Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Leviticus 6:1
And the LORD spoke unto Moses, saying,
( c) Lev 6:1-7 [Heb. 5:20 26]. Damage done to the property of another by fraud or violence
This section of the laws regulating the Guilt-Offering has a special heading like that in Lev 5:14, introducing those laws, whereas the whole of the legislation with respect to the Sin-Offering has but one introductory heading in Lev 4:1. Many of these offences are dealt with in Exo 22:7-13 where the legal procedure is set forth; here they are regarded as a trespass against the Lord, and a sacrifice is demanded. It is thought that the cases treated here are those which are disclosed by the evil doer voluntarily because he has repented of his sin. The actions in question are not done ‘unwittingly’ and if discovered are liable to be punished by the judges (Exodus 22). Hence it is supposed that the cases here referred to are those which would not have been discovered but for the offender’s own confession.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
In the Hebrew Bible Lev 6:1-7 form part of Lev. 5. It is evident that they ought to do so.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
CHAPTER VI
Laws relative to detention of property intrusted to the care
of another, to robbery, and deceit, 1, 2;
finding of goods lost, keeping them from their owner, and
swearing falsely, 3.
Such a person shall not only restore what he has thus
unlawfully gotten, but shall add a fifth part of the value of
the property besides, 4, 5;
and bring a ram without blemish, for a trespass-offering to
the Lord, 6, 7.
Laws relative to the burnt-offering and the perpetual fire,
8-13.
Law of the meat-offering, and who may lawfully eat of it,
14-18.
Laws relative to the offerings of Aaron and his sons and their
successors, on the day of their anointing, 19-23.
Laws relative to the sin-offering, and those who might eat of
it, 24-30.
NOTES ON CHAP. VI
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
And the Lord spake unto Moses,…. Continuing his speech with him, for the same law of the trespass offering is still discoursed of, only with respect to different persons:
saying: as follows.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
(Ch. 5:14-6:7)
(Note: In the original the division of verses in the Hebrew text is followed; but we have thought it better to keep to the arrangement adopted in our English version. – Tr.)
The Trespass-Offerings. – These were presented for special sins, by which a person had contracted guilt, and therefore they are not included in the general festal sacrifices. Three kinds of offences are mentioned in this section as requiring trespass-offerings. The first is, “ if a soul commit a breach of trust, and sin in going wrong in the holy gifts of Jehovah. ” , lit., to cover, hence the cloak, over-coat, signifies to act secretly, unfaithfully, especially against Jehovah, either by falling away from Him into idolatry, by which the fitting honour was withheld from Jehovah (Lev 26:40; Deu 32:51; Jos 22:16), or by infringing upon His rights, abstracting something that rightfully belonged to Him. Thus in Jos 7:1; Jos 22:20, it is applied to fraud in relation to that which had been put under the ban; and in Num 5:12, Num 5:27,it is also applied to a married woman’s unfaithfulness to her husband: so that sin was called , when regarded as a violation of existing rights. “ The holy things of Jehovah ” were the holy gifts, sacrifices, first-fruits, tithes, etc., which were to be offered to Jehovah, and were assigned by Him to the priests for their revenue (see Lev 21:22). with is constructio praegnans: to sin in anything by taking away from Jehovah that which belonged to Him. , in error (see Lev 4:2): i.e., in a forgetful or negligent way. Whoever sinned in this way was to offer to the Lord as his guilt (see Lev 5:6) a ram from the flock without blemish for a trespass-offering (lit., guilt-offering), according to the estimate of Moses, whose place was afterwards taken by the officiating priest (Lev 27:12; Num 18:16). “ money of shekels, ” i.e., several shekels in amount, which Abenezra and others have explained, no doubt correctly, as meaning that the ram was to be worth more than one shekel, two shekels at least. The expression is probably kept indefinite, for the purpose of leaving some margin for the valuation, so that there might be a certain proportion between the value of the ram and the magnitude of the trespass committed (see Oehler ut sup. p. 645). “ In the holy shekel: ” see Exo 30:13. At the same time, the culprit was to make compensation for the fraud committed in the holy thing, and add a fifth (of the value) over, as in the case of the redemption of the first-born, of the vegetable tithe, or of what had been vowed to God (Lev 27:27, Lev 27:31, and Lev 27:13, Lev 27:15, Lev 27:19). The ceremony to be observed in the offering of the ram is described in Lev 7:1. It was the same as that of the sin-offerings, whose blood was not brought into the holy place, except with regard to the sprinkling of the blood, and in this the trespass-offering resembled the burnt-offerings and peace-offerings.
The second case (Lev 5:17-19), from its very position between the other two, which both refer to the violation of rights, must belong to the same category; although the sin is introduced with the formula used in Lev 4:27 in connection with those sins which were to be expiated by a sin-offering. But the violation of right can only have consisted in an invasion of Jehovah’s rights with regard to Israel, and not, as Knobel supposes, in an invasion of the rights of private Israelites, as distinguished from the priests; an antithesis of which there is not the slightest indication. This is evident from the fact, that the case before us is linked on to the previous one without anything intervening; whereas the next case, which treats of the violation of the rights of a neighbour, is separated by a special introductory formula. The expression, “ and wist it not, ” refers to ignorance of the sin, and not of the divine commands; as may be clearly seen from Lev 5:18: “the priest shall make an atonement for him concerning his error, which he committed without knowing it.” The trespass-offering was the same as in the former case, and was also to be valued by the priest; but no compensation is mentioned, probably because the violation of right, which consisted in the transgression of one of the commands of God, was of such a kind as not to allow of material compensation. The third case (Lev 6:1-7) is distinguished from the other two by a new introductory formula. The sin and unfaithfulness to Jehovah are manifested in this case in a violation of the rights of a neighbour. “ If a man deny to his neighbour ( with a double obj., to deny a thing to a person) a pikkadon (i.e., a deposit, a thing entrusted to him to keep, Gen 41:36), or , “ a thing placed in his hand ” (handed over to him as a pledge) “or , a thing robbed ” (i.e., the property of a neighbour unjustly appropriated, whether a well, a field, or cattle, Gen 21:25; Mic 2:2; Job 24:2), “ or if he have oppressed his neighbour ” (i.e., forced something from him or withheld it unjustly, Lev 19:13; Deu 24:14; Jos 12:8; Mal 3:5), “ or have found a lost thing and denies it, and thereby swears to his lie ” (i.e., rests his oath upon a lie), “ on account of one of all that a man is accustomed to do to sin therewith: ” the false swearing here refers not merely to a denial of what is found, but to all the crimes mentioned, which originated in avarice and selfishness, but through the false swearing became frauds against Jehovah, adding guilt towards God to the injustice done to the neighbour, and requiring, therefore, not only that a material restitution should be made to the neighbour, but that compensation should be made to God as well. Whatever had been robbed, or taken by force, or entrusted or found, and anything about which a man had sworn falsely (Lev 6:4, Lev 6:5), was to be restored “ according to its sum ” (cf. Exo 30:12; Num 1:2, etc.), i.e., in its full value; beside which, he was to “ add its fifths ” (on the plural, see Ges. 87, 2; Ew. 186 e), i.e., in every one of the things abstracted or withheld unjustly the fifth part of the value was to be added to the full amount (as in Lev 5:16). “ To him to whom it (belongs), shall he give it ” : in the day when he makes atonement for his trespass, i.e., offers his trespass-offering. The trespass (guilt) against Jehovah was to be taken away by the trespass-offering according to the valuation of the priest, as in Lev 5:15, Lev 5:16, and Lev 5:18, that he might receive expiation and forgiveness on account of what he had done.
If now, in order to obtain a clear view of the much canvassed difference between the sin-offerings and trespass-offerings,
(Note: For the different views, see Bhr’s Symbolik; Winer’s bibl. R. W.; Kurtz on Sacrificial Worship; Riehm, theol. Stud. und Krit. 1854, pp. 93ff.; Rinck, id. 1855, p. 369; Oehler in Herzog’s Cycl.)
we look at once at the other cases, for which trespass-offerings were commanded in the law; we find in Num 5:5-8 not only a trespass against Jehovah, but an unjust withdrawal of the property of a neighbour, clearly mentioned as a crime, for which material compensation was to be made with the addition of a fifth of its value, just as in Lev 5:2-7 of the present chapter. So also the guilt of a man who had lain with the slave of another (Lev 19:20-22) did not come into the ordinary category of adultery, but into that of an unjust invasion of the domain of another’s property; though in this case, as the crime could not be estimated in money, instead of material compensation being made, a civil punishment (viz., bodily scourging) was to be inflicted; and for the same reason nothing is said about the valuation of the sacrificial ram. Lastly, in the trespass-offerings for the cleansing of a leper (Lev 14:12.), or of a Nazarite who had been defiled by a corpse (Num 6:12), it is true we cannot show in what definite way the rights of Jehovah were violated (see the explanation of these passages), but the sacrifices themselves served to procure the restoration of the persons in question to certain covenant rights which they had lost; so that even here the trespass-offering, for which moreover only a male sheep was demanded, was to be regarded as a compensation or equivalent for the rights to be restored. From all these cases it is perfectly evident, that the idea of satisfaction for a right, which had been violated but was about to be restored or recovered, lay at the foundation of the trespass-offering,
(Note: Even in the case of the trespass-offering, which those who had taken heathen wives offered at Ezra’s instigation (Ezr 10:18.), it had reference to a trespass (cf. vv. 2 and 10), an act of unfaithfulness to Jehovah, which demanded satisfaction. And so again the Philistines (1Sa 6:3.), when presenting gifts as a trespass-offering for Jehovah, rendered satisfaction for the robbery committed upon Him by the removal of the ark of the covenant.)
and the ritual also points to this. The animal sacrificed was always a ram, except in the cases mentioned in Lev 14:12. and Num 6:12. This fact alone clearly distinguishes the trespass-offerings from the sin-offerings, for which all kinds of sacrifices were offered from an ox to a pigeon, the choice of the animal being regulated by the position of the sinner and the magnitude of his sin. But they are distinguished still more by the fact, that in the case of all the sin-offerings the blood was to be put upon the horns of the altar, or even taken into the sanctuary itself, whereas the blood of the trespass-offerings, like that of the burnt and peace-offerings, was merely swung against the wall of the altar (Lev 7:2). Lastly, they were also distinguished by the fact, that in the trespass-offering the ram was in most instances to be valued by the priest, not for the purpose of determining its actual value, which could not vary very materially in rams of the same kind, but to fix upon it symbolically the value of the trespass for which compensation was required. Hence there can be no doubt, that as the idea of the expiation of sin, which was embodied in the sprinkling of the blood, was most prominent in the sin-offering; so the idea of satisfaction for the restoration of rights that had been violated or disturbed came into the foreground in the trespass-offering. This satisfaction was to be actually made, wherever the guilt admitted of a material valuation, by means of payment or penance; and in addition to this, the animal was raised by the priestly valuation into the authorized bearer of the satisfaction to be rendered to the rights of God, through the sacrifice of which the culprit could obtain the expiation of his guilt.
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
| Law of the Trespass-Offering. | B. C. 1490. |
1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 2 If a soul sin, and commit a trespass against the LORD, and lie unto his neighbour in that which was delivered him to keep, or in fellowship, or in a thing taken away by violence, or hath deceived his neighbour; 3 Or have found that which was lost, and lieth concerning it, and sweareth falsely; in any of all these that a man doeth, sinning therein: 4 Then it shall be, because he hath sinned, and is guilty, that he shall restore that which he took violently away, or the thing which he hath deceitfully gotten, or that which was delivered him to keep, or the lost thing which he found, 5 Or all that about which he hath sworn falsely; he shall even restore it in the principal, and shall add the fifth part more thereto, and give it unto him to whom it appertaineth, in the day of his trespass offering. 6 And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the LORD, a ram without blemish out of the flock, with thy estimation, for a trespass offering, unto the priest: 7 And the priest shall make an atonement for him before the LORD: and it shall be forgiven him for any thing of all that he hath done in trespassing therein.
This is the latter part of the law of the trespass-offering: the former part, which concerned trespasses about holy things, we had in the close of the foregoing chapter; this concerns trespasses in common things. Observe here,
I. The trespass supposed, Lev 6:2; Lev 6:3. Though all the instances relate to our neighbour, yet it is called a trespass against the Lord, because, though the injury be done immediately to our neighbour, yet an affront is thereby given to his Maker and our Master. He that speaks evil of his brother is said to speak evil of the law, and consequently of the Law-maker, Jam. iv. 11. Though the person injured be ever so mean and despicable, and every way our inferior, yet the injury reflects upon that God who has made the command of loving our neighbour second to that of loving himself. The trespasses specified are, 1. Denying a trust: If a man lie unto his neighbour in that which was delivered him to keep, or, which is worse, which was lent him for his use. If we claim that as our own which is only borrowed, left in our custody, or committed to our care, this is a trespass against the Lord, who, for the benefit of human society, will have property and truth maintained. 2. Defrauding a partner: If a man lie in fellowship, claiming a sole interest in that wherein he has but a joint-interest. 3. Disowning a manifest wrong: If a man has the front to lie in a thing taken away by violence, which ordinarily cannot be hid. 4. Deceiving in commerce, or, as some think, by false accusation; if a man have deceitfully oppressed his neighbour, as some read it, either withholding what is due or extorting what is not. 5. Detaining what is found, and denying it (v. 3); if a man have found that which was lost, he must not call it his own presently, but endeavour to find out the owner, to whom it must be returned; this is doing as we would be done by: but he that lies concerning it, that falsely says he knows nothing of it, especially if he back this lie with a false oath, trespasseth against the Lord, who to every thing that is said is a witness, but in an oath he is the party appealed to, and highly affronted when he is called to witness to a lie.
II. The trespass-offering appointed. 1. In the day of his trespass-offering he must make satisfaction to his brother. This must be first done if thy brother hath aught against thee: Because he hath sinned and is guilty, (Lev 6:4; Lev 6:5), that is, is convicted of his guilt by his own conscience, and is touched with remorse for it; seeing himself guilty before God, let him faithfully restore all that he has got by fraud or oppression, with a fifth part added, to make amends to the owner for the loss and trouble he had sustained in the mean time; let him account both for debt and damages. Note, Where wrong has been done restitution must be made; and till it is made to the utmost of our power, or an equivalent accepted by the person wronged, we cannot have the comfort of the forgiveness of the sin; for the keeping of what is unjustly got avows the taking, and both together make but one continued act of unrighteousness. To repent is to undo what we have done amiss, which (whatever we pretend) we cannot be said to do till we restore what has been got by it, as Zaccheus (Luke xix. 8), and make satisfaction for the wrong done. 2. He must then come and offer his gift, must bring his trespass-offering to the Lord whom he had offended; and the priest must make an atonement for him, Lev 6:6; Lev 6:7. This trespass-offering could not, of itself, make satisfaction for sin, nor reconciliation between God and the sinner, but as it signified the atonement that was to be made by our Lord Jesus, when he should make his soul an offering or sin, a trespass-offering; it is the same word that is here used, Isa. liii. 10. The trespasses here mentioned are trespasses still against the law of Christ, which insists as much upon justice and truth as ever the law of nature or the law of Moses did; and though now we may have them pardoned without a trespass-offering, yet not without true repentance, restitution, reformation, and a humble faith in the righteousness of Christ: and, if any make the more bold with these sins because they are not now put to the expense of a trespass-offering for them, they turn the grace of God into wantonness, and so bring upon themselves a swift destruction. The Lord is the avenger of all such, 1 Thess. iv. 6.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
LEVITICUS- CHAPTER SIX
Verses 1-7:
In the Hebrew text these seven verses are included in Chapter Five. This text is a listing of cases of moral offenses which demand a Trespass Offering.
The text teaches that it is a trespass against the Lord for one to steal from his neighbor, to lie to him, or to deal falsely with him in any way. This is an expansion of earlier legislation on the subject of that which one holds in trust for another, Ex 22:7-13.
