John Calvin Commentary Leviticus 1:5

"And he shall kill the bullock before Jehovah: and Aaron`s sons, the priests, shall present the blood, and sprinkle the blood round about upon the altar that is at the door of the tent of meeting." — Leviticus 1:5 (ASV)

And he shall kill the bullock. The ceremony of killing is further described, namely, that the priest should prepare the victim itself and pour its blood upon the altar. This was because it was not permissible for a private individual to kill the victim with his own hands; instead, what the priest did in their name was credited to them.²⁵⁰

However, it is worth noting that although they brought the pledge of reconciliation from their own homes, the ministers of expiation had to be sought elsewhere. No one was qualified for such a distinguished office except one who was graced by the holy anointing of God. It was, therefore, clearly shown that all mortals are unworthy to approach God to propitiate Him, and that the hands of all are, in a way, polluted or profane, except those that God Himself has purged.

For the honor of sacrificing came only from the grace of the Spirit, for which the external anointing was a pledge. We now understand how it was that individuals offered sacrifices to God, and yet the priest alone performed this office.

The altar was sprinkled with the blood so that the people would know that the blood poured from the victim did not fall on the ground but was consecrated to God and gave off, as it were, a sweet savor—just as the blood of Christ now appears before His face. I will not discuss the rest, since it does not seem worthwhile to elaborate on the third kind of offering, i.e., of birds.

Yet we must remember that up to this point, Moses only speaks of the burnt offerings, whose flesh was entirely burned; for this was not the case with all offerings, as we shall see later. Although, then, it is twice said that the priests shall lay the parts, the head and the fat, etc., we must not understand this to mean that he only commanded the fat and the head to be burned, but rather that nothing was to be left except the skin.

Some think that פדר pheder,²⁵¹ is a severed head, and I do not reject their opinion, as long as we do not exclude the fat. Whatever was unclean in the victim, God required it to be washed, so that it would not contaminate the offering.

The question now arises why it was burned, either wholly or partially. My own opinion is that by the fire, the efficacy of the Spirit is represented, on which all the benefit of the sacrifices depends. For unless Christ had suffered in the Spirit, He would not have been a propitiatory sacrifice.

Fire, then, was like the seasoning that gave their true savor to the sacrifices, because the blood of Christ was to be consecrated by the Spirit, so that it might cleanse us from all the stains of our sins. God intended this to be more fully represented in the burnt offerings, yet no victim was offered of which some part was not consumed by fire.

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

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