![]() In an agricultural society where wealth and the very maintenance of life were measured in livestock, these animal presents came from the very life necessities of the people.” When David made his burnt offering to the Lord in 2 Samuel 24:24, he said, “I will not offer burnt offerings to the Lord my God that cost me nothing.” You might remember that in the last book of the Old Testament, Malachi confronted the people for offering less valuable sacrifices to God. Baker observed, “They also were to have been at a cost to the offeror, that is, a sacrifice. This male animal must be “without blemish.” By its name, “sacrifice,” one is giving up something of value. So, the male animal “was viewed as the symbolically significant animal since it was representative of the whole herd as the chief animal and the most virile.” But as Matthew observes, “The significance of the male beast was more symbolic than the actual value.” Though the female reproduced, she did not do so without the male. One might think that a female from the flock might be more valuable because they produced milk and were the instrument of reproduction. He shall bring it to the entrance of the tent of meeting, that he may be accepted before the Lord.” With the burnt offering, only a male animal would be acceptable. Leviticus 1:3 says, “If his offering is a burnt offering from the herd, he shall offer a male without blemish. ![]() When God instructed the Israelites regarding the quality of the burnt offering, He required one of actual value.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |