Leviticus 1:6

And he shall flay the burnt offering,.... Take off its skin; this was the only part of it that was not burnt, and was the property of the priest, Lev 7:8 but who this was done by is not so manifest, since it is in the singular number "he", and seems to be the bringer of the offering; for Aaron's sons, the priests that sprinkled the blood, are spoken of plurally; and agreeably, Gersom observes, that the flaying of the burnt offering and cutting it in pieces were lawful to be done by a stranger; but Aben Ezra interprets "he" of the priest; and the Septuagint and Samaritan versions read in the plural number, "they shall flay", &c. and this was the work of the priests, and who were sometimes helped in it by their brethren, the Levites, Ch2 29:34 and as this follows upon the sprinkling of the blood, it was never done till that was; the rule is, they do not flay them (the sacrifices) until the blood is sprinkled, except the sin offerings, which are burnt, for they do not flay them at all (p). The flaying of the burnt offering may denote the very great sufferings of Christ, when he was stripped of his clothes, and his back was given to the smiters, and his cheeks to them that plucked off the hair; and the skin of the sacrifice, which belonged to the priest, may be an emblem of the righteousness of Christ, and which also was signified by the coats of skins the Lord God made for Adam and Eve, Gen 3:21 that robe of righteousness, and garments of salvation, which all that are made kings and priests to God are clothed with:

and cut it into his pieces; which was done while he was flaying it, and after this manner, as Maimonides relates (q), he flays until he comes to the breast, and then he cuts off the head, then its legs, and finishes the flaying; then he rends the heart, and brings out its blood; then he cuts off the hands, and goes to the right foot, and cuts off that, and after that he cuts down the beast until its bowels are discovered; he takes the knife and separates the lights from the liver, and the caul of the liver from the liver, and does not remove the liver out of its place; and he goes up to the right side, and cuts and descends to the backbone, and he does not go to the backbone until he comes to the two tender ribs; he comes to the neck, and leaves in it two ribs here and two ribs there; he cuts it and comes to the left side, and leaves in it two tender ribs above and two tender ribs below; then he comes to the point of the backbone, he cuts it, and gives it and the tail, and the caul of the liver, and the two kidneys with it; he takes the left foot and gives it to another; and according to this order they flay and cut in pieces the burnt offering of the cattle; and these are the pieces spoken of in the law, Lev 1:6 some apply this to the ministers of the Gospel, rightly dividing the word of God, and to the effect the word has in dividing asunder soul and spirit; but it is best to apply it to Christ, either to the evidence given of him in the Gospel, in which he is clearly set forth in his person, natures, and offices, and in all the parts and branches thereof; where every thing is naked and open to view, as the creature was when thus cut up; or rather to his sufferings, which he endured in every part of his body, from head to foot.

(p) Hilchot Korbanot, c. 5. sect. 18. (q) Ib. c. 6. sect. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. Vid. Misnah Tamid, c. 4. sect. 2, 3.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Lev 1:6 And he shall flay the burnt offering, and cut it into his pieces.

Ver. 6. And he shall flay the burntoffering.] To show the grievousness of our Saviour’s sufferings; the cruel usage of his suffering saints; {Mic 3:3 Heb 11:35} and the duty of all that have benefit by him, to flay off the old man with his deceitful lusts, {Eph 4:22} dealing thereby as the Turk dealt by him that betrayed the Rhodes. He presented unto him his promised wife and portion; but with it told him that he would not have a Christian to be his son-in-law; and therefore caused his baptized skin, as he called it, to be flayed off, and him to be cast into a bed strawed with salt, that he might get a new skin. {a} See Mar 9:49.

{a} Leunclavius.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Lev_1:6-13

The priest shall burn all on the altar.