The Law required that if an Israelite saw any stray livestock belonging to the his neighbor, he must bring the animal to his own house, and care for it as his own, until the neighbor searched for it. He then must restore the animal to his neighbor, De 22:2, 3. In the event a legal problem should arise over the ownership of the animal, there must be an “oath of the Lord” between the two parties. One who swore falsely was guilty of trespass (sin) against God, because he had sworn an oath in the Name of God. He must offer a Trespass Offering in expiation for his sin.
Any profit made by violence or by fraud must be given up. A fine was imposed; 20% of the fair retail value of the thing appropriated. This restitution must be made the same day the trespass occurred, and before the Trespass Offering would be accepted.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
1. And the Lord spake unto Moses. Moses now no longer treats of the means of expiating errors when the sinner is guilty through thoughtlessness; but he prescribes the mode of reconciliation, when any one shall have wilfully and designedly offended God. And this is well worthy of notice, lest those who may have been guilty of voluntary sin should doubt whether God will be propitiated towards them, provided they make application to the one sacrifice of Christ, in which consists the entire substance of the shadows of the Law. We must indeed beware lest we indulge ourselves under the cover of God’s clemency and readiness to pardon, — for the lust of the flesh provokes us to sin more than enough, without the addition of this snare, — nor is it less than a blasphemous insult to God to take occasion and license for sin, from the fact of His willingness to pardon. Let then the fear of God reign in us, which will repress our wicked desires like a rein, so that we should not wilfully fall into sin; and let His mercy rather engender the hatred and detestation of sin in our hearts, than incite us to audacity. Yet, at the same time, we must prudently take heed, lest if we imagine God to be inexorable to our voluntary sins, this excessive severity should overthrow the hope of salvation even in those who are the holiest. For even now-a-days there are some madmen who deny pardon to all who may have chanted to fall through the infirmity of the flesh, since to morose men this severity has its charms, and by this hallucination Novatus (271) greatly troubled the Church of old. But if we all honestly examine ourselves, it will plainly appear that those rigid censors, who affect the reputation of sanctity by immoderate asperity, are the grossest hypocrites. For if they would abandon their pride, and examine into their lives, which of them would find himself free from concupiscence? and whose conscience must not often smite him?
It is then monstrous blindness to exalt men, clothed in human flesh, to such a pitch of perfection, as that their conscience should not convict them of any fault or blame. And nothing is more pestilent than this imposture of the devil, excluding from the hope of pardon those who knowingly and willingly have sinned; since there is not one even of God’s best servants, in whom the corrupt affections of the flesh do not sometimes prevail; for although they be neither adulterers, nor thieves, nor murderers, yet there is none whom the last Commandment of the Law — “Thou shalt not covet,” — does not convict of sin. And assuredly the more advance one has made in endeavors after purity, the more he feels and acknowledges that he is still very far from reaching its goal. Therefore, unless we would purposely close the gate of salvation against us, we must hold that God is placable towards all, who trust that their sin is forgiven them by the sacrifice of Christ; for God is neither changed, nor is our condition worse than that of the fathers, whereas under the Law God appointed sacrifices for the expiation even of voluntary offenses. Hence it follows, that although we are convicted of voluntary sin, yet a remedy is set before us in the Gospel for procuring pardon: else would these ancient figures be more than delusive, which had no other object than to be testimonies and mirrors of the grace which was finally manifested to us in Christ. If there ought to be a mutual agreement between the external representation of grace under the Law, and the spiritual effect which Christ brought in, it plainly appears that sins are no less forgiven to us now, than to the ancient people; and thus that believers are reminded by this symbol, that they are not to despair of reconciliation, whilst they take no pleasure in their sins; but rather that they should boldly seek for pardon in the perpetual sacrifice which constantly renders God favorable to all the godly. And surely since repentance and faith are the sure pledges of God’s favor, it cannot be but that they should be received into His grace who are endued with these two gifts. Besides, the remission of sins is an inestimable treasure, which God has deposited in His Church, to be the peculiar blessing of His children; as the Confession of Faith declares, “I believe in the Holy Catholic Church, the forgiveness of sins.” Nor would what Paul proclaims concerning the embassy entrusted to him be consistent, unless Christ’s satisfaction daily propitiated God towards believers. (2Co 5:20.)
The question here is not about some trifling offense, but about the crime of unfaithfulness, doubled by the addition of perjury. It is true that perfidy, or deceit, or violence, are first mentioned, to mark the grossness of the sin; but the guilt lies chiefly in the profanation of God’s name when the injury done to man is sheltered under a false oath. At any rate, he is admitted to pardon who has both iniquitously deceived his brother and has impiously abused God’s name. Hence it appears that God spares wretched sinners although they may have contaminated themselves by faithlessness, and have aggravated the crime committed against men by sacrilege, having insulted God through their perjury. But although Moses only enumerates transgressions of the Eighth Commandment, still he teaches, according to his usual manner, by synecdoche what must be done in the case of other offenses also. If, then, anything shall have been taken away by violence, or by fraud, and perjury has been superadded, he commands not only that satisfaction should be made to the neighbor who is defrauded, but that the price of atonement should also be offered to God. And the reason for this is expressly given, because not only has a mortal man been injured, but God has also been offended, who would have men conduct themselves justly and reverently towards each other; and then the crime is carried to extremity by the violation of God’s sacred name. The sacrifice is not indeed required from a thief or robber, or from the denier of a deposit, or the appropriator of anything lost, unless they have also perjured themselves; yet the words of Moses are not without their weight: if any one, by the denial of a deposit, or by theft, or robbery, shall have “committed a trespass against the Lord;” whereby he signifies, that whenever an injury is inflicted on men, God in their person is offended, because every transgression of the Law violates and perverts His justice.
We shall elsewhere see more about the restitution to be made in case of theft or robbery, especially when a person has been found guilty. This point, however, is alone referred to directly in this passage, viz., that whoever injures or inflicts a loss upon his brother, incurs guilt and condemnation before God; but if he proceeds to such a pitch of obstinacy, as to cover his crime by falsely appealing to the sacred name of God, he is polluted by double iniquity, so that compensation of the damage is not sufficient, but he must also make atonement to God. But we must understand this of those who, having escaped from the fear of punishment, voluntarily repent. The notion of some commentators who alter the copula into the disjunctive particle, and consider perjury to be one of the various sins referred to, I reject as foreign to the meaning of Moses. Others explain it thus: “If any shall have committed robbery or theft, or shall have sworn falsely about a thing lawful in itself:” but I do not see why the words should be wrested thus; besides, their mistake is refitted by the context itself, in which restitution is coupled with the sacrifices, and this could not be applicable unless perjury were conjoined also with fraud or violence. Nor does the disjunctive particle which follows help them; for after he has commanded what was taken away by force or deceit to be restored, because all the various points could not be separately expressed, it is added, “Or all that about which he hath sworn falsely,” not as if the guilt of perjury had been contracted in any other matters, but that he might cut away all means of subterfuge, which the repetition also confirms; for, after having introduced the crime of swearing falsely, he again, as if more clearly explaining what he had said, commands the restitution of the principal, together with the fifth part. But what is it that he commands to be restored except what the deceiver had kept back under cover of his oath? Of this a clearer exposition will be found under the Eighth Commandment.
A satisfaction is therefore enjoined to be made towards men together with the offering. Nor is it without reason that God commands them to make up the loss on the day when the offering is made, lest hypocrites should promise themselves impunity after having enriched themselves by the property of another. It was indeed permitted them to restore their property to others before they propitiated God by the sacrifice; but God will not have His altar defiled, which would be the case if thieves or robbers offered victims belonging to others. He would, therefore, have the hands of those who sacrifice cleansed from pollution. And surely those who offer a victim to God out of spoils unjustly obtained, in some measure implicate Him as a participator in their crime. Hence may profitable instruction be drawn, viz., that hypocrites busy themselves in vain in reconciling God to themselves, unless they honestly restore what they have unjustly taken. Meanwhile we must observe the distinction in the words of Moses between the satisfaction made to men and the sin-offering which propitiates God; for we gather from hence, as I have said, that they obtain not pardon from God who desire to remain enriched by their stolen property; and yet that God is not appeased by anything but sacrifice. Clear proof of this latter point may be gathered from the whole Law, which prescribes but one means of reconciling God, i.e., when the sinner makes atonement for himself by offering a victim. Hence the diabolical figment as to satisfactions is refuted (272) by which the Papists imagine that they are redeemed from God’s judgment; for although God shall have remitted the guilt, they still think that the liability to punishment remains, until the sinner shall have delivered himself by his own works. To this end they have invented works of supererogation, to be meritorious in redeeming from punishment; hence, too, purgatory has come into existence. But when you have studied all the writings of Moses, and diligently weighed whatsoever is revealed in the Law as to the means of appeasing God, you will find that the Jews were everywhere brought back to sacrifices. Now, it is certain that whatever is attributed to sacrifices is so much taken away from men’s own works. But if it were not God’s intention to down His ancient people to outward ceremonies, it follows that it is only by the one Mediator, through the outpouring of His blood, that men are absolved from all liability either to guilt or punishment, so as to be restored to favor by God.
(271) Novatus, a Carthaginian Presbyter, who in conjunction with Novatian a Presbyter of Rome, was the founder of the Novatian sect, a.d. 251, also called Cathari, or Aristeri. They “considered the genuine Church of Christ to be a society, where virtue and innocence reigned universally, and refused any longer to acknowledge those as its members who had even once degenerated into unrighteousness.” — Waddington’s Church Hist., vol. 1 pp. 165, 166.
C. mentions, Inst., book 4, ch. 1, sect. 23, (Calvin Society’s Translation, vol. 3, p. 35,) the similarity of some of the opinions held by the Anabaptists of his day to those of the Novatians.
(272) For a statement of this doctrine, see Canons of the Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Can. 30; Sess. 14. Caput. 8, 9, Can. 12, 13, 14, 15. See C.’s “ Antidote to the Canons of the Council of Trent,” (Calvin Society’s Edition,) p. 160.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
Trespass Offerings: and Priestly Consecration Offerings
SUGGESTIVE READINGS
Lev. 6:2.Trespass against the Lord and lie unto his neighbour. Wrong done to man is done to God. To deceive and defraud our neighbour is an insult to Jehovah. To harm man is to inflict injury on God; as to touch His people is to touch the apple of His eye; and as Sauls persecution of the saints was persecution of Christ Himself (Act. 9:5). Take heed, lest acts of injustice to others so affect heaven as to evoke remonstrance and rebuke.
Lev. 6:2-3.Violence, or hath deceived, or sweareth falsely. Evil is fruitful in forms of development. Two distinct classes of wrong are here indicated: embezzlement of things placed confidingly by a neighbour in his hand, that which was delivered him to keep, or in fellowship [Lit. something placed in his hand, a deposit]; and now, plunder and fraud, a neighbours property being possessed with violence and seizure. When Adam revolted from obedience to God it introduced a fraudulent principle into human life which soon wrought wrong between man and man. He who can sin against the Lord will be found equally capable of sinning against man. Dishonesty heavenward is likely to be confirmed by dishonesty in transaction with neighbours. There is no guarantee of integrity where there is impiety. Righteousness before God means rightness towards man.
Lev. 6:5.Restore it in the principal. Reparation should follow repentance, and precede propitiation. First, set right the evil done to your neighbour, then come to the Lord for acceptance. It is an easy and delusive repentance of sinsin done to men on every hand, sin continued for years, sin working sorrow in homes and in social circlesif the penitent may leave unremedied all this woful wrong among men, and free himself from further concern by simply on his knees lamenting all before God. No! if convinced of guilt, go and do right where your selfishness, and greed, and fraudulence have wrought havoc and misery; wipe out the blots of crime on human pathways, then come for appeasement and acceptance to the Lord. Bring forth fruit meet for repentance (Mat. 3:7-10).
Add a fifth part more. Let there be an overflow of generosity to compensate for former selfishness. And let Christian life be distinguished by a liberal diffusion of your possessions, in order both to lessen the cares of neighbours and attest the reality of your conversion. Freely ye have received, freely give.
Lev. 6:6.Bring his trespass offering. Zacchus might pledge himself if he had taken anything from any man by false accusation to restore him fourfold; but to lavish reparation on man could not obliterate the guilt of his actions as concerns the law and holiness of God. There must be atonement. Good deeds and generous benefactions cannot expunge guiltiness of soul. And besides the actual trespasses, which reparation may in part requite, there remains the criminality of conscience, the impurity of soul, the impiety towards God. And it is blood that maketh atonement for the soul.
Lev. 6:8-13.The burnt offering, because of the burning upon the altar, etc. Every evening a lamb was sacrificed (Exo. 29:38), and these directions refer to the ritual; the burning was to be all night until the morning. And the altar fire was ceaselessly to be maintained; symbolic of
(1) the perpetual atonement needed by men;
(2) the continuous acceptance of worship by God:
(3) the uninterrupted relationship of Jehovah with Israel. In this Christian epoch we maintain no ceaseless fire, but we enjoy a ceaseless atonement, which assures us of undoubted acceptance and unbroken fellowship with God. Instead of the daily feeding of the altar fire with wood, we may devote afresh daily our love and obedience, for these should never go out in Christian lives.
Lev. 6:14-18.The meat offering. This section adds directions for the priests, supplementing the regulation given in Lev. 2:1-3.
Lev. 6:18.Every one that toucheth them shall be holy. Either this contact with holy things claimed that the person so touched should be set apart for God, or the contact communicated a sanctity which henceforth secured his consecration. Derived sanctity: it is a law in continuous operation: many souls having been drawn to Christ through the influence of such contact with holy things as e.g. the Bible, the Sanctuary, etc.; or with holy persons, as godly parents, Christian friends, ministers of the Lord Jesus. Grace goes forth from them, as virtue went out from Jesus to heal. Seek such contact, if yet in your sins. Send out such sanctifying energy, if the sacred grace is in you.
Lev. 6:19-23.Consecration offerings for the priest in the day when he is anointed. With glad thank offerings the priest was to seal his dedication to the sacerdotal office. No tone or aspect of despondency would be proper to such an incident. It was to high privilege and honour the young priest was set apart: entire separation for the Divine service. And to what joyous life can we aspire comparable to this? Yield yourselves unto God as those that are alive from the dead. The entrance upon a sacred life is a blissful incident, and should be marked with festive dedications
Lev. 6:24-30.The sin offering killed before the Lord. Supplementary directions are supplied to Lev. 4:1-5. So specially sacred was the blood of the sin offering that, if perchance a spray of the blood of the victim spurted out upon the priests garments, the stain must be dealt with as of solemn consequence, and even the vessel in which the stained garment was washed (Lev. 6:27-28). Thus specific were Jehovahs regulations that the atoning blood might not be profaned. How much more should the precious blood of Christ be cherished as a holy thing, and guarded from profanation! (Heb. 10:29). From within that ancient temple a voice of appeal comes to us to this day that we solemnly regard the blood of atonement, and so value it that we prize its sanctifying virtue and honour its efficacy by a blameless life.
SECTIONAL HOMILIES, CHAPTER Lev. 6:1-12
Topic: DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN TRESPASSES AGAINST GOD AND AGAINST MEN.
(Connect Lev. 5:15-19 with Lev. 6:1-7.)
The trespasses in ch. 5. relate to misconduct in the holy things of the Lord; the trespasses in ch. 6. refer to misdeeds in the common transactions and relations of life.
Distinction A: Note that the expression, if a soul sin through ignorance, which occurs in the former, is omitted in the latter. The reason for this is obvious
I. The claims which stand connected with the holy things of the Lord must pass infinitely BEYOND THE REACH OF THE MOST ELEVATED HUMAN SENSIBILITY. Those claims may be continually interfered with, continually trespassed upon, and the trespassers be not aware of the fact.
