Leviticus 5:1-13

TEXT 5:1-13

1

And if any one sin, in that he heareth the voice of adjuration, he being a witness, whether he hath seen or known, if he do not utter it, then he shall bear his iniquity.

2

Or if any one touch any unclean thing, whether it be the carcass of an unclean beast, or the carcass of unclean cattle, or the carcass of unclean creeping things, and it be hidden from him, and he be unclean, then he shall be guilty.

3

Or if he touch the uncleanness of man, whatsoever his uncleanness be wherewith he is unclean, and it be hid from him; when he knoweth of it, then he shall be guilty.

4

Or if any one swear rashly with his lips to do evil, or to do good, whatsoever it be that a man shall utter rashly with an oath, and it be hid from him; when he knoweth of it, then he shall be guilty in one of these things.

5

And it shall be, when he shall be guilty in one of these things, that he shall confess that wherein he hath sinned:

6

and he shall bring his trespass-offering unto Jehovah for his sin which he hath sinned, a female from the flock, a lamb or a goat, for a sin-offering; and the priest shall make atonement for him as concerning his sin.

7

And if his means suffice not for a lamb, then he shall bring his trespass-offering for that wherein he hath sinned, two turtle-doves, or two young pigeons, unto Jehovah; one for a sin-offering, and the other for a burnt-offering.

8

And he shall bring them unto the priest, who shall offer that which is for the sin-offering first, and wring off its head from its neck, but shall not divide it asunder:

9

and he shall sprinkle of the blood of the sin-offering upon the side of the altar; and the rest of the blood shall be drained out at the base of the altar: it is a sin-offering.

10

And he shall offer the second for a burnt-offering, according to the ordinance; and the priest shall make atonement for him as concerning his sin which he hath sinned, and he shall be forgiven.

11

But if his means suffice not for two turtle-doves, or two young pigeons, then he shall bring his oblation for that wherein he hath sinned, the tenth part of an ephah of fine flour for a sin-offering: he shall put no oil upon it, neither shall he put any frankincense thereon; for it is a sin-offering.

12

And he shall bring it to the priest, and the priest shall take his handful of it as the memorial thereof, and burn it on the altar, upon the offerings of Jehovah made by fire: it is a sin-offering.

13.

And the priest shall make atonement for him as touching his sin that he hath sinned in any of these things, and he shall be forgiven: and the remnant shall be the priest'S, as the meal-offering.

THOUGHT QUESTIONS 5:1-13

81.

There are some very practical instructions in these verses. Not only in a court of law does verse one relate to us, but in areas of personal relationships. Is it a sin not to inform on someone else? Discuss.

82.

What is it that makes an animal unclean? Are all animals and reptiles unclean under certain conditions?

83.

How would someone know of his guilt if he was unaware that he had sinned?

84.

What is meant by the uncleanness of man? How would he find out about his sin?

85.

There is a strong word in Leviticus 5:4. It literally means, If a person swear, blabbing with his lipsrashly uttering a vow. How does this relate to speech today?

86.

To whom and where is the offender to confess his sin?

87.

Why haven-'t we heard of confession of sin in previous sin offerings?

88. Is this instruction for a trespass offering or a sin offering?
89. Is it true that for the less glaring sins a female animal is used? Why?

90.

How is it that we have here two turtle-doves and two pigeons when in Leviticus 1:15 only one bird was brought?

91.

Read Leviticus 1:14-15 and notice the difference to Leviticus 5:8-9. What is the possible significance?

92.

Is the atonement and forgiveness just as full and complete in the offering of the dove as with the bullock? Discuss.

93.

How like the compassion for the poor is the regulation here given. Please notice that the handful of flour was for a sin-offering but not for a burnt-offering. Why?

94.

Why no oil or frankincense?

95.

Why does the priest take a certain portion of such a small offering? What happens to the portion the priest does not take? Why?