The sacrificial burning

What was the significance of the burning? It has been often answered that the consumption of the victim by fire symbolised the consuming wrath of Jehovah, utterly destroying the victim which represented the sinful person of the offerer. And, observing that the burning followed the killing and shedding of blood, some have even gone so far as to say that the burning typified the eternal fire of hell! But when we remember that, without doubt, the sacrificial victim in all the Levitical offerings was a type of Christ, we may well agree with one who justly calls this interpretation hideous.. . . While it is quite true that fire often typifies the wrath of God punishing sin, it is certain that it cannot always symbolise this, not even in the sacrificial ritual. For in the meal-offering (chap. 2.) it is impossible that the thought of expiation should enter, since no life is offered and no blood shed; yet this also is presented to God in fire. We must hold, therefore, that the burning can only mean in the burnt-offering that which alone it can signify in the meal-offering, namely, the ascending of the offering in consecration to God, on the one hand, and, on the ocher, Gods gracious acceptance and appropriation of the offering. This was impressively set forth in the case of the burnt-offering presented when the Tabernacle service was inaugurated; when, we are told (Lev_9:24), the fire which consumed it came forth from before Jehovah, lighted by no human hand, and was thus a visible representation of God accepting and appropriating the offering to Himself. The symbolism of the burning thus understood, we can now perceive what must have been the special meaning of this sacrifice. As regarded by the believing Israelite of those days, not yet discerning clearly the deeper truth it shadowed forth as to the great Burnt Sacrifice of the future, it must have symbolically taught him that complete consecration unto God is essential to right worship. There were sacrifices having a different special import, in which, while a part was burnt, the offerer might even himself join in eating the remaining part, taking that for his own use. But in the burnt-offering nothing was for himself: all was for God; and in the fire of the altar God took the whole in such a way that the offering for ever passed beyond the offerers recall. In so far as the offerer entered into this conception, and his inward experience corresponded to this out, ward rite, it was for him an act of worship. But to the thoughtful worshipper, one would think, it must sometimes have occurred that, after all, it was not himself or his gift that thus ascended in full consecration to God, but a victim appointed by God to represent him in death on the altar. And thus it was that, whether understood or not, the offering in its very nature pointed to a Victim of the future, in whoso person and work, as the one only fully consecrated Man, the burnt-offering should receive its full explication. And this brings us to the question, What aspect of the person and work of our Lord was herein specially typified? It cannot be the resultant fellowship with God, as in the peace-offering; for the sacrificial feast which set this forth was in this case wanting. Neither can it be expiation for sin; for although this is expressly represented here, yet it is not the chief thing. The principal thing in the burnt-offering was the burning, the complete consumption of the victim in the sacrificial fire. Hence what is represented chiefly here, is not so much Christ representing His people in atoning death as Christ representing His people in perfect consecration and entire self-surrender unto God; in a word, in perfect obedience. How much is made of this aspect of our Lords work in the Gospels! The first words we hear from His lips are to this effect (Luk_2:49); and after His official work began in the first cleansing of the Temple, this manifestation of His character was such as to remind His disciples that it was written, The zeal of Thy house shall eat me up--phraseology which brings the burnt-offering at once to mind. And His constant testimony concerning Himself, to which His whole life bare witness, was in such words as these: I came down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him that sent Me . . . And so the burnt-offering teaches us to remember that Christ has not only died for our sins, but also consecrated Himself for us to God in full self-surrender in our behalf. We are therefore to plead not only His atoning death, but also the transcendent merit of His life of full consecration to the Fathers will. To this the words three times repeated concerning the burnt-offering (Lev_1:9; Lev_1:13; Lev_1:17) blessedly apply: it is an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the Lord. That is, this full self-surrender of the holy Son of God unto the Father is exceedingly delightful and acceptable unto God. And for this reason it is for us an ever-prevailing argument for our own acceptance, and for the gracious bestowment for Christs sake of all that there is in Him for us. Only let us ever remember that we cannot argue, as in the case of the atoning death, that as Christ died that we might not die, so He offered Himself in full consecration unto God, that we might thus be released from this obligation. Here the exact opposite is the truth; for Christ Himself said in His memorable prayer, just before His offering of Himself to death, For their sakes I sanctify (consecrate) Myself, that they also might be sanctified in truth. And thus is brought before us the thought, that if the sin-offering emphasised the substitutionary death of Christ, whereby He became our righteousness, the burnt-offering as distinctively brings before us Christ as our sanctification, offering Himself without spot, a whole burnt-offering to God. And as by that one life of sinless obedience to the will of the Father He procured our salvation by His merit, so in this respect He has also become our one perfect example of what consecration to God really is. (S. H. Kellogg, D. D.)