1. Mans conscience can never be the regulator in the sanctuary of God. How often may we have wronged God in His holy things without ever taking a note of it in the tablet of conscience, yea, without having the competency to detect it! [See Mal. 3:8.]
2. Gods holiness alone must fix the standard when Gods rights are in question. That higher light must shine on mans conscience, therefore, to correct his ignorance of the laws which governed the sanctuary.
II. On the other hand, the HUMAN CONSCIENCE CAN READILY GRASP THE FULL AMOUNT OF THE HUMAN CLAIM, and can readily take cognizance of any interference with such claim.
1. When mans rights are in question, conscience acts as a prompt and efficient standard. The wrong which the human eye can see and the human heart feel, the human conscience can judge. A man could not, through ignorance, tell a lie, swear falsely, act violently, deceive his neighbour, or find a lost thing and deny it. These were all plain and palpable acts, lying within the range of the most sluggish sensibility.
2. Ignorance is, therefore, not allowed as qualifying and condoning mens conduct in the common affairs of life.
How blessed it is to know that the precious blood of Christ has settled all questions with respect to God or man, our sins of ignorance or our known sins! Here lies the deep and settled foundation of the believers peace. The Cross has divinely met all.
Distinction B: Note that when it was a question of trespass in the holy things of the Lord, the unblemished sacrifice was first introduced, and afterward the principal and the fifth. This order was reversed when it was a question of the common affairs of life. [Compare ch. Lev. 5:15-16, with ch. Lev. 6:4-7.] The reason of this is equally obvious
I. When the Divine rights were infringed the BLOOD OF ATONEMENT was the prominent requirement.
If an Israelite had, by an act of trespass, deranged his relation with Jehovah, the order was sacrifice and restitution.
II. When human rights were infringed, RESTITUTION would naturally assume the leading place in the mind.
If an Israelite, by an act of trespass, had deranged his relation with his neighbour, the order was restitution and then sacrifice.
1. To wrong a fellow-man interferes with communion with God. And that communion can only be restored on the ground of atonement. Mere restitution would not avail. It might satisfy the injured man, but could form no basis of restored communion with God. To restore the principal and add the fifth would still leave the sin remaining; and without shedding of blood is no remission.
2. To set right the wrong to the injured man, restitution is efficacious. If thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there remember that thy brother hast aught against, thee, leave there thy gift before the altar and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift (Mat. 5:23-24).
The claims which arise out of our human relations must not be disregarded. They must ever get their proper place in the heart. [Compare C. H. M.]
Topic: HARM DONE BY TRESPASS (Lev. 6:2-4)
In the trespass against the Lord, considered in ch. 5., there was specific declaration as to the harm done by that trespass; and for that harm the trespasser had to make amends (ch. Lev. 5:15-16). In this chapter trespasses against a neighbour are under consideration, and these trespasses are explained as being deeds of actual wrong. Not imaginary or sentimental trespasses, but acts. Which statement shows how truly the greatest enemy of mankind is man. Or, as Robert Burns declares it:
Mans inhumanity to man
Makes countless thousands mourn.
In the same vein writes Young, in his Night Thoughts:
Inhumanity is caught from man,
From smiling man.
[See Addenda, p. 86, Injury.]
I. THE INJURY WROUGHT BY TRESPASS.
Ample terms are employed here to describe the forms of wrong-doing. We read of violently taking, deceitfully getting, and swearing falsely about that which is found.
1. Trespass defined. In every act of trespass practical and positive wrong was done; there was an act of evil by which another was injured. Trespass differed from sin in this: sin marked what man was in himself, trespass described what man had done. Deeds of wrong, therefore, are here under consideration; actual wrong and robbery.
2. Trespass conditioned. It might be wrought in ignorance (ch. Lev. 5:15; Lev. 5:17; Lev. 5:19) when done against the Lord; and it is implied even in these acts of wrong against man that the trespasser did not deliberately, and of malice aforethought do these acts, but under impulse or through connivance, or simply from inattention. For it comes to be recognised as trespass afterwards, not at the time of the act. God has harsher names and heavier judgments for wrong-doing wrought in full consciousness and full light. Still, recognised or unrecognised, it is trespass.
3. Trespass weighed. Neither our conscience, nor our knowledge, nor our ability are allowed to be the standard by which our actions are measured, weighed, judged; but Gods truth. Though he wist it not, yet is he guilty; he hath certainly trespassed against the Lord (ch Lev. 5:17-19). Mans judgment of his own acts is not to be trusted. If a mans conscience or his light were the standard, every man would weigh his conduct by a different rule; there would be no absolute standard of right and wrong. Evil then would consist, not in the act itself, but in mans estimate or perception thereof. Sin has blinded our perceptions to the sinfulness of sin; but that does not alter the fact. God measures and weighs our trespasses by His Word.
4. Trespass recognised. Light comes in at last, and the wrong-doer discovers that he has committed a trespass. When he knoweth of it (Lev. 5:4); and in due course transgression makes itself known to the transgressor. Light shines in the darkness, and its beams fall about every life, and will ultimately bring to light the hidden things of darkness. Conscience in man will awake, and memory will convict the sinner of his long-forgotten sin.
Conscience mutinies in a mans bosom;
It fills one full of obstacles.Shakespeare.
There is no future pang
Can deal that justice on the self-condemned
He deals on his own soul.Byron.
Conscience is harder than our enemies,
Knows more, accuses with more nicety.George Eliot.
Yet still there whispers the small voice within,
Heard thro gains silence, and oer glorys din;
Whatever creed be taught or land be trod,
Mans conscience is the oracle of God.Byron.
II. THE REPARATION MADE FOR TRESPASS.
When the trespass was realised, it had to be expiated by sacrifice, and amends had to be made to the injured neighbour.
1. Trespass atoned. Blessed be God (whose voice within us, whose inspired Word, whose convincing Spirit brings home to us our trespass), that His grace has found a Ransom. He shall bring his trespass offering unto the Lord, etc. (Lev. 6:6). He that sees Jesus in the trespass offering, sees trespass expiated, annihilated; for Christ has assumed its guiltiness, borne its judgment, paid its penalty. Not alone was His soul made an offering for sin, but He was wounded for our transgressions (Isa. 53:5-10).
2. Trespass compensated. For the wrongs the trespasser has done to his neighbour restitution must be made: He shall even restore it in the principal (Lev. 6:5). Our Lord has made full reparation for the wrong we had doneto God and man; satisfying God by His own merits given for our demerits, and blessing man by ensuring to him richer advantages than those which sin forfeited.
Wherefore this reparation after expiation? Thus: for a victim merely to die would leave the injured neighbour a loser still. Though the trespasser were punished, the injury would remain. The death of the wrong-doer would not restore defrauded rights. Yet until this was done satisfaction could not be regarded as perfect; nor could justice be said to have righted the wrong. Therefore, punishment fell upon the victim, and the wrong was also repaired. So that in the atonement for trespass we find
1. Judgment inflicted. The victims life is forfeited, as was the sinners for his sin. And Christ gave His life as mans substituted victim.
2. Injury compensated. The evil had to be remedied. Having wrought evil in time past of our lives (comp. Eph. 2:2-3), we, saved by Christ Jesus, now give ourselves to earnest effort to repair the wrong done; to glorify God, whom we had wronged by disobedience and dishonour; to benefit men, whom we had harmed by sinful influence and example. To these are to be added:
3. Dues exceeded. More than the original loss had to be repaid; the wrong more than remedied. A fifth part more had to be added thereto. For there was in Christs obedience and virtue a surplus, an excess of merit presented to God, passing beyond mans demerit. And in Christian devotedness and ministry there are blessings brought to men by man far more sacred, and tender, and consolatory, and helpful, which more than outweigh all the injury done to men by man. Let him know that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way, shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins (Jas. 5:20). [See Addenda p. 87, Faithlessness.]
Topic: RESTITUTION MADE FOR WRONG (Lev. 6:4-5)
Besides the original due was added a fifth. Consider
i. How this was fulfilled for us in Christ. At His hands God received more than all whereof man had robbed Him.
ii. The consequence of this to those in Christ. They are complete in Him through whom we have received the atonement.
But the practical bearing of that transaction commands attention. Enquire in what way. and how far, this view of Christs act of reparation should prove an incentive and an example to us.
1. RESTITUTION MADE by those who are in fellowship with Christ.
By standing in behalf of man Christ, makes full restitution for mans wrong and trespass; hot with corruptible things, as silver and gold (1Pe. 1:18-19), but by the value of His own offering and obedience He repays our trespasses.
1. In this sense, of satisfying God for our trespasses, we can make no restitution. If Christ has not made it we are lost. The rest of our lives, if wholly spent for God, could never atone for our acts of trespass. Each day would bring its own proper claim. Works of supererogation, therefore, we could have none.
2. Yet there is a sense in which the soul in fellowship with Christ will make restitution. Not, indeed, to win acceptance, but as showing how, according to his measure, through the Spirit, he sympathises with Christ. As he has, in days past, as the servant of sin, robbed God and man of their rights, so now, as having been made free from sin, he will become the servant of righteousness (Rom. 6:22).
II. AMENDS SUPERADDED to the restitution offered.
In consequence of trespass, against God or man, more than their original claim was due to them.
1. Under the law, the claim on man was righteousness. If man dealt justly toward God and man nothing further could be claimed of him. But it became different when he had trespassed. Then, by Gods appointment
2. Right was no longer the measure of mans debt. The trespasser now is in no condition to attempt to deal out righteousness, either to God or man. The fact of our having become trespassers
(1) Gives God a claim upon us which is not the bare claim of right. Above and beyond this, the trespasser is a debtor. He requires more than the righteousness which sinless souls could have rendered; additional amends have to be made; something more than an equivalent for mans sin; thisChrists bounteous virtues; yea, and alsothat we love Him for His grace to us.
The law did not ask love; it asked of man rectitude! But God now asks more than rectitude; He desires and expects gratitude, affection, consecration.
For souls redeemed, for sins forgiven,
For means of grace, for hopes of heaven,
Father, what can to Thee be given,
Who givest all?
(2) Calls us to unselfish devotion to others. As the recipients of grace we are called to exhibit grace in all our transactions with others. Not dealing out justice to men, but generosity, and kindness, and unselfishness. Ye have heard that it hath been said, an eye for an eye; but I say unto you, resist not evil: do good to them that hate you; pray for them that despitefully use you (Mat. 5:38-44).
And when ye stand praying, forgive if ye have ought against any; that your Father also in heaven may forgive you your trespasses. But if you do not forgive, neither will your heavenly Father forgive you your trespasses (Mar. 11:25-26). [Comp. also Luk. 6:32-35.]
Yet how far is this principle of grace exceeding justice the rule of Christian lives? If we are just, how little concern have we as to being gracious in our dealings with fellow-men! We go to law (1Co. 6:1-7); we claim our rights, little thinking of the added fifth of the trespass offering.
Grace, not right, must be the law, as it is the hope, of the trespasser. [Comp. Jukes on the Offerings.]
OUTLINES ON VERSES OF CHAPTER Lev. 6:1-7
Lev. 6:2. Theme: THE DUTY OF HONESTY.
History and civilisation began with promulgation of law from Sinai, which would regulate mans conduct towards God and his neighbour. Israel in wilderness, not only a church, but commonwealth; hence, laws to govern civil and social relationships, as well as religions life. Society could not exist without respect to rights of property, and restraint of liberty. Israel in wilderness without laws would have been a horde of savages, where only the strongest would have survived. The Lords freemen were not to be out-laws and freebooters, but obedient servants of the most High. He would dwell with them, they were to dwell in peace with each other, and hold each other in mutual esteem. Every breach of trust, every species of dishonesty, strictly prohibited; when committed, amends to be made, and forgiveness sought. From the trespass offering we learn
I. THAT PROPERTYTHOUGH NOT INTEGRALLY A HUMAN RIGHTMAY BE LAWFULLY POSSESSED BY MAN.
Though the earth is the Lords and the fulness thereof, yet He hath given it to the children of men. Though a man absolutely possesses nothing but what he is, he may acquire the right to call worldly possessions lawfully his own. No community of goods among Israelites. Communism is Utopian; infringement upon the due interests of others, and therefore robbery. As trustees and stewards, in holding and using possessions, we must have respect (a) to the good of others, and (b) the claims of God.
II. THAT PROPERTY UNLAWFULLY POSSESSED, IS NOT ONLY A CRIME AGAINST MAN, BUT ALSO A SIN AGAINST GOD.
Every breach of trust, dishonest act, or fraudulent transaction, displeased Jehovah, and required atonement at the hands of the offender. Guilt was contracted when the law was dishonoured, and no circumstances were to be pleaded in extenuation of the guilt or in mitigation of the sacrifice demanded. The principle of this law has never been repealed; it is morally, as well as legally, criminal, to obtain property of any sort by any wrong means, either from individuals or societies. Revealed religion lies at the basis of all political, commercial and social morality.F.W.B.
Lev. 6:2. Theme: BREACH OF CONFIDENCE. Lie unto his neighbour, or hath deceived his neighbour.
I. Note some EXAMPLES OF THIS SIN.
1. Injury to, or loss of, borrowed goods. [See Kings Lev. 6:5.]
2. Retaining a found article, knowing, not seeking, the owner.
3. Obtaining property under false pretences.
II. EFFECTS OF THIS SIN.
1. Diminishes the trust men should have in each other.
2 Lessens the stock of general kindness. [See Mat. 5:42.]
3. Fosters a spirit of dishonesty.
III. THE DIVINE VIEW OF THIS SIN.
1. Reparation to be made to man.
2. Confession and atonement to be made to God.Rev. J. Comper Gray, Biblical Museum.
Theme: DEPOSITING PROPERTY.
I. A NEIGHBOURLY CONVENIENCE. To deposit valuable property with a neighbour was, and still is, a common practice in the East, where no establishments exist for the storing of private treasure.
1. How helpful a neighbour may become.
2. How grand is this confidence in another.
3. How mutually dependent we are one upon another.
4. How honourable we should be in all transactions.
5. How jealously we should strive to merit implicit trust [See Addenda, p. 86, Injury.]
II. A HAZARDOUS TRANSACTION.
1. Mans reliableness is sorely discredited by continuous breaches of faith.
2. Treasure becomes often a serious anxiety to its possessor.
3. No security can be guaranteed in any earthly confidence. [See Addenda, p. 87, Faithlessness]
III. A DOUBTFUL ALTERNATIVE.
There was another method adopted, when a man was about to journey, if he could not trust his neighbour: he would conceal his treasures under ground.
1. What light this throws on Scripture phraseology.
The Hebrew word for treasure denotes hidden: and explains such phrases as hidden riches of secret places (Isa. 45:3) and search for her hid treasure (Pro. 2:4; Job. 3:24).
2. What light this throws on Christs parables.
There was danger of a man forgetting the spot where he had long ago buried his treasure. Hence our Lords language concerning treasure hid in the field and searching digging to find it.
IV. A SPIRITUAL ANALOGY.
This committing treasure to a neighbour suggests Pauls imagery of
The soul committed to Christ: I Know whom I have trusted and am persuaded that He is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day (2Ti. 1:12). [See also Lev. 5:14 and Tim. Lev. 6:20].
1. Christ is faithful to our trust.
2. We cannot safely risk our souls in other keeping.
Lev. 6:5. Theme: THE BENEFICENCE OF A REDEEMED LIFE.
The same law in reference to the fifth part obtained in the case of a trespass against a man, as in a trespass against the Lord. The application of this regulation to the work of Christ indicates that man, as well as God, is a positive gainer by the Cross. The believer can say, as he gazes upon that Cross, However I have been wronged, trespassed against, deceived, whatever ills have been done to me, I am a gainer by the Cross. I have not merely received back all that was lost, but much more beside.
