, and that together with it he did freely offer up himself to God. To make atonement - Sacramentally; as directing his faith and thoughts to that true propitiatory sacrifice which in time was to be offered up for him. And although burnt - offerings were commonly offered by way of thanksgiving; yet they were sometimes offered by way of atonement for sin, that is, for sins in general, as appears from Job 1:5, but for particular sins there were special sacrifices.
*More commentary available at chapter level.