The best offering

Some children lost their Sunday-school teacher by death. The scholars gathered round the open grave, and the little hands dropped in their wreaths of flowers. They talked afterwards about his goodness and his love, and then considered what they should do to keep his memory bright. One little girl said: Let us keep his grave fresh with flowers, so every Sunday, after school hours, one of the little girls was told off to beg the flowers she could not gather, and lay them on her teachers grave. Twelve months passed away, and one sultry July morning one of the grave-diggers saw, lying on the grave which had been so tenderly cared for, a little slumbering child of five or six years. He took her in his arms and gently woke her up. Where am I? exclaimed the aroused sleeper. Then suddenly recalling why she had come there, she added, Oh, I know; it was my turn to put the flowers on teachers grave last night, and I couldnt find anything half good enough. He used to call me his little flower, and I thought I would give myself to him, just to show him how I loved him. In that cemetery there are two graves opposite each other, the one the Sunday-school teacher, and the other that of the little girl, and on her grave are these words, Little Flower. She gave herself to show how much she loved him. (G. S. Reaney.)

Genuine consecration

A personal friend asked Wendell Phillips not long before his death, Mr. Phillips, did you ever consecrate yourself to God? Yes, he answered, when I was a boy, fourteen years of age, in the old church at the north end, I heard Lyman Beecher preach on the theme, You belong to God, and I went home after that service, threw myself on the floor in my room, with locked doors, and prayed, O God, I belong to Thee; take what is Thine own. I ask this, that whenever a thing be wrong it may have no power of temptation over me; whenever a thing to be right it may take no courage to do it. From that day to this it has been so. Whenever I have known a thing to be wrong it has held no temptation. Whenever I have known a thing to be right it has taken no courage to do it.

A devoted life

David Brainerd was one of those who might be called Gods men. From the first, it was the vision of Gods splendour which subdued him; it was for the glory of God that he laboured; his nearness to the blaze of the Divine presence enabled him to kindle a light which will never be extinguished. Hear what he says concerning his experience when first he obtained a foothold in the kingdom, My soul rejoiced with joy unspeakable to see such a God! such a glorious, Divine Being; and I was inwardly pleased and satisfied that He should be God over all for ever and ever. My soul was so captivated and delighted with the excellency, loveliness, greatness, and other perfections of God, that I was even swallowed up in Him; at least, to that degree that I had no thought, that I remember at first, about my own salvation, and scarcely reflected that there was such a creature as myself. And, again, on his twenty-fourth birthday, I hardly ever so longed to live to God, and to be altogether devoted to Him, I wanted to wear out my life in His service and for His glory. He wrote a journal, detailing the exercises of his soul, and recounting his experiences amongst the Redskins. Two early volumes of it he destroyed, lest he might be led to glory in anything he had felt or done; the remaining volumes he also desired to demolish when he came to die; but through the influence of Jonathan Edwards, who had caught a glimpse of their contents, and estimated their worth, he was induced to spare them, and even permit them to be published, though they had not been written with such an intention, but in the weary solitudes had been like a friend, to whom he could pour out the secrets of his heart. William Carey, the pioneer of modern missions, read these journals of Brainerd as he sat on the shoemakers bench, and said to himself, If God can do such things among the Indians of America, why not among the pagans of India? He was thus led to offer himself for missionary work just one hundred years ago. Henry Martyn read the book, and received an impulse which sent him to live and die for Christ in Persia. John Wesley, in answering the question, What can be done to revive the work of God where it is decayed? said, Let every preacher read carefully over the life of David Brainerd. McCheyne records, in his journal, that after reading it, he was more set on missionary enterprise than ever. (W. Y. Fullerton, Sword and Trowel.)