Thus, whether we think of the injured or the injurer, we are equally struck with the glorious triumphs of redemption, and the mighty practical results which flow from that gospel, which fills the soul with the happy assurance that all trespasses are forgiven, and that the root from whence those trespasses have sprung has been judged.
I. A TRESPASSER IS TRANSFORMED INTO A BENEFACTOR by the law of Divine grace.
He carries blessings
1. Into the scenes which have been the witness of a mans sins, his trespasses, and his injurious ways.
2. Among persons who have suffered in consequence of his evil doings, his deceits, and his transgressions.
3. The renewing grace of God having worked in him, he is sent back to those scenes and among those sufferers furnished with grace, in order that he should
4. Not only repair the wrongs, but to allow the full tide of practical benevolence to flow forth in all his ways, yea, to love his enemies, and do good to them that hate him, and to pray for them that despitefully use and persecute him. Such are the rich, rare, and refreshing fruits of the grace of God that act in connection with our great Trespass Offering.
II. A GRACIOUS LIFE WILL ATTEST ITSELF IN GENEROUS CONDUCT.
Sinfulness and selfishness can have no licence in a redeemed life. Instead of the caviller against godliness being able to show that Gods people allow sin that grace may abound, sin is cut up by the roots; the sinner is turned from a curse into a blessing, from a moral plague into a channel of Divine mercy, from an emissary of Satan into a messenger of God, from a child of darkness into a son of the light, from a self-indulgent pleasure-seeker into a self-denying lover of God, from a slave of vile lusts into a willing-hearted servant of Christ, from a narrow-hearted miser into a benevolent minister to the needs of his fellow-men. The thief, the defrauder, is transformed into a generous donor; giving the fifth of his possessions,
2. Practical righteousness is the crowning witness of that life whose sin is expiated and forgiven. Away, then, with the oft repeated taunts, Are we to do nothing? According to this gospel we may live as we list! They who utter such language know not what grace means: have never felt its sanctifying and elevating influences. They forget that, while the blood of the trespass offering cleanses the conscience, the law of the offering sends the trespasser back to him whom he has wronged with the principal and the fifth in his hand. Noble testimony, this, both to the grace and righteousness of the God of Israel!
If the conscience has been set to rights, by the blood of the Cross, in reference to the claims of God, the conduct also must be set to rights by the holiness of the Cross in reference to the claims of practical righteousness. This hallowed union will never be dissolved by any mind which is governed by pure gospel morality. He that doth not righteousness is not of God (1Jn. 3:10).
III. DIVINE GRACE IS DISHONOURED in those whose conduct and character exhibit not the fair traces OF PRACTICAL HOLINESS.
1. God has given us in His Word those evidences by which we can discern those that belong to Him. The Lord knoweth them that are His: and let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity (2Ti. 2:19)
(a) We have no right to suppose that an evildoer belongs to God. The holy instincts of the Divine nature are shocked by such a thought. Difficulty is felt in accounting for evil practices in those who are regarded as Christians. But the Word of God settles the matter clearly and authoritatively:In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, etc. (1Jn. 3:9-10).
(b) Laxity and self-indulgence, specially the perils of our times, must be severely and sternly shunned.
2. An accommodating, easy profession of Christianity is rebuked by this law of the trespass offering. Every genuine Christian is called upon to give a clear testimony, a testimony resulting from the steady exhibition of the fruits of righteousness which are by Jesus Christ unto the glory and praise of God. Most deplorable is it to see such faulty manifestation abroad of the love and holiness which should distinguish Christian conduct.
Let us rebuke, by a life of self-denial and genuine benevolence, the culpable inactivity of professors. Christian life should abound in large and generous ministries. [Comp. C. H. M. on Leviticus.]
Lev. 6:6-7. Theme: THE SIN OF DISHONESTY.
In the natural government of the world God has made the laws of nature on the side of goodness and virtue; and in the moral government of the universe the Divine favour is on the side of honesty, integrity and righteousness. The enactments of Sinai, and those from the door of the tabernacle, were a transcript of the holiness of the Divine character, fixing approval upon the right, and stigma upon the wrong. Men were to do to others as they would others should do to them, remembering that the eye of the Lord was upon them. Thus Israel was taught
I. THAT THE SIN OF DISHONESTY INCURS THE JUST INDIGNATION OF HEAVEN.
Moses and others, who administered the laws among the people, would feel the sacredness and responsibility of their office, in that they were Jehovahs deputies, and punished offenders in His name. Earthly rulers and governments should
(a) Base their statutes upon Divine enactments; and
(b) Seek the reformation, as well as punishment, of the offender.
The appointed offering, and the appearance of the trespassers before the Lord, denoted that sin had been committed, that guilt had been incurred. All sin is hateful in the eyes of Him with whom we have to do.
II. THAT THE SIN OF DISHONESTY MAY NEVERTHELESS BE FORGIVEN.
Specific directions were given respecting the offering required, that the offerer might have no doubt as to the way of forgiveness. Obedience would show that the trespasser
(a) Acknowledged his offence;
(b) Was sorry for it;
(c) Was ready to make amends;
(d) Desired absolution.
The root and essence of sin is that it is committed against God; hence, only God can forgive it. In the gospel the law is not destroyed, but fulfilled; For Christ, our Sin, or Trespass Offering, procures complete and free pardon for all sin. Fools make a mock at the sin offering, but with the righteous it is in esteem.F. W. B.
SECTIONAL HOMILIES Lev. 6:8-13
THE LAW OF THE BURNT OFFERING (resumed)
Topic.DIGNITY LINKED TO DUTY (Lev. 6:8-12)
With the eighth verse of this chapter we traverse ground already gone over. Directions having been given for the institution of the burnt offering, Aaron and his sons now receive particulars as to their parts in the service. The burnt offering was the first and most important of all the ordinary oblations, pointing as it did to unreserved personal consecration, and universal Divine redemption. In the directions given to Aaron and his sons, we learn
I. HOW APPARENTLY UNDIGNIFIED DUTIES MAY BE ASSOCIATED WITH THE MOST EXALTED SERVICE.
The Divine work to which the priests were appointed would distinguish them from the common people; ensure them reverent recognition; be their passports to social, as well as sacred eminence. Their spotless vestments were a symbol of their official purity. How undignified it would seem for the priest to be busy removing the ashes of the consumed sacrifice with his own hands to a clean place without the camp. But no work, however lowly, if done for God and at His command, can bring real degradation. Men always go up when they go to duty. David felt he would rather be a door-keeper in the house of the Lord than, etc. The priests were as great and dignified when removing the ashes of the offering as when they ascended to their loftiest sacerdotal duties. Let us think nothing mean or low that we can do in the service of our risen and loving Lord.
II. HOW THE ASSOCIATION OF LOWLY DUTIES WITH EXALTED SERVICE MAY BE A SALUTARY DISCIPLINE TO THE WORSHIPPER.
That the reasons for the sacrifices, and the laws relating to them were only partially given; and that in matters of precision and detail so much seemed mysterious and even unnecessary, would
(a) Test the faith, (b) quicken vigilance, (c) stimulate energy, and (d) prepare for higher and more spiritual service. He that is faithful in the least will be in that which is greatest. Fidelity in what the world may deem small and meaningless will receive the recognition of heaven, and promotion to higher and holier service.F. W. Brown.
OUTLINES ON VERSES, CHAPTER Lev. 6:8-13
Lev. 6:9. Theme: SACRED ATTIRE.
These directions concerning offering the burnt sacrifice relate to the priests; and denote tho divinely acceptable method of their ministrations. In all these specific ceremonial regulations there lay couched important spiritual suggestions.
I. IN HOLY ATTIRE they serve at the altar.
1. Suggestive of the essential holiness of Christ. By His grace all offerings were rendered a sweet savour to God.
2. Symbolic of their derived purity and righteousness. [Comp. Exo. 28:40-43 with Psa. 132:9; Rev. 3:4; Rev. 7:13-14; Rev. 19:8.]
3. Indicative of the spirit of service. Bring to God services and sacrifices with clean hands, and pure hearts, and holy lives. The state of the offerer affects the character of the offering. [See Heb. 10:22.]
II. IN ALTERED GARMENTS they bear the ashes from the sanctuary.
1. The changed tone of feeling in the ministrant. He no longer serves in delight at Gods altar, but takes part in the act of out-casting the sin sacrifice. A saddened mood is upon him as he becomes for the moment associated with the repulsiveness of sin in carrying the ashes without the camp. There are two aspects of Christian ministryjoyous privilege, when clothed in the garments of salvation, and saddened reflection when realising the offensiveness of sin.
2. The altered scenes which a Christian frequents. He is not always within the holy place of the tabernacle of the Most High, he has to go forth to outside scenes: the rougher, less hallowed scenes of life and human society. Yet, though laying aside the holiest priestly garb when he left the most sacred scenes, as a Christian soul necessarily haves behind him the sublimer thoughts and feelings he wore when in the very secret of Gods presence: still his changed garments were consecrated garments. The Christian must never lay aside his sanctity, nor his priestly profession. Everywhere, whether apart with God or busy amongst men, he must wear the consecrated attire.
Lev. 6:12. Theme: DIVINE FIRE HUMANLY MAINTAINED.
The fire upon the altar shall be burning in it; it shall not be put out; and the priest shall burn wood on it every morning, etc.
It might have been supposed that this fire, having been Divine in its origin, would have been Divinely maintained. That fire, so given, suggests
I. DIVINE ENDOWMENTS COMMITTED TO THE CONTROL OF MEN.
As in the instances of that fire, supernaturally originated on that altar, and then left in mans hands, so with
1. Pure sympathies implanted within man.
2. Revelation in the Scriptures.
3. Quickened life in the regenerated soul.
4. Spiritual endowments to the believer.
5. Sacred affections in the Christian heart.
6. Holy enthusiasm firing an earnest nature.
From God they come: but man has them in his hands.
II. DIVINE ENDOWMENTS ENTRUSTED TO THE PRESERVATION OF MEN.
The priests had to keep that fire alive, or it would expire.
1. Having received the gifts of God we are responsible for their maintenance. God holds us as in trust with them.
2. How solemn the priestly office, which all are called to perform: feeding the Divine fire in our souls continually!
III. DIVINE ENDOWMENTS REQUIRING THE CO-OPERATIVE WATCHFULNESS OF MEN.
The priests eye would need to be often turned to the altar fire: every morning it needed care.
1. A watchful life is imperative if we would maintain godliness within.
2. Neglect will allow the extinction of the divinest gift. It needs scarcely that positive effort be made to put out the fire: it will go out of itself if not attended to.
Only neglect
(a) Daily prayer;
(b) Daily reading of the Scriptures;
(c) Daily fellowship with Christ;
(d) Daily watching against temptation.
Fail in these duties, and the fire will expire.
Every morning bring wood to the fire!
IV. DIVINE ENDOWMENTS ENDURING ONLY WHERE ACTIVELY MAINTAINED.
That fire did expire! At the destruction o the temple by Nebuchadnezzar.
1. May the Divine life in a soul go out?
2. May the Christians first love become extinct?
3. May the holy aspirations of a child of God droop?
4. May all sacred ardour, in prayer, in consecration, die away?
Work out your salvation with fear and trembling.
See that ye make your calling and election sure.
Lev. 6:13. Theme: FIRE NOT TO GO OUT.
I. Its typical import, as relating to the GOSPEL.
1. That we all constantly need the atonement. This fire was given for the use of all Israel without exception: all needed to offer atonement; Aaron as well as the people. We must all bring our offering to the altar. The fire, too, was for daily use And daily we need to come to God through the atonement.
2. That the Levitical sacrifices are insufficient for us. Thousands of victims were consumed on Gods altar, yet the fire continued to burn; indicating that full atonement had not been offered (Heb. 10:1-4; Heb. 10:11; Heb. 9:9).
3. That God intended to supply a satisfactory sacrifice. The continuous fire, and the daily supply of wood, seemed to repeat Isaacs inquiry, Behold the fire and the wood, but where is the lamb for a burnt offering? (Gen. 22:7-8). God kept up the expectation of the Great Sacrifice.
4. That all who repudiated that Great Sacrifice must expect severest judgments. The victims consumed by that fire betokened the sinners deserts (Mar. 9:43-45, etc.). Who can dwell with the devouring fire? who can dwell with everlasting burnings? (Isa. 33:14).
II. Its mystical import, as relating to the CHURCH.
That altar represents the heart of man, from whence offerings of every kind go up to God (Heb. 13:15-16).
1. That no offering can be accepted of God unless it be inflamed with heavenly fire.
Compare Nadab and Abihus doom (Lev. 10:1-2); and the remonstrance of Isaiah (Isa. 50:11).
2. That if God have kindled in our hearts a fire we must keep it alive by our own vigilance: Stir up the gift of God that is in thee (2Ti. 1:6); Be watchful, and strengthen the things which remain, that are ready to die (Rev. 3:2).
3. That every sacrifice, offered in Gods appointed way, will be accepted. Though unable to bring a kid or lamb or young pigeons, yet bring a small measure of flour (Lev. 5:5-13). The sigh, tear, groan, will be accepted equally with the most fluent prayer; the widows mite equally with the offerings of the wealthy.
III. Its personal suggestion, indicating OUR DUTY.
1. Look to the Great Atonement as your only hope.
2. Surrender up yourselves as living sacrifices unto God.C. Simeon. [See Addenda, p. 86, Enduring Fire.]
Lev. 6:13. Theme: THE ALTAR FIRE.
The fire shall ever be burning upon the altar; it shall never go out.
A. This fire is typical of HOLY DESIRES, and of DIVINE LOVE; to which it bears an exact parallel in a variety of instances, in its various operations:
i. Fire is an illuminating quality.
ii. It is a warming and healing quality.
iii. It will burn any combustible matter; separating metal from dross and rust.
iv. It is an ascending quality; greedily mounting to its proper seat, and will not rest till it incorporates with its own element.
v. It is a melting and softening quality. Iron and other metals are made pliable by it.
vi. It is a comforting and consoling quality.
vii. It is of an assimilating quality. It changes materials into its own nature, and sets them on fire.
viii. Without fire business would be arrested; nor could we exist. Parallel: Man lives not by bread alone, etc. His Word was in mine heart as a burning fire.
B. How may we QUENCH THE FIRE of holy desires and Divine love?
i. By inconsideration or unwatchfulness.
ii. By a trifling spirit, or permitting levity to prevail.
iii. Not keeping our eye single, our heart sincere.
iv. Fond conceits of ourselves; being wise above what is written.
v. Not harmonising our lives by the rule of Gods word.Methodist Plans, by Rev. Wm. Stephens, A.D. 1786.
Lev. 6:13. Theme: THE ALTAR FIRE A SYMBOL OF REGENERATING GRACE.
The ANALOGY between this fire and regenerating grace appears
I. In its source and origin.
II. In its tendency.
III. In its nature and properties.
IV. In its permanency.
V. In its perpetuity.
The PRACTICAL LESSON gathered from the subject, is diligence in the use of means:
1. Prayer: secret, family, social.
2. Study of Gods Word.
3. Meditation (Psalms 119; Mal. 3:16; Heb. 10:25).
4. Attendance on the means of grace.
5. Faithful labour for the glory of God and the salvation of souls.From Homiletic Monthly, by Rev G. F. Love. [See Addenda, page 86, Enduring Fire.]
Lev. 6:18. Theme: THE UNEXTINGUISHABLE FIRE.
The Divine injunction to keep the fire upon the altar ever burning has been thought by some Biblical scholars to imply, that the wrath of God against sin will never expire, that the Divine punishment for sin is interminable. But we must remember that the fire on the altar consumed not the sinner but the sacrifice offered in the sinners stead And the fire did ultimately go out.
It seems more consistent with the moral teaching of the rite (and certainly beset with fewer difficulties) to take the fire (a) as symbolic of the fact that the constantly offered sacrifices met with abiding approval of the Lord; and (b) as an emblem of the deep devotion and constant love of the heart necessary to secure unbroken communion with heaven.