PARAPHRASE 5:1-13

Anyone refusing to give testimony concerning what he knows about a crime is guilty. Anyone touching anything ceremonially uncleansuch as the dead body of an animal forbidden for food, wild or domesticated, or the dead body of some forbidden insectis guilty, even though he wasn-'t aware of touching it. Or if he touches human discharge of any kind, he becomes guilty as soon as he realizes that he has touched it. If anyone makes a rash vow, whether the vow is good or bad, when he realizes what a foolish vow he has taken, he is guilty. In any of these cases, he shall confess his sin and bring his guilt offering to the Lord, a female lamb or goat, and the priest shall make atonement for him, and he shall be freed from his sin, and need not fulfill the vow. If he is too poor to bring a lamb to the Lord, then he shall bring two turtle doves or two young pigeons as his guilt offering; one of the birds shall be his sin offering and the other his burnt offering. The priest shall offer as the sin sacrifice whichever bird is handed to him first, wringing its neck, but not severing its head from its body. Then he shall sprinkle some of the blood at the side of the altar and the rest shall be drained out at the base of the altar; this is the sin offering. He shall offer the second bird as a burnt offering, following the customary procedures that have been set forth; so the priest shall make atonement for him concerning his sin and he shall be forgiven. If he is too poor to bring turtle doves or young pigeons as his sin offering, then he shall bring a tenth of a bushel of fine flour. He must not mix it with olive oil or put any incense on it, because it is a sin offering. He shall bring it to the priest and the priest shall take out a handful as a representative portion, and burn it on the altar just as any other offering to Jehovah made by fire; this shall be his sin offering. In this way the priest shall make atonement for him for any sin of this kind, and he shall be forgiven. The rest of the flour shall belong to the priest, just as was the case with the grain offering.

THE SIN OFFERING
Special ApplicationThree Specific Sins 5:1-13

Specific Sin Offerings For Specific Sins

Purpose: Unintentional Specific SinsAtonement

THE GARMENTS OF THE LEVITES

1.

Coat

2.

Drawers

3.

Band

(All white fine linen)

COMMENT 5:1-13

Leviticus 5:1 Someone has called the sins described in these verses as the sins of inadvertencyi.e. when we sinned and hardly knew we did itunintentional. We are reminded of Galatians 6:3: Brethren, if a man be overtakeni.e. he has hurried into it ere he is well aware, or before he could escapeye which are spiritual, restore such a one in the spirit of meekness. The first circumstance takes us into the court of law: If we hear the judge administer an oath to us and we fail to tell what we know (for whatever cause) we are in our withholding information, sinning! We have several examples of persons who were put under oath and were bound before God to speak or not to speak, to hold or withhold by the power of the oath. We think of Saul in 1 Samuel 14:24 as he adjured the people under oath not to eat; of 1 Kings 8:31 and Judges 17:2 where an oath is used and persons are bound to speak. The outstanding example is our Lord in the court of Caiaphas. The high priest was exasperated at the strange silence of Jesus. He said, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God (Matthew 26:63). And then it was the Lamb of God no longer kept Himself dumb; but, bowing to the solemn authority of this adjuration, showed the same meekness in replying as before He had done in keeping silence. (Bonar)

We would assume from the circumstances of this verse that the witness in court has omitted information, or has misstated, through negligence of one form or another, and has thus failed to tell the whole truth.

Leviticus 5:2 When others observe our sins of omission and we are reminded of it we must bring a sin offering for atonement. In this verse the touching of dead bodies is under consideration. The bodies of the animals used in work are first, next the cattle of the field, then the animals and rodents of the forest, finally the reptiles. Or we could say that such classification was from the greatest to the smallest.

How can such regulations have a relationship to our lives? The principle of abhorrence from anything that would defile is viable for all time. We pray with David, Cleanse thou me from hidden faults (Psalms 19:12). It is not merely when we act contrary to the dictates of conscience that we sin; we may often be sinning when conscience never upbraids us. We all remember that the largest part of our lives before conversion were spent in this type of sin. How glad we are for our sin offering that atones for this large area of need!

Leviticus 5:3 The uncleanness of man may be in many formsleprosy being one of the most obvious, an issue of blood, or the period after the birth of a child, are all considered unclean and in need of a sin offering for cleansing. Once again we are to consider such knowledge unknown by us but made known to us by someone else, i.e. we have touched such a person and did not remember it or know it. A friend told us about it. Perhaps we intentionally did not want to know about it. Hebrews 3:13 has a word just here: Exhort one another daily, while it is called today, lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin. We do touch mentally and emotionally many things that defile. We think of pornographic literature, atheistic philosophy, humanistic attitudes towards problems of the day. We need to hear our friends who seek and speak to help us. We must claim with them God's sin offering in the death of our Lord for us.