Results of total self surrender

What are the results of total self-surrender to God, as known to universal ethical experience? Peace, spiritual illumination, hatred of sin, admiration of holiness, a strange new sense of the Divine presence, a feeling of union with God, a love of prayer. Even in the sphere which historic Christianity has not reached, there will be, after total self-surrender, as I hold, at least a dim sense of forgiveness, the feeling that one can say Abba Father; a new delight in Gods works and in His Word; love of man; loss of fear of death: a growing and finally supreme love of the Father, Redeemer, Ruler, Saviour, which has become the souls all. An evangelist of great experience and wisdom, one of whose anniversaries was lately honoured in this city, has distributed many thousands of cards on which were printed the following evidences of conversion. He speaks from the point of view of exegetical knowledge. I have spoken thus far from the point of view of ethical science, strictly so-called. Let me contrast now with my results, these results of a practical evangelist. These are the signs of conversion which Dr. Earle gives--

1. A full surrender of the will to God.

2. The removal of a burden of sin gradually or suddenly.

3. A new love to Christians and to Jesus.

4. Anew relish for the Word of God.

5. Pleasure in secret prayer, at least at times.

6. Sin or sinful thoughts will cause pain.

7. Desire and efforts for the salvation of others.

8. A desire to obey Christ in His commands and ordinances.

9. Deep humility and self-abasement.

10. A growing desire to be holy and like Christ. (Joseph Cook.)

The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

THE SACRIFICIAL BURNING

Lev_1:6-9; Lev_1:10-13; Lev_1:14-17

"And he shall flay the burnt offering, and cut it into its pieces. And the sons of Aaron the priest shall put fire upon the altar, and lay wood in order upon the fire: and Aarons sons, the priests, shall lay the pieces, the head, and the fat, in order upon the wood that is on the fire which is upon the altar: but its inwards and its legs shall he wash with water: and the priest shall burn the whole on the altar, for a burnt offering, an offering made by fire of a sweet savour unto the Lord And he shall cut it into its pieces, with its head and its fat: and the priest shall lay them in order on the wood that is on the fire which is upon the altar: but the inwards and the legs shall he wash with water: and the priest shall offer the whole, and burn it upon the altar: it is a burnt offering, an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the Lord And he shall rend it by the wings thereof, but shall not divide it asunder: and the priest shall burn it upon the altar, upon the wood that is upon the fire: it is a burnt offering, an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the Lord."

It was the distinguishing peculiarity of the burnt offering, from which it takes its name, that in every case the whole of it was burned, and thus ascended heavenward in the fire and smoke of the altar. The place of the burning, in this and other sacrifices, is significant. The flesh of the sin offering, when not eaten, was to be burned in a clean place without the camp. But it was the law of the burnt offering that it should be wholly consumed upon the holy altar at the door of the tent of meeting. In the directions for the burning we need seek for no occult meaning; the most of them are evidently intended simply as means to the end; namely, the consumption of the offering with the utmost readiness, ease, and completeness. Hence it must be flayed and cut into its pieces, and carefully arranged upon the wood. The inwards and the legs must be washed with water, that into the offering, as to be offered to the Holy One, might come nothing extraneous, nothing corrupt and unclean.

In Lev_1:10-13 and Lev_1:14-17 provision is made for the offering of different victims, of the flock, or of the fowls. The reason for this permitted variation, although not mentioned here, was doubtless the same which is given for a similar permission in Lev_5:7, where it is ordered that if the offerers means suffice not for a certain offering, he may bring one of less value. Poverty shall be no plea for not bringing a burnt sacrifice; to the Israelite of that time it thus set forth the truth, that "if there first be a willing heart, it is accepted according to that a man hath, and not according to that he hath not."

The variations in the prescriptions regarding the different victims to be used in the sacrifice are but slight. The bird having been killed by the priest (why this change it is not easy to see), its crop, with its contents of food unassimilated, and therefore not a part of the bird, as also the feathers, was to be cast away. It was not to be divided, like the bullock, and the sheep or goat, simply because, with so small a creature, it was not necessary to the speedy and entire combustion of the offering. In each case alike, the declaration is made that the sacrifice, thus offered and wholly burnt upon the altar, is "an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the Lord."

And now a question comes before us, the answer to which is vital to the right understanding of the burnt offering, whether in its original or typical import. What was the significance of the burning? It has been very often answered that the consumption of the victim by fire symbolised the consuming wrath of Jehovah, utterly destroying the victim which represented the sinful person of the offerer. And, observing that the burning followed the killing and shedding of blood, some have even gone so far as to say that the burning typified the eternal fire of hell! But when we remember that, without doubt, the sacrificial victim in all the Levitical offerings was a type of our blessed Lord, we may well agree with one who justly calls this interpretation "hideous." And yet many, who have shrunk from this, have yet in so far held to this conception of the symbolic meaning of the burning as to insist that it must at least have typified those fiery sufferings in which our Lord offered up His soul for sin. They remind us how often, in the Scripture, fire stands as the symbol of the consuming wrath of God against sin, and hence argue that this may justly be taken here as the symbolic meaning of the burning of the victim on the altar.