Our bodies are temples of the Holy Ghost; and, as priests unto God, we are to offer up ourselves living sacrifices, holy and acceptable unto Him. Fire is a Divine emblem by which God is represented to us; and by which God is manifested in us. Enthusiasm means God in us. The fire of consecration must be
I. DIVINELY KINDLED. It must come from the presence of Jehovah, or we shall offer strange fire on the altar. The baptism of fire, like that of the Holy Ghost, is from above.
II. CONSTANTLY REPLENISHED. The altar fire was every day fed by the repeated sacrifices. Enthusiastic consecration can be sustained only by repeated supplies of appropriate fuel. We must pile up grateful memories, holy resolutions, self-denying services, etc. The flash of religious excitement will not suffice, God will not accept the white ashes of a former fire.
III. FREQUENTLY REVIVED. The fire must not be choked, or damped, it would need fresh air, and stirring: the fire in our hearts needs the fresh air from heavento be stirred by renewed effortswe need to beware of extinguishing influences, such as unholy lusts, undue anxieties, unbelief in God, inattention to public and private devotions, etc.
IV. JUDICIOUSLY CONTROLLED. The fire upon the altar was kept within reasonable bounds, or it might have spread disaster through the whole camp. Zeal and consecration must be governed by intelligence, or they will degenerate into fanaticism and lead to bigotry and persecution. Let us seek to be clad with zeal as with a garment, and to possess holy fire in our souls.
The fire of consecration may be known by
(a) Intense heat of love.
(b) Twofold flame of devotionprayer and praise.
(c) Clear light of knowledge.
Such a fire within will be comforting, purifying, aggressive, ascending. Take fire, hold fire, spread fire; then when death comes we shall be translated to the land where we shall be as seraphs before the sapphire throne.F. W. B.
SECTIONAL HOMILIES, CHAPTER Lev. 6:14-30
THE PRIESTS MEAT OFFERING
Topic: PRIESTLY SERVICES AND PRIVILEGES (Lev. 6:14-16)
The sons of Aaron shall offer it before the Lord the remainder shall Aaron and his sons eat.
I. FULFILMENT OF SACRED FUNCTIONS.
Christ was typified in Aaron. Christians in his sons.
1. Consider the priestly ministrations of Jesus Christ within the sanctuary. (a) Within His Church on earth, in maintaining the love, and devotion, and piety which there are offered to God. (b) Within the heavenly sanctuary, in gathering up the prayers of His saints, adding His own virtues to human offerings, and interceding in the presence of God for us.
2. The subsidiary ministries of the Christian priesthood. (a) In consecrated lives. (b) In loving gifts. (c) In prayerful fellowship. (d) In useful agencies.
II. ENJOYMENT OF SPECIAL PRIVILEGES.
1. Christ feasts with His followers. Aaron and his sons shall eat. For our Lord appeals to us, Eat, My friends; yea, eat and drink, O My beloved. We have fellowship with Jesus Christ (1Jn. 1:4). Thus our Lord ate the passover with His disciples. Thus He sups with us (Rev. 3:20). Thus He will eat with His Church at the heavenly feast.
2. A repast reserved for the priesthood. None but Aaron and his sons might eat. There is a joy the world knows not of, a hidden life in Christ to which all but Christians are strangers, there are lofty fellowships with God which none but priestly souls can approach. Note, this feast was to be in the holy placenot the innermost court, type of heaven itself, but in the court of the tabernacle of the congregationsymbolic of the Church on earth. It thus points to the sacred favours enjoyed now in the spiritual life and in Christian communion.
Topic: DIVINE FRIENDSHIP (Lev. 6:14-18)
The leading idea of this offering is communion with Jehovah. In the sacrifice presented the Divine and the human meet in hallowed fellowship and banquet together with great rejoicing. We learn:
I. THAT THE ALMIGHTY DEIGNS TO COMMUNE FAMILIARLY WITH MAN. At Sinai the people were commanded to keep distant; in the burnt offering, the whole of the sacrifice was consumed, indicating that the offerer deserved to be consumed for his iniquity; here a small portion only was consumed, the greater part was taken by the priests, and the meal was peculiarly sacred. I have given it them for their portion of My offerings made by fire. Thus Jehovah partook with the priests, and entered into intimate fellowship. Under the new dispensation we are all made priests unto God, through faith in His dear Sonwe become partakers of the Divine nature; we enter His banqueting house, and His banner over us is love. He calls us not servants, but friends; sups with us in our hearts, at His table in the Church, and will, with us, hereafter at the marriage feast in heaven.
II. THAT MAN MUST NOT TAKE UNDUE ADVANTAGE OF SUCH DIVINE FAMILIARITY. The meat offering was to be solemnly and carefully presented: strict attention to be paid to dress and deportment: no ceremonial or personal impurity to be allowed: no leaven of any kind used. A sacred circle was drawn around the altar, the service invested with great importance, even the priests placed under restrictions. We may come with holy boldness and childlike confidence to God; but we must do so with becoming reverence. God is a spirit, etc. Where the Spirit of the Lord is there is liberty, but not levity and irreverence. Sincerity, thankfulness, and a sense of deep responsibility will give the right tone to our religious exercises.
III. THAT SUCH HALLOWED FELLOWSHIP IS ACCEPTABLE TO GOD AND PROFITABLE TO MAN. The people offered their flour, oil, and frankincense; the priests took their portion and ate it in the court of the tabernacle; the fragrant incense perfumed the air; Jehovah accepted all as a sweet savour, having respect to the obedience and reverence represented in the offering. The worshipper was taught his relation to the Lord, acceptance of Him, friendship with Him. Christ has not only become our Sin Offering, but our Meat Offering, in that He invites us to partake of His love: My flesh is meat indeed, and My blood is drink indeed. Only by personal, spiritual participation of Christ, can we have fellowship with Him here, and companionship with Him in eternity. If any man have not the Spirit of Christ he is none of His.F. W. B.
Topic: MINISTERIAL DEDICATION: THE PRIESTS CONSECRATION OFFERING (Lev. 6:19-23)
Here can be found suggestions concerning dedication and devotion to the ministerial office.
I. Consecration to the ministry: an event to be MARKED BY IMPRESSIVE SOLEMNITIES.
The day when he is anointed. What a day that is to a young minister! His entrance upon so solemn and responsible a work as that of becoming a minister of the sanctuary should be specially signalised.
This is the offering unto the Lord in the day when he is anointed. God asks that the consecration solemnities should be unto Him. For it signifies the setting apart of a life unto the Lord, and the placing upon His altar of every energy, faculty, affection, and aspiration.
O Lord. Thy heavenly grace impart,
And fill my frail, inconstant heart:
Henceforth my chief desire shall be
To dedicate myself to Thee
To Thee, my God, to Thee.
II. Consecration to the ministry: an act to be CHARACTERISED BY COMPLETE SELF-DEVOTION.
1. Perpetuity is to mark the offering. For a meat offering perpetual. It is to be no temporary dedication, but a whole life-long devotion.
2. Continuity is to mark the offering. Half of it in the morning, and half thereof at night; i.e., it was to be a day-by-day dedication; the offering was to go on every morning and night. God asks not one demonstrative act of consecration at the outset of our official life, or our Christian life, but a ceaseless repetition, a daily reproduction of that act of devotion; the love of our espousals is to be daily enacted.
3. Entirety is to mark the offering. It is a statute for ever; it shall be wholly burnt (Lev. 6:22). Every meat offering for the priest shall be wholly burnt (Lev. 6:23). In the offering for the people God required only a handful of flour as a memorial of it unto the Lord (Lev. 6:15); but He required the complete offering from a priest. No part of the price might be withheld: time, talents, all the man is and haswholly.
How can I, Lord, withhold
Lifes brightest hour
From Thee; or gathered gold,
Or any power?
Why should I keep one precious thing from Thee
When Thou hast given Thine own dear Self for me?
III. Consecration to the ministry: a service to be ASSOCIATED WITH GRATITUDE AND JOY.
1. Emblems of thankfulness were to be laid on the altar. Fine flour, and oil. For it should be that the young minister, laying himself out for his high calling, should realise how much he owes his Lord, and ask: What shall I render unto the Lord for all His benefits towards me? To His grace we must ascribe all we have received of endowments, gifts, holy affections, enjoyment of His redemption, enlightenment by His Spirit, the call to ministerial work.
To Thee, Thou bleeding Lamb,
I all things owe;
All that I have and am,
And all I know;
All that I have is now no longer mine,
And I am not my own; Lord I am Thine.
2. Such joyous self-devotion is peculiarly fragrant to the Lord. For a sweet savour unto the Lord (Lev. 6:21). There is so much that charms even the glorious Jehovah in a young life fully consecrated: the ardour and bloom of opening manhood laid wholly on His altar; the aspirations and affections of the heart withdrawn entirely from secular attractions and pursuits, and fixed on Christ and His service; the fervour of being dedicated to the sublime mission of winning souls for the Saviour and ministering in His courts.
Accept these hands to labour,
These hearts to trust and love,
And deign with them to hasten
Thy kingdom from above.
Topic: THE SIN OFFERING A SHADOW OF GOOD THINGS TO COME (Lev. 6:24-30)
The sin offering was presented on the north side of the altar: in the fulness of time the worlds Great Sacrifice was offered on the north side of Jerusalem. How, as well as what to be presented clearly indicated in this, as in previous offerings. In directions given we learn:
I. HOW COMPLETE THE SIN OFFERING WAS. Though parts of the sacrifice were to be eaten by the priests when the oblation was made for the people, the whole was to be consumed by fire when presented for the priests. The sin offering atoned for every kind of sin, thus showing great completeness, and adaptation for priests and people, who in the sight of God need forgiveness and restoration to His favour. When a part of the offering was eaten by the priests it was shown how God and man were reconciled; when the offering was wholly burned it was shown how complete the atonement was, how fully pardon was secured.
II. HOW TRANSITORY THE SIN OFFERING WAS. Frequently repeated, it was only of temporary virtue. It borrowed all its efficacy from the great Sin Offering which it typified. It was not possible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sin; without the sacrifice of Christ they would have been of no avail. Altars and offerings have passed away, but Jesus hath procured eternal redemption for us.
III. HOW SACRED THE SIN OFFERING WAS. It was called most holy, great precaution was taken that it should not be desecrated, even the implements and vessels used in its observance were scrupulously guarded from ceremonial impurity. Priests were not allowed to partake if ceremonially defiled: showing that sin and holiness are alike contagiousmay be communicated, intentionally or unintentionally, to persons, places, offices, things. How complete and sacred the sin offering of the Redeemer! If contempt for, and neglect of, Levitical rites was heinous in the sight of God, how much more so similar conduct when shown to what they foreshadowed!
Conclusion. The sin offering showed (a) the exceeding sinfulness of sin; (b) the absolute necessity of atonement being made for it; (c) the transcendant importance of deliverance from every taint of it. These truths fully taught and actually embodied in the glorious gospel of the blessed God.F. W. B.
ILLUSTRATIVE ADDENDA TO CHAPTER 6
INJURY
Of all the things that have had record in the world, of the many sources of violence, injustice and cruelty, I do not know of anything else that is so cruel as man. It is only man that studies cruelty, and makes it exquisite, and prolongs it, and carries it out with appliances and art. From the despot on the throne to the despot of the household, all men alike carry vengeance, bitterness, wrath, hurtfulness, as characteristics of the race.H. W. Beecher.
How should you feel if you were to enter the room where your child is sleeping, and find upon it a stealthy cat, stationed at the portal of life, and stopping its very breath? How should you feel were you to find upon your child a vampire that had fastened into its flesh its blood-sucking bill, and was fast consuming its vitality? How do you feel when one of your children tramples upon another? or when your neighbours children crush yours? or when ruffian violence strikes against those whose hearts for ever carry the core of your heart? Judge from your own feelings how God, with His infinite sensibility, must feel when He sees men rising up against their fellow-men: performing gross deeds of cruelly on every hand devastating society by every infernal mischief that their ingenuity can invent.H. W. Beecher.
Justice consists in doing no injury to men; decency, in giving them no offence.Cicero.
Recompense injury with justice, and kindness with kindness.Confucius.
He threatens many that hath injured one.
Ben. Jonson.
Brutus hath rivd my heart:
A friend should bear his friends infirmities,
But Brutus makes mine greater than they are.Shakespeare.
Virtue is not left to stand alone. He who practises it will have neighbours.Confucius.
Be as just and gracious unto me
As I am confident and kind to thee.
Titus Andronicus.
ENDURING FIRE
The perpetual fire of the Persian Magi and modern Parsees; the eternal fire, as it was called at Rome, kept perpetually burning by the Vestal virgins; and the Pur Asbeston unextinguishable fire, of the Greeks at Delphi, were evident imitations of this sacred fire.
It was one of the distinguishing marks of the chieftainship of one of the Samoan nobility that his fire never went out. His attendants had a peculiar name for their special business of keeping his fire blazing all night long while he was asleep.Turners Polynesia.
During the second temple this perpetual fire consisted of three parts or separate piles of wood on the same altar; on the largest one the daily sacrifice was burrt; the second, called the pile of incense, supplied the fire for the censers to burn the morning and evening incense; and the third was the perpetual fire from which the other two portions were fed. It never was quenched till the destruction of the temple by Nebuchadnezzar. Indeed we are positively assured that the pious priests who were carried captives into Persia, concealed it in a pit, where it remained till the time of Nehemiah, when it was restored to the altar (2Ma. 1:19-22). The authorities in the time of Christ, however, assure us that the perpetual fire was one of the five things wanting in the sacred temple.Elliotts Commentary.
Wake in our breasts the living fires,
The holy faith that warmed our sires.
Holmes. Army Hymn.
FAITHLESSNESS
Treason is there in its most horrid shape
Where trust is greatest! and the soul resignd
Is stabbed by her own guards!Dryden.
He who does not respect confidence will never find happiness in his path. The belief in virtue vanishes from his heart, the source of nobler actions becomes extinct in him.Auffenberg.
Faith and unfaith can neer be equal powers;
Unfaith in aught is want of faith in all.
Tennyson.
O what a goodly outside falsehood hath!
Merchant of Venice.
Trust that man in nothing who hath not a conscience in everything.Sterne.
A slender acquaintance with the world must convince every man that actions, not words, are the true criterion of the attachment of friends; and that the most liberal professions of goodwill are very far from being the surest marks of it.Geo. Washington.
A foe to God was neer true friend to man,
Some sinister intent taints all he does.
YOUNGS Night Thoughts.
The highest compact we can make with our fellow is: Let there be truth between us two for evermore. It is sublime to feel and say of another: I never need meet, or speak, or write to him; we need not reinforce ourselves, or send tokens of remembrance; I rely on him as on myself; if he did this or thus I know it was right.Emerson.
Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell
UNINTENTIONAL TRESPASS AGAINST MAN 6:17
TEXT 6:17
1
And Jehovah spake unto Moses, saying,
2
If any one sin, and commit a trespass against Jehovah, and deal falsely with his neighbor in a matter of deposit, or of bargain, or of robbery, or have oppressed his neighbor,
3
or have found that which was lost, and deal falsely therein, and swear to a lie; in any of all these things that a man doeth, sinning therein;
4
then it shall be, if he hath sinned, and is guilty, that he shall restore that which he took by robbery, or the thing which he hath gotten by oppression, or the deposit which was committed to him or the lost thing which he found,
5
or anything about which he hath sworn falsely; he shall even restore it in full, and shall add the fifth part more thereto: unto him to whom it appertaineth shall he give it, in the day of his being found guilty.
6
And he shall bring his trespass-offering unto Jehovah, a ram without blemish out of the flock, according to thy estimation, for a trespass-offering, unto the priest:
7
and the priest shall make atonement for him before Jehovah; and he shall be forgiven concerning whatsoever he doeth so as to be guilty thereby.