Leviticus 5:4 How glib we sometimes are with our promises to God! It is no light thing to promise God we will or will not do this or that. This almost amounts to taking the name of God in vain. We treat lightly the name, and thus the Person of God, in a flip and casual, if not impulsive manner. We immediately think of the judge Jephthah as a sad example of this practice. We must approach the Holy and Righteous God in reverence and awe! Has it come to our attention that we made a promise to Him that yet remains unfulfilled? Either do it or claim God's forgivenessbut most of all learn to change your attitude.

Leviticus 5:5-6 We have now listed several areas where unconscious sin could be committed: (1) swearing, (2) dead bodies, (3) rash vows. In each of these as the sin offering is brought to the priest a confession of sin is made before God. The act of bringing the offering is a form of confessionbut it is not enough. The personal identification of the offering with the offerer must be made. This is my sacrifice for my sin. How important it is that we see Jesus not only as the Saviour but my Saviour from my sins.

Verse six refers to this offering as a trespass offering. Andrew Bonar has a splendid comment on this expression; Some suppose that there were on this occasion, first the trespass-offering, and then a sin-offering. But not so: it ought to be rendered, -He shall bring his offering-'; the word translated trespass-offering being used not as a specific term, but as a general term for any offering on account of sin, and it is thus that it is used by Isaiah 53:10-'When thou shalt make His soul an offering for sin.-' (Ibid.)

Please notice the offering is a young female, either a goat or a lamb. This would seem to say that the kind is not nearly as important as the death of the victimthe blood must be shed that atonement might be made.

Leviticus 5:7 We begin in this verse the wonderful provisions of God to meet the needs of every man in his particular circumstance. If there is no lamb or goat, two turtle-doves, or two pigeons will suffice. Why two? One was a burnt offering so as to give the poor worshipper assurance that his sin offering would be acceptable.

Leviticus 5:8-9 There is something poignant about wringing the neck of the dove or pigeon. When death comes the head of the bird will hang limp upon its plumage. The blood will stain its beautiful feathers. How like another one who bowed His head upon His chest and cried, It is finished! His head was bleeding with the crown of thorns, the blood dropped upon His bosom as the sting of death enter His holy body. Would it be pressing the figure too far to say that as the head of the dove must not be severed from the body, even in death, so the great head of the church went even into the grave for us, i.e. we were in Him and He was joined to us?

There is some distinction in the use of the pigeons or doves here and that mentioned in Leviticus 1:15. It would seem that here the use of blood has a large meaning in the purpose of the sacrifice. The fire in chapter one and the blood in chapter five.

Leviticus 5:10 The poor saint has full and ample testimony given to the completeness of his offering. The one great ocean-'Christ once sufferedone sacrifice-' (Hebrews 10:12). He makes the bullock appear as insignificant as the turtle-dove. The waves of the sea cover every shallow pool. (Bonar)

Leviticus 5:11 Oh, the depth of His concern for all men! Even for those who have no lamb or no goator, not even a dove or pigeon. There is yet as much hope for them as the rich man with his fine young bull. A handful of flour will be accepted. It is important that we see the flour as a substitute given in anticipation of the day of atonement when this poor offering will be completed in the sacrifice by the high priest. It is so interesting to notice the hidden parallels in the text: an omer or the tenth part of an ephah was just the quantity of manna necessary for the day's food. The poor man could appreciate his offering more than any other person: he could bring his daily food to the altar and as he fasted during the day he would have a constant recollection of the meaning and importance of what he had given.

Leviticus 5:12-13 There is no frankincense for a sweet savor or oil of consecration upon this fine flour. As small as it is the priest is to take a portion out for himself to eat as food. The rest is to be burned upon the altar of burnt offering. In this act atonement and forgiveness are assured to the worshipper. The act of eating by the priest indicates God's acceptance of the offering.

FACT QUESTIONS 5:1-13

110.

What are sins of inadvertency?

111.

Give examples of persons who obeyed the law as related to the taking of an oath.

112.

Does this text uphold informers? Discuss.

113.

When were the bodies of animals considered unclean? Why? All animals?

114.

How can such regulations have any bearing on our lives today?

115.

What is meant by the uncleanness of man in Leviticus 5:3?

116.

We do mentally and emotionally touch the uncleanhow does Hebrews 3:13 relate here?

117.

There is a form of taking the name of God in vain we do not ordinarily considerwhat is it? What shall we do about it?

118.

In each case here cited a confession of sin must be made. Why? To whom?