But this interpretation is nevertheless, in every form, to be rejected. As regards the use of fire as a symbol in Holy Scripture, while it is true that it often represents the punitive wrath of God, it is equally certain that it has not always this meaning. Quite as often it is the symbol of Gods purifying energy and might. Fire was not the symbol of Jehovahs vengeance in the burning bush. When the Lord is represented as sitting "as a refiner and a purifier of silver," surely the thought is not of vengeance, but of purifying mercy. We should rather say that fire, in Scripture usage, is the symbol of the intense energy of the Divine nature, which continually acts upon every person and on every thing, according to the nature of each person or thing; here conserving, there destroying; now cleansing, now consuming. The same fire which burns the wood, hay, and stubble, purifies the gold and the silver.

Hence, while it is quite true that fire often typifies the wrath of God punishing sin, it is certain that it cannot always symbolise this, not even in the sacrificial ritual. For in the meal offering of chapter 2 it is impossible that the thought of expiation should enter since no life is offered and no blood is shed; yet this also is presented unto God in fire. The fire then in this case must mean something else than the Divine wrath, and presumably must mean one thing in all the sacrifices. And that not even in the burnt offering can the burning of the sacrifice symbolise the consuming wrath of God, becomes plain, when we observe that, according to the uniform teaching of the sacrificial ritual, atonement is already fully accomplished, prior to the burning, in the sprinkling of the blood. That the burning, which follows the atonement, should have any reference to Christs expiatory sufferings, is thus quite impossible.

We must hold, therefore, that the burning can only mean in the burnt offering that which alone it can signify in the meal offering; namely, the ascending of the offering in consecration to God, on the one hand; and, on the other, Gods gracious acceptance and appropriation of the offering. This was impressively set forth in the case of the burnt offering presented when the tabernacle service was inaugurated; when, we are told (Lev_9:24), the fire which consumed it came forth from before Jehovah, lighted by no human hand, and was thus a visible representation of God accepting and appropriating the offering to Himself.

The symbolism of the burning thus understood, we can now perceive what must have been the special meaning of this sacrifice. As regarded by the believing Israelite of those days, not yet discerning clearly the deeper truth it shadowed forth as to the great Burnt Sacrifice of the future, it must have symbolically taught him that complete consecration unto God is essential to right worship. There were sacrifices having a different special import, in which, while a part was burnt, the offerer might even himself join in eating the remaining part, taking that for his own use. But, in the burnt offering, nothing was for himself: all was for God; and in the fire of the altar God took the whole in such a way that the offering forever passed beyond the offerers recall. In so far as the offerer entered into this conception, and his inward experience corresponded to this outward rite, it was for him an act of worship.

But to the thoughtful worshipper, one would think, it must sometimes have occurred that, after all, it was not himself or his gift that thus ascended in full consecration to God, but a victim appointed by God to represent him in death on the altar. And thus it was that, whether understood or not, the offering in its very nature pointed to a Victim of the future, in whose person and work, as the One only fully-consecrated Man, the burnt offering should receive its full explication. And this brings us to the question, What aspect of the person and work of our Lord was herein specially typified? It cannot be the resultant fellowship with God, as in the peace offering; for the sacrificial feast which set this forth was in this case wanting. Neither can it be expiation for sin; for although this is expressly represented here, yet it is not the chief thing. The principal thing, in the burnt offering, was the burning, the complete consumption of the victim in the sacrificial fire. Hence what is represented chiefly here, is not so much Christ representing His people in atoning death, as Christ representing His people in perfect consecration and entire self-surrender unto God; in a word, in perfect obedience.