THOUGHT QUESTIONS 6:17
104.
Mark how every sin and trespass is first against God before it is against our neighbor. Define the difference between a deposit and a bargain or a pledge.
105.
The basic sin under these lesser sins is what?
106.
List six possible sins against man here mentioned.
107.
How can we call these unintentional trespasses?
108.
In each case two or three acts are always the samewhat are they?
109.
Where is the worshipper to obtain the ram?
PARAPHRASE 6:17
And the Lord said to Moses, If anyone sins against Me by refusing to return a deposit on something borrowed or rented, or by refusing to return something entrusted to him, or by robbery, or by oppressing his neighbor, or by finding a lost article and lying about it, swearing that he doesnt have it, on the day he is found guilty of any such sin, he shall restore what he took, adding a twenty percent fine, and give it to the one he has harmed; and on the same day he shall bring his guilt offering to the Tabernacle. His guilt offering shall be a ram without defect, and must be worth whatever value you demand. He shall bring it to the priest, and the priest shall make atonement for him before the Lord, and he shall be forgiven.
COMMENT 6:17
Lev. 6:1 The sins against God would be against the first table of the ten commandments. We are now to consider those against man, or the second table of the law. We need to notice that each time this little phrase (And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,) appears we have a change in subjects.
Lev. 6:2-3 How sadly easy it is to defraud our friends. Here are a list of those circumstances where temptations lurk. The first relates to the trust our friends put in us. We accept from them an amount of moneya field to till, a store to manage, or any one of many other articles or responsibilities. He trusts usshall we betray his trust? It has been done, Even in the small items such as a tool, or a book, or any other stuff. One is reminded of the golden rule as he reads the regulations for the use of those items which belong to another. What if we loaned something to our neighbor and he refused to admit he had received it? If we gave him money to keep and he used it for himself? If our friend left our machinery out in the weather to rust? Such thoughtlessness, such neglect, such greed will not go unnoticed by God (Cf. 2Ki. 6:5; Exo. 22:7).
But there, is another aspect of this law: the above activity was in private. There are those acts or transactions in public, which not openly unlawful are yet selfish. How many business transactions classify here? What kind of concern do we have for the rights of others as compared to our own? Do we without conscience cheat the government or the local police force? (Cf. Pro. 20:14)
When we have an advantage with our neighbor we must not use it to satisfy our own selfishness; such was the case with Naboths vineyard (Cf. 1Ki. 21:2). The word used in Lev. 6:3 hath deceived his neighbor refers to a situation where oppression is used. How much secret terror has been employed by how many deceitful selfish people? Present day work laws are all a result of the violation of Gods law. We are glad for fair work laws, but they would be unnecessary if we obeyed Leviticus. Read Deu. 23:24-25 for another form of violating this law.
Finders keepers simply does not apply. We need but put ourselves in the place of our neighbor to imagine the anxiety and concern he has over that which is lost. To lie about what we have found and keep it is but another form of stealing. It is good for us to get this look into the attitudes that God wanted to prevail in the camp of Israel; it is far from the hard, even cruel attitude we Usually associate with keeping the law.
Lev. 6:4-5 The guilt must be established and admittedeither by a free admission on the part of the offender or by a verdict from a trial (Cf. Exo. 22:7-9). Once this is done then restitution must be made in each case cited above. But there is more20% of the principal must be added to the principals:
God is exceedingly jealous for the rights of every man, but he is equally interested in an acknowledgement of His own righta double tithe is given, even though the person defrauded receives the gift it is none-the less done because God directed it.
Andrew Bonar has such a meaningful expression on this total concept as it relates to our Lord. When men are happy themselves, they take no thought of others misery. When at ease, they disregard the pain of others. Some even relieve distress out of subtle selfishness, seeking thereby to be free to indulge themselves with less compunction. Not so the Lord. The Eternal Son comes forth from the bosom of the Blessed, and, for the sake of the vilest, dives into the depths of misery. He restored what He took not away, and delivered him that without cause was His enemy. And in proportion as we feel much love to Him, we feel love to our brother also. (1Jn. 4:20)
Lev. 6:6-7 As wrong as these sins appear, they are not classified as presumptuous sins. How very gracious of God; but this is indeed the very best way to lead people out of sin: to establish guilt and offer free forgiveness. None go to the hiding place who fear no storm. The stream flows by unheeded when the traveler on its banks is not thirsty. The whole will not use the physician. Only sense of sin renders Jesus precious to the soul. (Ibid.)
FACT QUESTIONS 6:17
136.
The laws of the first table of the law refer to possible sins against whom? This section refers to sins against whom?
137.
It is amazingly easy to defraud our neighbor. Show how and why.
138.
How does the golden rule relate here?
139.
We can sin publicly and yet be involved in the unintentional trespass. Explain how.
140.
What is involved in the use of the word deceived as used with our neighbor?
141.
Finders keepers simply is not right. Why?
142.
Keeping the law in the camp of Israel was not the rigid law-keeping attitude we usually associate with it. Explain.
143.
What is the real underlying purpose in returning the principal plus 20%?
144.
How was the principle applied to our Lord?
145.
Show how wise and gracious God was in not classifying these as presumptuous sins.
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
VI.
(1) And the Lord spake.Like Lev. 5:14, which begins with the same introductory formula, this is a further communication made to the lawgiver wherein other instances are specified which require a trespass offering. It is repeatedly stated, in some of our best commentaries, that Lev. 6:1-7 form part of Leviticus 5 in the Hebrew Bible, and that our translators unfortunately adopted the division of the Septuagint, instead of following the Hebrew. Nothing can be more erroneous than this statement. The Hebrew Scriptures in manuscript have no division into chapters at all. The text is divided into sections, of which there are no less than 669 in the Pentateuch. The book of Leviticus has ninety-eight of these sections, while in our Authorised Version it has only twenty-seven chapters. The divisions into chapters, now to be found in the Hebrew Bibles, were adopted in the fourteenth century by the Jews from the Christians for polemical purposes, and the figures attached to each verse are of a still later period.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
WILFUL FRAUD TRESPASS OFFERING AND FINE, Lev 6:1-7.
2. Trespass See Lev 5:15, note.
Against the Lord Every crime against man is also a sin against God, his Creator. The creature cannot be wronged without offending his Maker. Every violation of the second table of the law by acts flowing from a lack of love to our neighbour transgresses also the requirement of the first table, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart.”
And lie Or deny that the goods or money were delivered him to keep as a trust, or in fellowship As a pledge or security. The Hebrew word improperly translated fellowship, is used in the Bible only in this verse. It is followed by the word hand, and is a deposit in the hand, that is, in pledge. Two kinds of deposit are practised by man, both of which are spoken of here. We deposit money with the banker because we trust him, or securities with the money-lender, because we wish him to trust us. Deceived his neighbour This means oppressed, as the violence in the preceding clause signifies downright robbery.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
A Guilt Offering For Causing Financial Loss To A Neighbour By Dishonesty ( Lev 6:1-7 ).
Lev 6:1
‘And Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying,’
This introduction may suggest an additional revelation given at a different time, which is tacked on to the previous duo to make a threesome in accordance with the writer’s general practise of putting things in threes.
Lev 6:2-3
‘If any one sin, and commit a trespass against Yahweh, and deal falsely with his neighbour in a matter of a deposit, or of bargaining, or of robbery, or have oppressed his neighbour, or have found that which was lost, and deal falsely with regard to it, and swear to a lie; in any of all these things that a man does, sinning in them,’
These sins too are against Yahweh, but not this time against the Sanctuary. They are sins against Yahweh’s people which require compensation as well as atonement, for they have suffered loss. They are evidence of financial dishonesty and greed. This is a reminder that to take false advantage of God’s people is to take false advantage of God. Here the command ‘you shall not covet’ has been broken.
The sins in mind are those of dishonesty with respect to a deposit not repaid when it should have been, the making of a false or unfair bargain, a deliberate theft, the sin of oppressing or crowding a neighbour for financial gain, that of finding something that was lost and keeping it, or the making of a lie on oath. If someone has done any of these things and is now faced up with his sin, either by conscience, or by neighbour pressure, or pressure from someone in authority (they are ‘found guilty’), he must fall in line with the requirement that follows.
Lev 6:4-5
‘Then it shall be, if he has sinned, and is guilty, that he shall restore that which he took by robbery, or the thing which he has obtained by oppression, or the deposit which was committed to him, or the lost thing which he found, or any thing about which he has sworn falsely; he shall even restore it in full, and shall add the fifth part more to it, to him to whom it belongs shall he give it, in the day of his being found guilty.’
The first thing that he must do is make full restoration, and on top must add one fifth as a kind of fine. It is possible that this signifies a double tithe (two tenths). The one who has suffered loss in this case receives the compensation. These rules would not apply in the case of farm stock where the compensation might be much higher (Exo 22:1-4).
Lev 6:6-7
‘And he shall bring his guilt offering to Yahweh, a ram without blemish out of the flock, according to your estimation, for a guilt offering, to the priest: and the priest shall make atonement for him before Yahweh, and he shall be forgiven concerning whatever he does so as to be guilty by it’.
After restoring what was lost and paying one fifth compensation the person must now bring his guilt offering to Yahweh. It is to be an unblemished ram at a value estimated by Moses (‘your estimation’) in relation to the amount that had been lost and is now being restored. This will then be offered by the priest who will make the necessary atonement. Thus will the person be forgiven for what they were guilty of.
These three instances should make many of us think. How often do we give less than we should to God’s work. Will a man rob God?’ asked Malachi, but many of us do. Or have we treated holy things lightly? The way some people dress to meet up with God is in itself a disgrace. Do we owe Him no honour? Or is our behaviour and attitude in church fully pleasing to God? Or are there ways in which financially we get one over on others? These are questions on which we should examine ourselves.
But the basic lesson that comes over here is that when we put right a financial wrong we should pay compensation at one fifth. Then only can we come to God to find forgiveness.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Of Trespass-offerings.
v. 1. And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, v. 2. if a soul sin and commit a trespass against the Lord, v. 3. or have found that which was lost, and lieth concerning it, and sweareth falsely, v. 4. then it shall be, because he hath sinned and is guilty, that he shall restore that which he took violently away, or the thing which he hath deceitfully gotten, or that which was delivered him to keep, or the lost thing which he found, v. 5. or all that about which he hath sworn falsely; he shall even restore it in the principal, and shall add the fifth part more thereto, as a penalty or forfeit, and give it unto him to whom it appertaineth, in the day of his trespass-offering. v. 6. And he shall bring his trespass-offering unto the Lord, a ram without blemish out of the flock, with thy estimation, for a trespass-offering unto the priest; v. 7. and the priest shall make an atonement for him before the Lord; and it shall be forgiven him for anything of all that he hath done in trespassing therein,
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
EXPOSITION
THE TRESPASS OFFERINGcontinued (Lev 6:1-7). The next seven verses, which in the Hebrew arrangement form the conclusion of the previous chapter, enumerate cases of fraud and wrong, for which a trespass offering is required. They are moral, not ceremonial offenses. Reparation and the payment of a fine are demanded before the offering is made.
Lev 6:1
And the Lord spake. The six following verses contain a separate communication from the Lord to Moses, but in continuance of the subject which began at Le Lev 5:14.
Lev 6:2
This verse would be better translated as follows:If a soul sin, and commit a trespass against the Lord, and falsely deny to his neighbour something that was delivered to him to keep, or something that he had received in pawn, or something that he had taken away by violence, or hath got something by oppression from his neighbour. Cf. the injunction in Le Lev 19:11 : “Ye shall not steal, neither deal falsely, neither lie one to another.” Exo 22:7-13 contains earlier legislation on the subject of things taken in trust.
Lev 6:3
Or have found that which was lost. Cf. Deu 22:2, Deu 22:3, “Thou shalt bring it unto thine own house, and it shall be with thee until thy brother seek after it, and thou shalt restore it to him again. In like manner shalt thou do with his ass; and so shalt thou do with his raiment; and with all lost thing of thy brother’s, which he hath lost, and thou hast found, shalt thou do likewise.” And sweareth falsely. By previous legislation it had been appointed that, in case of a doubt arising as to what had become of property delivered to another to keep, there should be “an oath of the Lord between them both, that” the latter “hath not put his hand unto his neighbour’s goods; and the owner of it shall accept thereof, and he shall not make it good” (Exo 22:11). This opened the way to false swearing where men were dishonest. Sinning therein. Wrong to man is sin against God in every ease, but a special sin against God is committed when an appeal has been made to him by oath, and the oath has been false.
Lev 6:4
As before, the profit gained by fraud or violence is to be given up, and with it a fine is to be paid, amounting to one-fifth of the value of the thing appropriated.
Lev 6:5
In the day of his trespass offering is a better rendering than that of the margin, “in the day of his being found guilty,” or” in the day of his trespass.” The reparation is to take place, and immediately afterwards the offering is accepted.
HOMILETICS
Lev 6:3
Swearing falsely
is in an especial manner a sin against God, because in an oath an appeal is directly made to God, and if the thing sworn to is false, God is called to witness to a thing as true which the swearer knows to be false. It is also in an especial manner a sin against society, as mutual truth-telling is the very bond of social trust. When the moral and religious tone of a nation stands high, “an oath for confirmation is the end of all strife” (Heb 6:16), and on the other hand, when either a disbelief in God’s providence or a casuistical theology saps the confidence placed in promises confirmed by oaths, society is perilously near its dissolution (see Bishop Sanderson’s ‘Obligation of Oaths’). The sanctity of an oath is guarded by a special commandment in the Decalogue.
Lev 6:5
Repentance, confession, satisfaction, absolution,
follow each other in order. Without repentance confession is vain; without confession satisfaction is impracticable; without satisfaction there is no absolution. In the present case, the sense of absolution was conveyed to the soul of the sinner by the acceptance of his offering for trespass, after which he ceased to be, what he was before, virtually excommunicate from God’s people. The greater moral offenses were punished either by death (Exo 21:12-17; Exo 31:15; Exo 32:27; Le Exo 20:9-16; Exo 24:1-18 :23; Num 25:5; Deu 13:9; Deu 19:11; Jos 7:25), or by formal excommunication, when the offenders were cut off from the people of the Lord, though their lives were spared (Lev 7:20, Lev 7:21; Gen 17:14). But there was, and there is, an excommunication, not formally pronounced, when a man feels that his sin has separated between him and his God. In these cases the sin offering or the trespass offering restored to communion, but they might not be offered, that is, absolution might not be effected by them, unless preceded by repentance and confession, and, where the nature of the case admitted of it, by satisfaction for the wrong done.
HOMILIES BY J.A. MACDONALD
Lev 6:1-7
Restitution.
This paragraph ought to have been included in the preceding chapter, as it is the conclusion of the subject there considered. The last paragraphs treated of sacrilege, or trespass in the holy things of God; this has reference to trespass between man and man. We have here
I. AN ENUMERATION OF WRONGS. These may be distributed into two classes, viz.:
1. In matters of fraud. These may be
(1) in respect to things in custody, “that which was delivered him to keep.” Under this heading may he ranged things left in pledge, the possession of which is afterwards denied. Also things borrowed and fraudulently retained.
(2) In respect to “fellowship.” This may refer, in matters of partnership, to claiming for sole interest profits that should be divided, or shifting liabilities which should be jointly borne wholly to the partner’s account. The Hebrew here is “putting of the hand,” which the margin interprets “in dealing.” Any fraud in trade would, therefore, come under this head, viz. by light weight, short measure, false balances, false samples, adulterations, misrepresentation of values, or saunterings by which an employer is robbed of his time.
(3) In respect to trusts. Executors so managing estates as to enrich themselves at the expense of their wards. Public servants manipulating accounts to pocket balances, or taking bribes to favour particular contractors to the prejudice of competitors or of the public.