119.

Verse six identifies this as a trespass offering. What is meant?

120.

We see the marvelous kindness and thoughtfulness of our Father in the kinds of sacrificeshow so?

121.

Why two turtle-doves or pigeons?

122.

There is a poignant lesson in the way the pigeon was killed. What is it?

123.

Note the distinction in the use of fowls in Leviticus 1:15 and Leviticus 5:8-9. Why so?

124.

How does the one sacrifice of our Lord relate to all the sacrifices in Leviticus?

125.

Leviticus 5:11-13 shows the depth of concern God has for all menin what way?

126.

What possible hidden meaning is there in the measure of fine flour for the offering?

SPECIAL STUDY ON THE SPRINKLING OF BLOOD
By S.H. Kellogg

In the case of the burnt-offering and of the peace-offering, in which the idea of expiation, although not absent, yet occupied a secondary place in their ethical intent, it sufficed that the blood of the victim, by whomsoever brought, be applied to the sides of the altar. But in the sin-offering, the blood must not only be sprinkled on the sides of the altar of burnt-offering, but, even in the case of the common people, be applied to the horns of the altar, its most conspicuous and, in a sense, most sacred part. In the case of a sin committed by the whole congregation, even this is not enough; the blood must be brought even into the Holy Place, be applied to the horns of the altar of incense, and be sprinkled seven times before the Lord before the veil which hung immediately before the mercy seat in the Holy of Holies, the place of the Shekinah glory. And in the great sin-offering of the high priest once a year for the sins of all the people, yet more was required. The blood was to be taken even within the veil, and be sprinkled on the mercy seat itself over the tables of the broken law.
These several cases, according to the symbolism of these several parts of the tabernacle, differ in that atoning blood is brought ever more and more nearly into the immediate presence of God. The horns of the altar had a sacredness above the sides; the altar of the Holy Place before the veil, a sanctity beyond that of the altar in the outer court; while the Most Holy Place, where stood the ark, and the mercy-seat, was the very place of the most immediate and visible manifestation of Jehovah, who is often described in Holy Scripture, with reference to the ark, the mercy-seat, and the over-hanging cherubim, as the God who dwelleth between the cherubim.
From this we may easily understand the significance of the different prescriptions as to the blood in the case of different classes. A sin committed by any private individual or by a ruler, was that of one who had access only to the outer court, where stood the altar of burnt-offering; for this reason, it is there that the blood must be exhibited, and that on the most sacred and conspicuous spot in that court, the horns of the altar where God meets with the people. But when it was the anointed priest that had sinned, the case was different. In that he had a peculiar position of nearer access to God than others, as appointed of God to minister before Him in the Holy Place, his sin is regarded as having defiled the Holy Place itself; and in that Holy Place must Jehovah therefore see atoning blood ere the priest's position before God can be re-established.
And the same principle required that also in the Holy Place must the blood be presented for the sin of the whole congregation. For Israel in its corporate unity was a kingdom of priests, a priestly nation; and the priest in the Holy Place represented the nation in that capacity. Thus because of this priestly office of the nation, their collective sin was regarded as defiling the Holy Place in which, through their representatives, the priests, they ideally ministered. Hence, as the law for the priests, so is the law for the nation. For their corporate sin the blood must be applied, as in the case of the priest who represented them, to the horns of the altar in the Holy Place, whence ascended the smoke of the incense which visibly symbolised accepted priestly intercession, and, more than this, before the veil itself; in other words, as near to the very mercy-seat itself as it was permitted to the priest to go; and it must be sprinkled there, not once, nor twice, but seven times, in token of the re-establishment, through the atoning blood, of God's covenant of mercy, of which, throughout the Scripture, the number seven, the number of sabbatic rest and covenant fellowship with God, is the constant symbol.
And it is not far to seek for the spiritual thought which underlies this part of the ritual. For the tabernacle was represented as the earthly dwelling place, in a sense, of God; and just as the defiling of the house of my fellowman may be regarded as an insult to him who dwells in the house, so the sin of the priest and of the priestly people is regarded as, more than that of those outside of this relation, a special affront to the holy majesty of Jehovah, criminal just in proportion as the defilement approaches more nearly the innermost shrine of Jehovah's manifestation.