Of these two things, the atoning death and the representative obedience, we think, and with reason, much of the former; but most Christians, though without reason, think less of the latter. And yet how much is made of this aspect of our Lords work in the Gospels! The first words which we hear from His lips are to this effect, when, at twelve years of age, He asked His mother, {Luk_2:49} "Wist ye not that I must be (lit.) in the things of My Father?" and after His official work began in the first cleansing of the temple, this manifestation of His character was such as to remind His disciples that it was written, "The zeal of Thy house shall eat me up"; -phraseology which brings the burnt offering at once to mind. And His constant testimony concerning Himself, to which His whole life bare witness, was in such words as these: "I came down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him that sent Me." In particular, He especially regarded His atoning work in this aspect. In the parable of the Good Shepherd, {Joh_10:1-18} for example, after telling us that because of His laying down His life for the sheep the Father loved Him, and that to this end He had received from the Father authority to lay down His life for the sheep, He then adds as the reason of this: "This commandment have I received from My Father." And so elsewhere {Joh_12:49-50} He says of all His words, as of all His works: "The Father hath given Me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak; the things therefore which I speak, even as the Father hath said unto Me, so I speak." And when at last His earthly work approaches its close, and we see. Him in the agony of Gethsemane, there He appears, above all, as the perfectly consecrated One, offering Himself, body, soul, and spirit, as a whole burnt offering unto God, in those never-to-be-forgotten words, {Mat_26:39} "Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass away from Me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as Thou wilt." And, if any more proof were needed, we have it in that inspired exposition {Heb_10:5-10} of Psa_40:6-8, wherein it is taught that this perfect obedience of Christ, in full consecration, was indeed the very thing which the Holy Ghost foresignified in the whole brunt offerings of the law: "When He cometh into the world, He saith, Sacrifice and offering Thou wouldest not, but a body didst Thou prepare for Me; in whole burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin Thou hadst no pleasure: then said I, Lo, I am come (in the roll of the book it is written of Me) to do Thy will, O God." Thus the burnt offering brings before us in type, for our faith, Christ as our Saviour in virtue of His being the One wholly surrendered to the will of the Father. Nor does this exclude, but rather defines, the conception of Christ as our substitute and representative. For He said that it was for our sakes that He "sanctified," or "consecrated" Himself; {Joh_17:19} and while the New Testament represents Him as saving us by His death as an expiation for sin, it no less explicitly holds Him forth to us as having obeyed in our behalf, declaring {Rom_5:19} that it is by the obedience of the One Man that "many are made righteous." And, elsewhere, the same Apostle represents the incomparable moral value of the atoning death of the cross as consisting precisely in this fact, that it was a supreme act of self-renouncing obedience, as it is written: {Php_2:6-9} "Being in the form of God, He yet counted it not a prize to be on an equality with God, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men; becoming obedient even unto death, yea, the death of the cross. Wherefore also God highly exalted Him, and gave unto Him the name which is above every name."

And so the burnt offering teaches us to remember that Christ has not only died for our sins, but has also consecrated Himself for us to God in full self-surrender in our behalf. We are therefore to plead not only His atoning death, but also the transcendent merit of His life of full consecration to the Fathers will. To this, the words, three times repeated concerning the burnt offering (Lev_1:9, Lev_1:13, Lev_1:17), in this chapter, blessedly apply: it is "an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour," a fragrant odour, "unto the Lord." That is, this full self-surrender of the holy Son of God unto the Father is exceedingly delightful and acceptable unto God. And for this reason it is for us an ever-prevailing argument for our own acceptance, and for the gracious bestowment for Christs sake of all that there is in Him for us.

Only let us ever remember that we cannot argue, as in the case of the atoning death, that as Christ died that we might not die, so He offered Himself in full consecration unto God, that we might thus be released from this obligation. Here the exact opposite is the truth. For Christ Himself said in His memorable prayer, just before His offering of Himself to death, "For their sakes I sanctify (marg. "consecrate") Myself, that they also might be sanctified in truth." And thus is brought before us the thought, that if the sin offering emphasised, as we shall see, the substitutionary death of Christ, whereby He became our righteousness, the burnt offering, as distinctively, brings before us Christ as our sanctification, offering Himself without spot, a whole burnt offering to God. And as by that one life of sinless obedience to the will of the Father He procured our salvation by His merit, so in this respect He has also become our one perfect Example of what consecration to God really is. A thought this is which, with evident allusion to the burnt offering, the Apostle Paul brings before us, charging us {Eph_5:2} that we "walk in love, as Christ also loved us, and gave Himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God for an odour of a sweet smell."