(4) In respect to “the lost thing which he found.” Solon’s law was, “Take not up that which you laid not down.” Historians relate that in England, in the days of Alfred the Great, golden bracelets might be safely hung up in the road. Whoever retains what he found when he knows who the owner is, or without using diligence to discover him, is a thief.
2. In matters of violence. Such as
(1) “A thing taken away by violence.” A horrible example is furnished in the case of the vineyard of Naboth (1Ki 21:15, 1Ki 21:16).
(2) Any kind of oppression. Exactions under pressure of necessity. Exactions under threats. Withholding adequate remuneration for service (see Jas 2:6; Jas 5:4-6).
II. AGGRAVATIONS OF THE WRONGS. These are:
1. When lies are told to cover them.
(1) Some may have the hardihood stoutly to deny, in the face of witnesses to the contrary, that they came into fraudulent possession of property.
(2) It is more easily denied when there are no witnesses to attest delivery, or prove custody or trust against the holder.
(3) Lies are told in the forms of evasion, shuffling, and false colouring.
2. When oaths are taken to give countenance to the lies.
(1) God is a witness of everything (2Ch 16:9; Psa 34:15; Pro 15:3). He is often a silent observer. It is an awful aggravation of a wrong to think that it is done under the eye of God,
(2) But when an oath is taken to cover a wrong, God is appealed to. What a fearful outrage against the God of truth, to be thus called in to attest a lie!
(3) Whether a wrong be done before God as a “witness,” which it must be if it is done at all; or whether he be “appealed” to by an oath, every trespass against man is also “a trespass against Jehovah” (see Jas 5:4). Trespasses cannot, therefore, be treated lightly because of the insignificance of the person wronged, when the Almighty also is concerned. In all the interest which God takes in the justice of human actions, he has the good of man at heart.
III. THE LAW OF REPARATION.
1. He shall make up the wrong to the person injured.
(1) “He shall restore it in the principal.” If this cannot be done in the identical thing, then an “estimation” of its value must be taken, and payment made, viz. “in shekels of silver, after the shekel of the sanctuary” (comp. Le Lev 5:15).
(2) “He shall add the fifth part more thereto.” This is a proper consideration for the inconvenience the owner may have suffered through the fraud. But if the “estimation” be, as some read it in Le Lev 5:15, “two shekels,” then the restoration would be “fourfold,” since the atonement money was “half a shekel.” This would agree with Exo 22:1 (comp. also 2Sa 12:6; Luk 19:8).
(3) And he shall “give it unto him to whom it appertaineth, in the day of his trespass offering.” The trespass offering will not be accepted else. Job’s blends had to make peace with him before their sacrifices would be accepted (Job 42:8; see also Mat 5:23, Mat 5:24).
2. He shall then “bring his trespass offering unto the Lord.”
(1) “A ram that is perfect.” God will accept nothing that is imperfect. Therefore we must come to him through Christ, who can invest us with his righteousness.
(2) “With thy estimation, for a trespass offering, unto the priest.” This, according to Le Job 5:15, would be of the value of two shekels.
(3) “And the priest shall make an atonement for him,” etc. Reflect: What a power there is in conscience! What a costly thing is sin! How carefully should it be avoided! Let us avail ourselves of the benefits of redemption.J.A.M.
HOMILIES BY W. CLARKSON
Lev 6:1-7
Human ownership and dishonesty.
From the Divine directions here given as to the trespass offering, in the case of wrong between man and man, we gather
I. THAT GOD ALLOWS US TO CONSIDER HIS GIFTS AS BELONGING TO OURSELVES. By inheritance or by labour we acquire property; a man has a right to say, concerning an object thus legally acquired, “This is mine.” The possession of property is carefully guarded by the declarations of God’s Word; “the commandments of the Lord” make the violation of this right a very serious sin (see text). It is well, however, to remember that human ownership is never absolute; it is subject to:
1. God’s prior and supreme claim (Psa 24:1; 1Ch 29:11; Hag 2:8).
2. Our duty, in holding it, to keep in view the general good; e.g; large landowner has no right to let ground lie waste, and be covered with seed-sowing weeds.
3. Our liability, at any hour, to lay it down at God’s will.
II. THAT MEN FIND VARIOUS WAYS OF DISREGARDING THIS RIGHT. Many forms of dishonesty prevail in every land; it is an inevitable excrescence of sin. Five special cases are here provided against:
1. Breach of trust, or failure to return anything borrowed; lying in “that which was delivered him to keep” (Lev 6:2).
2. Unfairness in partnership or cooperation; “in fellowship.”
3. Violent appropriation or hardship (oppression),”a thing taken away by violence” (Lev 6:2).
4. Fraud in trading,”hath deceived his neighbour” (Lev 6:2).
5. Illegal retention of something accidentally acquired,”have found that which was lost,” etc. (Lev 6:3).
III. THAT DISHONESTY IN ANY FORM IS A SERIOUS SIN AGAINST GOD, as well as a wrong done to our neighbour. By committing any one of these offenses a soul is said to “sin, and commit a trespass against the Lord” (Lev 6:2); “he sins therein” (Lev 6:3); “he hath sinned, and is guilty.” Evidently the taking from our neighbour “that which is his’ is a high misdemeanour in the sight of God. Two of the “ten commandments” (Exo 20:1-26) are directed against it: “Thou shalt not steal;” “Thou shalt not covet,” etc. Theft, dishonesty, is a treble sin: it is a wrong to our fellow; it is an injury to ourselves (spiritual demoralization); it is an offense against God.
IV. THAT IT CALLS FOR RESTITUTION AS WELL AS SACRIFICE.
1. We must, indeed, bring our sacrifice to God. The Jew was to bring his “ram without blemish” (Lev 6:6), and an atonement was to be made before the Lord, and his trespass was forgiven him (Lev 6:7). We must bring the sacrifice of a contrite spirit, and plead the One Sacrifice for all sin, and we shall be forgiven.
2. But we are also bound to make restitution where that is possible. The Jew was to “restore it in the principal, and add the fifth part more thereto” (Lev 6:5); he was to more than make up for the injury he had done. And
(1) in order that the will of Christ concerning us in such case may be fully done (see Mat 5:24),
(2) that our own conscience may be perfectly clear and unstained, and
(3) that our brother may have reason to be entirely satisfied with us,let us make not only adequate but ample or even overflowing compensation for the wrong which we have done.C.
Lev 6:3
Sin a germ as well as a fruit.
It is contemplated by the Supreme Legislator, that if a man once cherish a dishonest thought, he will probably go beyond fraud to falsehood (“and lieth”), and, when necessary, from falsehood to perjury (“and sweareth falsely”). This is true to life. Sin is not only the consequence of the evil that came before it, but it is the cause of more sin which is to follow; it is not only the child but the parent of wrong. Learn that
I. NO MAN WHO SINS CAN TELL HOW FAR HIS SIN WILL TAKE HIM. Hazael, Gehazi, Ahab, Judas, etc.; “facilis descensus Averni.”
II. IT IS IN THE NATURE OF SIN TO TEMPT TO FURTHER SIN. The instances with which we are familiar are not remarkable exceptions; they are illustrations of a principle at work everywhere and always. “There’s not a crime but takes its change out still in crime, when once rung on the counter of this world;” dishonesty naturally, if not necessarily, leads to lying, and lying to perjury. One sin is the germ of another, and is sure to bear fruit.
III. IT IS A PART OF THE PENALTY OF SIN THAT IT SHOULD DO SO. We sometimes think that sin carries no penalty; so it seemed to the Psalmist (Psa 73:1-28), but he was wrong, as he owned (Lev 6:15). It not only ends disastrously (“then understood I their end”), but it results in certain, immediate, spiritual injury. On the day in which the forbidden fruit is eaten, we do die,in the soul.
IV. THIS FACT OF THE DIFFUSIVENESS OF SIN HELPS TO EXPLAIN THE EXCEEDING EVIL OF IT IN THE SIGHT OF GOD. It may well be accounted “an evil and bitter thing,” a thing which he “hates,” which he “abhors,” etc.
These considerations furnish
(1) a very strong reason for repentance, etc; and
(2) an equally strong inducement for the cultivation of holiness in the heart and life of the good.C.
HOMILIES BY S.R. ALDRIDGE
Lev 6:1-7
Dishonesty atoned for.
The rebukes tacitly administered by the Law in cases of unjust dealing are neither effete nor unnecessary in modern days. The practices here reprehended still survive, commercial immorality is even yet a fruitful topic of remark. Temptations to dishonesty abound, and are as potent as of yore, for the springs of evil in the human breast remain unaltered, pouring forth their dark and bitter waters. And whilst it is not by works that the children of God expect to be justified, yet may their good works glorify God; and to guard against the deeds of injustice to which men are prone is to adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour. Happy the congregation of Christians none of whose members has ever been convicted of the transgressions mentioned in these verses!
I. THE SIN DESCRIBED.
1. Its main feature is the unlawful possession of another’s property, through wrongful acquisition or detention. Force or deceit has been employed in procuring or retaining the goods. This sin may be committed in little things or great, and by communities as well as individuals.
2. Its source is avarice. The eye beholds, the heart covets, the will consents, and the hand grasps, as in the history of Achan, who robbed God (Jos 7:21). There is thus the evil cooperation of the senses and faculties, sin in inward thought and outward act. The temporary gratification of the flesh is preferred to the durable contentment of the spirit; self is brought into hideous prominence, as if it could never be coincident with the interest of others and of God. It is classed with sins of ignorance because, though wittingly done, the covetous desire seems to blind the moral sight, and man acts as if under the constraint of a foreign power. Beware of greed! it is insidious in its approaches, and awful in its effects.
3. It is aggravated by falsehood. One sin drags another in its wake; avarice prepares the way for lying, even demands it that its designs may be achieved. What has been taken by force is often defended by perjury. The pillars of wickedness are unstable; they need each other’s support, for they cannot stand alone in their own native strength. A covetous heart calls for a deceitful tongue.
II. THE REPARATION. Real happiness does not accompany sin; it is a thorny rose, a cup with nauseous elements, a nightmare sleep. Though no human eye detect the wrong, the sinner is guilty, and knows that One above will not recognize the right of might and violence, nor allow his name to be used with impunity as a shield to vice. Remorse tortures the transgressor, until he is driven to confess his crime and to make amends for it. The Law mercifully appoints a salve for the bleeding conscience.
1. Full restitution to the rightful owner. The property stolen or retained, together with an added fifth, is returned as compensation for the injury suffered. Sin is shown to be unprofitable, and no length of possession is allowed to supply a reason for inequitable retention. Lapse of time must never be supposed to bar recovery of rights. Are there no persons in our assemblies to whom this law is applicable?
2. Acknowledgment of an offense committed against God. It was “a trespass against the Lord” (Lev 6:2), and in several respects. His commandments were broken, notably the second, third, eighth, and tenth (Exo 20:1-26). An atonement is required, the sacrifice of a ram, the fat parts of which are burnt on the altar, and the rest eaten by the priests. The two branches of the moral law are closely connected. To violate the one is to dishonour the other. Experience attests their contiguity. Those who best regard the interests of their neighbours are the men that are jealous for the honour of God. Forget not to impress upon children the importance of asking, not only their parents’ pardon, but the forgiveness of their heavenly Father when they have acted dishonestly or unkindly. Frequently the newspapers record the receipt by the Chancellor of the Exchequer of money sent because of unpaid taxes. Do the senders always remember that they have sinned against God as well as man; and implore forgiveness in the name of Jesus Christ?S.R.A.
HOMILIES BY R.A. REDFORD
Lev 6:1-7
Trespasses done wittingly.
These were acts of lying, fraud, deceit, violence, or any social wrong involving conscious trespass on the rights of our neighbour.
I. SOCIAL MORALITY RESTS UPON RELIGION. Offenses against neighbours, offenses against God. No true support of society apart from faith. Follies of the modern skeptical school. Enthusiasm of humanity, atheism, development of morality out of a physical basis,mere dreams of the intellect. Facts of history show that corrupt religion is corrupt morals; that an atheistic society is mere organized selfishness.
II. THE TRUE HEALING PRINCIPLE OF SOCIETY. The preservation of individual rights in the spirit of a common allegiance to God. We are all brethren. If one offend, let his offense be both readily acknowledged and atoned for, and readily forgiven. So long as we simply pay back, we do not heal the hurt; we must more than pay back. His restitution was of the principal and the fifth part more thereto. Such a regulation was founded on the Divine love, as the essence of the Divine Law. We must remedy wrongs in the spirit of benevolence.
II. AS TYPICAL OF THE CROSS OF CHRIST, THE DIVINE FULNESS OF REDEMPTION is set forth. The offenses of men are more than made up for. Their redeemed state is an advance upon their state of innocence. The new Law is better than the old. Christ in us is not only the crucifixion of sin and the world, but “the hope of glory.” The believer will find in the blood of the atonement both a cleansing away of guilt, and a washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost.R.
Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary
E.TRESPASS OFFERINGS
Lev 5:14 to Lev 6:7
Note.In the division of chapters in the Hebrew Bible this section is rightly all included in Leviticus 5.
14And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, 15If a soul commit a trespass [do a wrong1], and sin through ignorance [inadvertence2] in [taking from3] the holy things of the Lord; then he shall bring for his trespass unto the Lord a ram without blemish out of the flocks, with [according to4] thy estimation by shekels of silver, after the shekel of the sanctuary, for a trespass offering; 16and he shall make amends for the harm that he hath done [sin that he hath committed5] in the holy thing, and shall add the fifth part thereto, and give it unto the priest: and the priest shall make an atonement for him with the ram of the trespass offering, and it shall be forgiven him.
17And if a soul sin, and commit any of these things which are forbidden to be done by the commandments of the Lord; though he wist it not, yet is he guilty, and shall bear his iniquity. 18And he shall bring a ram without blemish out of the flock, with [according to4] thy estimation, for a trespass offering, unto the priest: and the priest shall make an atonement for him concerning his ignorance [inadvertence2] 19wherein he erred and wist it not, and it shall be forgiven him. It is a trespass offering: he hath certainly trespassed against the Lord.
Lev 6:1-2.And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, If a soul sin, and commit a trespass [do a wrong1] against the Lord, and lie unto his neighbour, in that [and deny to his neighbor that6] which was delivered him to keep, or in fellowship [or a pledge7] or in [omit in] a thing taken away by violence, or hath deceived [oppressed8]his neighbour; 3or have found that which was lost, and lieth concerning it [denieth it6] and sweareth falsely: in any of all these that a man doeth, sinning therein: 4then it shall be, because he hath sinned, and is guilty, that he shall restore that which he took violently away, or the thing which he hath deceitfully [oppressively8] gotten, or that which was delivered him to keep, or the lost thing which he found, 5or all that about which he hath sworn falsely; he shall even restore it in the principal, and shall add the fifth part more thereto, and give it unto him to whom it appertaineth, in the day of his trespass offering.9 6And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the Lord, a ram without blemish out of the flock, with [according to10] thy estimation, for a trespass offering, unto the priest: 7and the priest shall make an atonement for him before the Lord: and it shall be forgiven him for anything of all that he hath done in trespassing therein.
TEXTUAL AND GRAMMATICAL
Lev 5:15. . The word being different from the so frequently recurring in this chapter in a technical sense, it is better to change the translation. Otherwise commit a trespass is a sufficiently good translation, as no English word embodies the idea of secrecy or stealth conveyed by the original.
Lev 5:15. = through inadvertence. See Note 1 on Lev 4:2.
Lev 5:15. a constructio prgnans = taking, or diminishing from the holy things.
Lev 5:15. . The preposition often has the sense given in the A. V. with but according to (as in the next word but one) seems here the better rendering. The evident sense is that the ram was to be of a certain value, and this was to be determined by an estimation. The restitution for the harm done, with its added fifth, is prescribed in the following ver., and does not come into view here. The Sam. text preserves the exact form of the Hebrew, but all the ancient versions, while changing the form of expression, give the sense according to; they also neglect to translate the = thy.