But though Israel is at present suspended from its priestly position and function among the nations of the earth, the Apostle Peter (1 Peter 2:5) reminds us that the body of Christian believers now occupies Israel's ancient place, being now on earth the royal priesthood, the holy nation. Hence this ritual solemnly reminds us that the sin of a Christian is a far more evil thing than the sin of others; it is as the sin of the priest, and defiles the Holy Place, even though unwittingly committed; and thus, even more imperatively than other sin, demands the exhibition of the atoning blood of the Lamb of God, not now in the Holy Place, but more than that, in the true Holiest of all, where our High Priest is now entered. And thus, in every possible way, with this elaborate ceremonial of sprinkling of blood does the sin-offering emphasize to our own consciences, no less than for ancient Israel, the solemn fact affirmed in the Epistle to the Hebrews (Leviticus 9:22), Without shedding of blood there is no remission of sin.

Because of this, we do well to meditate much and deeply on this symbolism of the sin-offering, which, more than any other in the law, has to do with the propitiation of our Lord for sin. Especially does this use of the blood, in which the significance of the sin-offering reached its supreme expression, claim our most reverent attention. For the thought is inseparable from the ritual, that blood of the slain victim must be presented, not before the priest, or before the offerer, but before Jehovah. Can anyone mistake the evident significance of this? Does it not luminously hold forth the thought that atonement by sacrifice has to do, not only with man, but with God?
There is cause enough in our day for insisting on this. Many are teaching that the need for the shedding of blood for the remission of sin, lies only in the nature of man; that, so far as concerns God, sin might as well have been pardoned without it; that it is only because man is so hard and rebellious, so stubbornly distrusts the Divine love, that the death of the Holy Victim of Calvary became a necessity. Nothing less than such a stupendous exhibition of the love of God could suffice to disarm his enmity to God and win him back to loving trust. Hence the need of the atonement. That all this is true, no one will deny; but it is only half the truth, and the less momentous half,which indeed is hinted in no offering, and in the sin-offering least of all. Such a conception of the matter as completely fails to account for this part of the symbolic ritual of the bloody sacrifices, as it fails to agree with other teachings of the Scriptures. If the only need for atonement in order to pardon is in the nature of the sinner, then why this constant insistence that the blood of the sacrifice should always be solemnly presented, not before the sinner, but before Jehovah? We see in this fact most unmistakably set forth, the very solemn truth that expiation by blood as a condition of forgiveness of sin is necessary, not merely because man is what he is, but most of all because God is what He is. Let us then not forget that the presentation unto God of an expiation for sin, accomplished by the death of an appointed substitutionary victim, was in Israel made an indispensable condition of the pardon of sin. Is this, as many urge, against the love of God? By no means! Least of all will it so appear, when we remember who appointed the great Sacrifice, and, above all, who came to fulfill this type. God does not love us because atonement has been made, but atonement has been made because the Father loved us, and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins.
God is none the less just, that He is love; and none the less holy, that He is merciful: and in His nature as the Most Just and Holy One, lies this necessity of the shedding of blood in order to the forgiveness of sin, which is impressively symbolized in the unvarying ordinance of the Levitical law, that as a condition of the remission of sin, the blood of the sacrifice must be presented, not before the sinner, but before Jehovah. To this generation of ours, with its so exalted notions of the greatness and dignity of man, and its correspondingly low conceptions of the ineffable greatness and majesty of the Most Holy God, this altar truth may be most distasteful, so greatly does it magnify the evil of sin; but just in that degree it is necessary to the humiliation of man's proud self-complacency, that, whether pleasing or not, this truth be faithfully held forth.

Very instructive and helpful to our faith are the allusions to this sprinkling of Blood in the New Testament. Thus, in the Epistle to the Hebrews (Hebrews 12:24), believers are reminded that they are come unto the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better than that of Abel. The meaning is plain. For we are told (Genesis 4:10), that the blood of Abel cried out against Cain from the ground; and that its cry for vengeance was prevailing; for God came down, arraigned the murderer, and visited him with instant judgment. But in these words we are told that the sprinkled blood of the holy Victim of Calvary, sprinkled on the heavenly altar, also has a voice, and a voice which speaketh better than that of Abel; better, in that it speaks, not for vengeance, but for pardoning mercy; better, in that it procures the remission even of a penitent murderer's guilt; so that, being now justified through His blood we may all be saved from wrath through Him (Romans 5:9). And, if we are truly Christ'S, it is our blessed comfort to remember also that we are said (1 Peter 1:2) to have been chosen of God unto the sprinkling of this precious blood of Jesus Christ; words which remind us, not only that the blood of a Lamb without blemish and without spot has been presented unto God for us, but also that the reason for this distinguishing mercy is found, not in us, but in the free love of God, who chose us in Christ Jesus to this grace.