And the law further suggests that no extreme of spiritual need can debar anyone from availing Himself of our great Burnt sacrifice. A burnt offering was to be received even from one who was so poor that he could bring but a turtledove or a young pigeon (Lev_1:14). One might, at first thought, not unnaturally say: Surely there can be nothing in this to point to Christ; for the true Sacrifice is not many, but one and only. And yet the very fact of this difference allowed in the typical victims, when the reason of the allowance is remembered, suggests the most precious truth concerning Christ, that no spiritual poverty of the sinner need exclude him from the full benefit of Christs saving work. Provision is made in Him for all those who, most truly and with most reason, feel themselves to be poor and in need of all things. Christ, as our sanctification, is for all who will make use of Him; for all who, feeling most deeply and painfully their own failure in full consecration, would take Him, as not only their sin offering, but also their burnt offering, both their example and their strength, unto perfect self-surrender unto God. We may well here recall to mind the exhortation of the Apostle to Christian believers, expressed in language which at once reminds us of the burnt offering: {Rom_12:1} I beseech you, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your reasonable service.

William Robertson Nicoll, ed., The Expositor's Bible (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1887–1910) — public domain. 65 of 66 books (1 Corinthians is not separately keyed, as that volume carries no machine-parseable verse references); section-level commentary keyed to the opening verse. Introductory and overview sections not keyed to a specific passage are excluded.

1:6 The entire animal was to be burned, except for the skin, which was the priest’s share of the offering (7:8).

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Verse 6. He shall flay] Probably meaning the person who brought the sacrifice, who, according to some of the rabbins, killed, flayed, cut up, and washed the sacrifice, and then presented the parts and the blood to the priest, that he might burn the one, and sprinkle the other upon the altar. But it is certain that the priests also, and the Levites, flayed the victims, and the priest had the skin to himself; see Le 7:8, and 2Ch 29:34. The red heifer alone was not flayed, but the whole body, with the skin, &c., consumed with fire. See Nu 19:5.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

(6) And he shall flay.—After the priest threw the blood on the walls of the altar, the sacrificer himself had to skin and cut up the sacrifice into its natural limbs (comp. Lev_1:12; Lev_8:20; Exo_29:17), as head, breast, legs, &c., and not mangle it. The skin was the perquisite of the officiating priest (Leviticus 8).

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

And he shall flay - The sacrificer, or his assistant, had to skin and cut up the victim. The hide was the gratuity of the officiating priest. Lev 7:8.

His pieces - That is, its proper pieces, the parts into which it was usual for a sacrificed animal to be divided.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

They. Regularly the Levites performed this office. The skin belonged to the priest, chap. vii. 8. (Calmet)

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

He shall flay the burnt-offering; partly for decency, because the sacrifices being as it were God’s food and feast, it was incongruous to offer to God that which men refused to eat; and partly to signify that the great thing which God required and regarded in men was, not their outward appearance, but their inside; and that as he doth see all men’s insides, Heb 4:13, so he will one day make them visible to others.

Into his pieces, to wit, the head, and fat, and inwards, and legs, Lev 1:8,9.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

6. He shall flay — It was the work of the offerer to kill, skin, and cut up the victim.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

He shall flay the burnt offering. The hide was given to the priest. (Lev_7:8) The whole of the remainder of the animal was consumed by the fire of the altar; none of it was eaten by the offerer and his friends as in the peace offerings, or even by the ministers of God as in the sin offerings; it was a whole burnt offering. His pieces, into which it was to be cut, means the customary pieces.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

'‎והפשיט וגו‎ AND HE SHALL FLAY [THE BURNT OFFERING] — Why does it state “the burnt offering” (instead of merely saying, והפשיטה, “and he shall flay it”)? In order to include all burnt offerings (i. e. all עולות בהמה, whether they be free — will or obligatory, whether they are taken מן הבקר or מן הצאן, whether brought by a man or by a woman, by a free Israelite or by an Israelite עבד) in the law of flaying and dismembering (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 5 2; cf. Note 3 on העולה v. 4).

אתה לנתחיה AND HE SHALL SEVER IT INTO ITS PIECES — he shall sever it etc. but not its pieces again into smaller pieces (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 5 7).

Rashi on the Tanakh — English translations: “The Judaica Press complete Tanach with Rashi, translated by A. J. Rosenberg” (CC BY 4.0); “Pentateuch with Rashi's commentary by M. Rosenbaum and A.M. Silbermann, 1929-1934” (public domain); “The Metsudah Tanach series, Lakewood, N.J” (CC BY 4.0); and “The Book of Joshua, Metsudah Publications, 1997” (CC BY 4.0). Text via Sefaria.

AND HE SHALL FLAY THE BURNT-OFFERING. He is commanded to flay it while it is whole and afterwards he sever it. The expression and he shall flay … and he shall sever refers to the owner of the offering [even if he is a non-priest], just as He said, and he shall lay his hand … and he shall slaughter [which may also be done by a zar — a non-priest], for flaying and severing are not functions relating to the actual offering and are therefore valid if done by a zar. This is why [in the following verse] He says again, And the sons of Aaron [the priest shall put fire upon the altar]. Similarly, it is valid that the washing of the inwards be done by a zar. Hence He says, But its inwards and its legs he shall wash in water, that is, the owner of the offering, and afterwards, and the priest shall cause all to ascend in fumes. He states it in the plural, and they shall put … and they shall set the pieces, because all duties performed by the priests are commanded in this form, since there are many priests gathered in the House of G-d to attend to the burnt-offerings, and in the multitude of the people is the King’s glory, but it is not indispensable, since further on He taught, and the priest shall set them in order [thus showing that even a single priest may perform all the acts].. It is thus clear that Ramban’s intention here is to exclude Ibn Ezra’s opinion, since it is not the accepted law.

AND HE SHALL FLAY … AND HE SHALL SEVER … AND THE SONS OF AARON THE PRIEST SHALL PUT FIRE UPON THE ALTAR. This is not the correct order of these actions, for the right way is that the priests should first put fire upon the altar, and only then should they sever the limbs. Such indeed was the order of the arrangement of the Daily Offering. Similarly, the verse stating, And the priests, Aaron’s sons, shall set the pieces, the head and the fat, in order upon the wood that is on the fire, and afterwards, But its inwards and its legs he shall wash in water — does not mean to command that it be done in that order, for “the setting” [mentioned in Verse 8] refers to “the burning” of the pieces which He commanded further on [in Verse 9]: and the priest shall cause all to ascend in fumes. If so, the correct order of performance cannot be that he should bring up the pieces, and the head and the fat, and set them upon the fire that is upon the altar, and only afterwards should he wash the inwards and the legs and burn them! Rather, he first severed it and washed it, and then he brought everything up and set them on the fire to be burnt. The reason [for the order] of the verses is thus as follows: First He mentioned the sprinkling of the blood in order to teach that this comes before everything else. Then He gave the commandment concerning the burning of the limbs, stating [in Verse 6 before us] that he should flay [the animal] and sever it in order to set the pieces upon the fire after washing the inwards and the legs, and then he should burn them all at one time, this being the sense of the expression and the priest shall cause ‘all’ to ascend in fumes. The reason why Scripture repeated [the commandment] concerning the limbs, stating, and they shall set them…upon the fire, and the priest shall cause all to ascend in fumes, [Verse 8] means the burning thereof, as explained above, the question appears why in Verse 9 it repeats the command concerning the limbs, and they shall set them upon the fire? is in order to teach us that after he arranges them upon the fire, he should not depart until the fire has taken hold of them and consumed them so that the fumes thereof ascend. Similarly, the reason why He preceded to mention the flaying and severing to that of making the fire, is in order to teach us that in a freewill burnt-offering [discussed in this section], there is no obligation to set the fire upon the altar before [these activities] as is the case with the Daily Offering, concerning which we were commanded, and the priest shall kindle wood on it every morning, this being the first thing of all that was done in everything that pertaineth to the altar as far as the burning of the offering is concerned. as is explained in Tractate Yoma.

Ramban (Nachmanides) on the Tanakh — English translation: “Commentary on the Torah by Ramban (Nachmanides). Translated and annotated by Charles B. Chavel. New York, Shilo Pub. House, 1971-1976” (CC BY 4.0). Text via Sefaria.