And as in the burnt-offering, so in the sin-offering, the blood was to be sprinkled by the priest. The teaching is the same in both cases. To present Christ before God, laying the hand of faith upon His head as our sin-offering, this is all we can do or are required to do. With the sprinkling of the blood we have nothing to do. In other words, the effective presentation of the blood before God is not to be secured by some act of our own; it is not something to be procured through some subjective experience, other or in addition to the faith which brings the Victim. As in the type, so in the Antitype, the sprinkling of the atoning bloodthat is, its application Godward as a propitiationis the work of our heavenly Priest. And our part in regard to it is simply and only this, that we entrust this work to Him. He will not disappoint us; He is appointed of God to this end, and He will see that it is done.

In a sacrifice in which the sprinkling of the blood occupies such a central and essential place in the symbolism, one would anticipate that this ceremony would never be dispensed with. Very strange it thus appears, at first sight, to find that to this law an exception was made. For it was ordained (Leviticus 5:11) that a man so poor that his means suffice not to bring even two doves or young pigeons, might bring, as a substitute, an offering of fine flour. From this, some have hastened to infer that the shedding of the blood, and therewith the idea of substituted life, was not essential to the idea of reconciliation with God; but with little reason. Most illogical and unreasonable it is to determine a principle, not from the general rule, but from an exception; especially when, as in this case, for the exception a reason can be shown, which is not inconsistent with the rule. For had no such exceptional offering been permitted in the case of the extremely poor man, it would have followed that there would have remained a class of persons in Israel whom God had excluded from the provision of the sin-offering, which He had made the inseparable condition of forgiveness. But two truths were to be set forth in the ritual; the one, atonement by means of a life surrendered in expiation of guilt; the other,as in a similar way in the burnt-offering,the sufficiency of God's gracious provision for even the neediest of sinners. Evidently, here was a case in which something must be sacrificed in the symbolism. One of these truths may be perfectly set forth; both cannot be, with equal perfectness; a choice must therefore be made, and is made in this exceptional regulation, so as to hold up clearly, even though at the expense of some distinctness in the other thought of expiation, the unlimited sufficiency of God's provision of forgiving grace.

And yet the prescriptions in this form of the offering were such as to prevent any one from confounding it with the meal-offering, which typified consecrated and accepted service. The oil and the frankincense which belonged to the latter are to be left out (Leviticus 5:11); incense, which typifies accepted prayer,thus reminding us of the unanswered prayer of the Holy Victim when He cried upon the cross, My God! My God! why hast Thou forsaken Me? and oil, which typifies the Holy Ghost,reminding us, again, how from the soul of the Son of God was mysteriously withdrawn in that same hour all the conscious presence and comfort of the Holy Spirit, which withdrawment alone could have wrung from His lips that unanswered prayer. And, again, whereas the meal for the meal-offering had no limit fixed as to quantity, in this case the amount is prescribedthe tenth part of an ephah (Leviticus 5:11); an amount which, from the story of the manna, appears to have represented the sustenance of one full day. Thus it was ordained that if, in the nature of the case, this sin-offering could not set forth the sacrifice of life by means of the shedding of blood, it should at least point in the same direction, by requiring that, so to speak, the support of life for one day shall be given up, as forfeited by sin.

All the other parts of the ceremonial are in this ordinance made to take a secondary place, or are omitted altogether. Not all of the offering is burnt upon the altar, but only a part; that part, however, the fat, the choicest; for the same reason as in the peace-offering. There is, indeed, a peculiar variation in the case of the offering of the two young pigeons, in that, of the one, the blood only was used in the sacrifice, while the other was wholly burnt like a burnt-offering. But for this variation the reason is evident enough in the nature of the victims. For in the case of a small creature like a bird, the fat would be so insignificant in quantity, and so difficult to separate with thoroughness from the flesh, that the ordinance must needs be varied, and a second bird be taken for the burning, as a substitute for the separated fat of larger animals. The symbolism is not essentially affected by the variation. What the burning of the fat means in other offerings, that also means the burning of the second bird in this case.