Lev 5:15. . The preposition often has the sense given in the A. V. with but according to (as in the next word but one) seems here the better rendering. The evident sense is that the ram was to be of a certain value, and this was to be determined by an estimation. The restitution for the harm done, with its added fifth, is prescribed in the following ver., and does not come into view here. The Sam. text preserves the exact form of the Hebrew, but all the ancient versions, while changing the form of expression, give the sense according to; they also neglect to translate the = thy.
Lev 5:16. This is the only place in Lev. in which is rendered by any other word than sin in the A. V. This should be conformed to the usage.
Lev 6:2. construed with a double of the person and of the thing, = to deny a thing to a person. The word means to lie (Lev 19:11, etc.), but the other rendering expresses more exactly the sense here, and is the more usual.
Lev 6:2. = a thing given in pledge, a pawn, different from the trust just before. The construction is with the same verb, and is sufficiently expressed without the special translation of , so that the in of the A. V. may be omitted throughout.
Lev 6:2. lit. to press, to squeeze, hence to oppress. A new verb being hero introduced the construction with the series of ends. The derived noun , Lev 6:4, bears the same sense = that which has been oppressively obtained.
Lev 6:5. The Heb. word meaning either trespass or trespass offering, the marg. of the A. V. is hardly accurate in writing Heb. in the day of his trespass.
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
The general distinction of the trespass from the sin offering has already been pointed out: in the trespass offering the idea of the harm done was more prominent, in the sin offering that of the sin committed. Accordingly the trespass offering was usually accompanied by amends for the harma fifth (a double tithe) being added as penalty. In case the person against whom the wrong was done was already dead without a kinsman to receive the compensation, the amends and penalty were to be paid to the priest (Num 5:8). The ritual differed in several respects from that of the sin offering: the blood was treated as in the burnt and peace offerings; the only victim here allowed was a ram; there was no gradation either in the victim or the ritual according to the rank of the offender; nor were any alternative offerings allowed in case of poverty. The reason for the last provision results necessarily from the nature of the offering. Elsewhere we find the same trespass offering prescribed for unchastity with a slave (Lev 19:20-22), and in later times offered by those who, on the return from the captivity, had taken strange wives (Ezr 10:19); the same also (not a he-lamb, as in the A. V.) is commanded with a some what different ritual on occasion of declaring the cleansing of a leper (Lev 14:12; Lev 14:21), and also with a ram of a year old for the victim in case of unintentional defilement by a dead body during a Nazarite vow (Num 6:9-12).
Three cases are specified which demand a trespass offeringthe first two having reference more directly to wrong done towards God (Lev 5:15-19), and the third, including several varieties of offence, having reference to wrong done to men (Lev 6:2-7).
Lev 5:14. And the LORD spake.This formula marks a fresh communication and distinctly separates the trespass offering from the sin offering which has occupied the whole of the previous communication from Lev 4:1. The whole law of the trespass offering is not, however, contained in this communiction, but only that part of it relating to wrongs done toward God. Wrongs done toward man are the subject of a separate communication (Lev 6:1-7).
Lev 5:16-17. The first case of the trespass offering.
Lev 5:15. Through inadvertence, as in Lev 4:2; Lev 4:13; Lev 4:22.
In taking from the holy things.See Textual note 3. The holy things were the first-fruits, tithes, or gifts of any kind connected with the service of the sanctuary or the support of its priests, by the withholding of which the Lord is said to suffer loss. The restitution and penalty are mentioned Lev 22:14 without mention of this offering, which is presupposed.
A ram.The invariable trespass offering (except in the special cases Lev 14:12; Num 6:12) which does not at all appear in the list of victims for the sin offering in Lev 4:1 to Lev 5:13.
According to thy estimation.See Textual note 4.The pronoun thy must be considered as used impersonally; or if it be taken personally, then it is addressed to Moses, and of course to any one to whom this duty should afterwards belong in his place.
Shekels.The Vulg. and many commentators understand the plural to stand for two, as the A. V. has explained the plural in Eze 47:13; others, as Aben-Ezra, Abarbanel, etc., understand it less definitely as meaning at least two shekels. The notion of Oehler (p. 478) and Keil (in loc.) that the value of the ram was purposely left indefinite, that there might be room to vary it according to the gravity of the trespass, although advocated by Michaelis (Art. 244), is clearly wrong. It is opposed to the fundamental idea of all sacrifice, which excludes such correlation; and is entirely unnecessary, since the compensation and forfeit (Lev 5:16) were separately required. Moreover, the variation in the value of the ram would be very small in comparison with the variation in trespasses. The text was intended to fix the lowest limit of the value of a ram that could be allowed, and the estimation was for the purpose of determining whether he came up to the standard. The plural is plainly to be understood as meaning two shekels, or at least two shekels. Knobel.
Shekel of the Sanctuary.See Exo 30:13; Exo 38:24, etc.
Lev 5:16. And he shall make amends.He shall give the first-fruits or tithes, or whatever he had withheld or taken from sacred dues, or its value. And shall add the fifth part thereto as a penalty or forfeit.Theodoret here refers to the example of Zaccheus. The justice of such additional payment is everywhere recognized in the Hebrew and all other laws. It is in this, and not in the ram, that the penalty is proportioned to the offence. This having been done, and reparation made, then, with the ram, the priest shall make an atonement.
On the ritual of this sacrifice see Lev 7:1-6.
Lev 5:17-19. The second case of the trespass offering.
This second case probably differed from the first as sins of commission differ from those of omission. The formula by which the trespass is expressed is substantially the same as in Lev 4:22; Lev 4:27 in regard to the sin to be expiated by the sin offering. From its connection, and from its being expiated by the trespass offering, it is supposed to include all those transgressions against the theocratic law which could be compensated by money or other payment; yet in this case alone no mention is made of compensation, partly because it was evident from the foregoing that it was required when it could be given, and partly because it included also cases in which pecuniary compensation could not be given, but punishment must be inflicted in some other way. (See Lev 19:20.) Lange, however, urges that this omission is a serious difficulty against the view of the trespass offering which has here been given. He considers that the trespass offering relates to participation in guilt in contradistinction to an original offence, and thinks this is indicated by the description of these sins as sins of ignorance. He says these sins of ignorance belong specifically to the category of participation in guilt. It must be remembered, however, that all sins for which any offering was allowed were sins of ignorance, or rather of inadvertence.
Lev 6:1-7. The third case of the trespass offering.
From the formula of Lev 6:1 this appears as a separate divine communication, on account of the different character of the sins enumerated. All sin is indeed against God, yet those which follow belong to that class of offences against Him which also work harm to men.
The first three verses contain an enumeration of specific wrongs; Lev 6:4-5 provide for amends for the harm done with the added penalty; and Lev 6:6-7 for atonement by means of the trespass offering. This communication bears the fame relation to the foregoing which Lev 5:1-13 bears to chap. 4.
Lev 6:2. If a man deny to his neighbor that which was delivered him. is a deposit, a thing entrusted to be kept. The sin in this case would consist either in denying the receiving it at all, or denying that it was received in trust, or refusing to restore it.
A pledge.This differs from the former in not being simply a trust, but a security, a pawn. It is not separately mentioned in Lev 6:4.
Lev 6:3. Sweareth falsely.When he denies that he has found a lost thing, and is put upon his oath, he swears to his lie, . This false swearing refers also to all the wrongs mentioned before, and the guilt of the false oath, added to the wrong done, brings the offence into the category of sins against the Lord.
Lev 6:5. In the day of his trespass offering.The amends for the wrong done was to be made to the person wronged at the same time that the offender sought the divine forgiveness. The penalty for the wrong and the ritual of the offering are the same as in chap. 5.
In Exo 22:1-9 a series of wrongs is enumerated much like those here mentioned with the general law that the restitution should be double (Lev 6:4; Lev 6:9), while in particular cases it rose to four and five-fold. The distinction between the penalty as given there and here appears to lie in the fact that there the offender was only brought to any restitution by a conviction before the judges (Lev 6:9); while here, although it is not distinctly so declared yet, every thing implies that the acknowledgment of the wrong is voluntary. There is no mention of conviction, and the whole connection is with sins of inadvertence or impulse which were afterwards acknowledged, and for which forgiveness was sought by the offender.
DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL
I. From the law of the trespass offering it is clear that guilt was not removed by the mere act of compensation (with penalty added) for the harm done; nor, on the other hand, could an atonement be offered for that guilt until such compensation had been made. Here are brought, out the two principles which everywhere, under the old and the new dispensation alike, are concerned in the forgiveness of transgression. There must be both the desire, as far as possible, to make amends for the harm done; and there must be also the sacrifice divinely appointed for the covering of the sin. Neither of these can avail alone, because both are essential to that state of holiness, that conquest over the evil, by which alone man can be at one with God. The sacrifice of Christ is all-sufficient for the forgiveness of sin; but the sinner can only avail himself of its benefits when, Christ-like, he himself seeks to conquer the evil.
II. Wrong done to man is itself sin against God. It is impossible to separate the command to love God from that of loving our neighbor also. 1Jn 3:20-21.
III. In those sins against others for which atonement was provided in the trespass offering, there was the additional sin of a false oath. This was certainly a moral offencea sin in the full sense of the word. In view of this, it is impossible to look upon the offences for which sacrifices were appointed as mere ceremonial or theocratic offences. They everywhere appear as true sins, moral transgressions, and this is most clearly shown by including the false oath among them.
HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL
There is no true repentance for wrong done to man which is not accompanied by restitutionand none for having taken from the things of the Lord, or for having failed to give all that should have been given to Him, except in restoring it in overflowing measure; yet while this may make amends for the harm done, forgiveness of the sin must still be sought through propitiation.
In the trespass offering the ritual of the blood was like that of the burnt or the peace offeringinferior to that of the sin offering. This shows that while wrong must of necessity involve sin, yet it does not, in itself considered, stand on the same footing as sin; the moral element in transgression is always the more important. One cannot indeed really offend against man without also offending against God; yet the offence which has God directly for its objective point must necessarily be more serious, since it involves a deeper tort than that which is directed only against man.
The sin offering was lessened by successive stages for the poor, and the very poor, that it might be brought within the reach of all; for all must have propitiation for sin; but the trespass offering is unvaried, the same for all; because if one cannot make amends for the wrong he has done, it must, be let alone,an inferior gift cannot set things right.
Wrong, like sin, may be committed through inadvertence. Still it must be atoned for. Good intentions will not repair the wrong.
For sin done with a high hand, presumptuously, no sacrifice was provided, because the offender deliberately set himself in opposition to God; but for offences against man, such as those here enumerated, some of which must have been done deliberately, a sacrifice is allowed, because even such intentional wrongs do not constitute the same attitude of opposition to God. They may be done, through passion or covetousness, without reflection upon their moral bearings. Therefore, on repentance, restitution, and propitiation, they may be forgiven.
Origen applies the law of trespass in abstracting from sacred things to the faithfulness required of the Christian minister in regard to gifts for holy uses committed to his trust; and then further to the hearing of Gods word as a sacred gift, for the use of which men are responsible, and for the misuse of which they become guilty.
Footnotes:
[1]Lev 5:15. . The word being different from the so frequently recurring in this chapter in a technical sense, it is better to change the translation. Otherwise commit a trespass is a sufficiently good translation, as no English word embodies the idea of secrecy or stealth conveyed by the original.
[2]Lev 5:15. = through inadvertence. See Note 1 on Lev 4:2.
[3]Lev 5:15. a constructio prgnans = taking, or diminishing from the holy things.
[4]Lev 5:15. . The preposition often has the sense given in the A. V. with but according to (as in the next word but one) seems here the better rendering. The evident sense is that the ram was to be of a certain value, and this was to be determined by an estimation. The restitution for the harm done, with its added fifth, is prescribed in the following ver., and does not come into view here. The Sam. text preserves the exact form of the Hebrew, but all the ancient versions, while changing the form of expression, give the sense according to; they also neglect to translate the = thy.
[5]Lev 5:16. This is the only place in Lev. in which is rendered by any other word than sin in the A. V. This should be conformed to the usage.
[6]Chap. 6. Lev 6:2. construed with a double of the person and of the thing, = to deny a thing to a person. The word means to lie (Lev 19:11, etc.), but the other rendering expresses more exactly the sense here, and is the more usual.
[7]Lev 6:2. = a thing given in pledge, a pawn, different from the trust just before. The construction is with the same verb, and is sufficiently expressed without the special translation of , so that the in of the A. V. may be omitted throughout.
[8]Lev 6:2. lit. to press, to squeeze, hence to oppress. A new verb being hero introduced the construction with the series of ends. The derived noun , Lev 6:4, bears the same sense = that which has been oppressively obtained.
[9]Lev 6:5. The Heb. word meaning either trespass or trespass offering, the marg. of the A. V. is hardly accurate in writing Heb. in the day of his trespass.
[10]Lev 6:15. . The preposition often has the sense given in the A. V. with but according to (as in the next word but one) seems here the better rendering. The evident sense is that the ram was to be of a certain value, and this was to be determined by an estimation. The restitution for the harm done, with its added fifth, is prescribed in the following ver., and does not come into view here. The Sam. text preserves the exact form of the Hebrew, but all the ancient versions, while changing the form of expression, give the sense according to; they also neglect to translate the = thy.
Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange
CONTENTS
Part of this Chapter is but a continuation of the former, concerning the trespass-offering: to this are added, laws concerning burnt offerings, and meat offerings; the law of the consecration of the priest, and of the sin offering.
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Observe, though the sin here spoken of is said to be unto a man’s neighbor, yet the trespass is against the LORD. All sin is in the first and proper sense of it, leveled against the divine authority. Jas 4:11 . Hence, in that great sin of David against Uriah, he refers all to this. Psa 51:4 .
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Practical Religion
Lev 6:1-7
A curious combination of words is this in the second verse “… a trespass against the Lord, and lie unto his neighbour.” What have the terms “Lord” and “neighbour” to do with one another? Have we not partitioned off society into special and unrelated departments? Who shall venture to throw down the lines which we have set up and to make one common society of earth and heaven? Already here is a forth-shadowing of the two commandments on which hang all the law and the prophets namely: “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God… and thy neighbour as thyself.” There has always been some vital connection between “Lord” and “neighbour”; how is this? Do we not pass too roughly over such conjunctions, taking them as mere matters of course a jingling of words, hiding no music, modifying no eternity of power and right? We are bungling readers at the best; we do not extract from the word its root, and life, and soul. May not that man sin against his neighbour, and yet say his prayers as if nothing had been done to violate the sanctity of upper and spiritual relations? May not a man kneel upon his overthrown neighbour, and in that attitude of oppression and triumph plead with the complacent heavens? Verily, the Bible is a book which takes part with the “neighbour”; it is a chivalrous revelation. To have come from heaven it comes with wondrous earthly sympathy and sense of right and rule of judgment. From this point of view the book may be inspired! When we sin against our neighbour, we sin against God; when we remove the ancient landmark, we violate the altar; when we tell lies to society, we smite heaven with blasphemy. This is the spirit of the book. Such spirit makes us strong, leads out our love in adoration towards the book as towards a living protector, and friend, and guide. Were it full of ghosts a great theatre of possible spiritual presences, having no relation to our life except to alarm it, we might flee away in terror and leave it to men who have skill in communing with ghostly presences; but it takes care of the flock in the field, it will not allow an ancient hedge to be taken down without a just equivalent being rendered, it will not have a bird’s little nest torn to pieces without protest and judgment; it is a domestic book: it looks after the house-fire and the house-table and all things belonging to our little daily life; it has an infinite sky, but, blessed be God, it is also a world about the size of a house a house watched with the eyes of love. A book that cares so much for “neighbours” is a book which by so much arrests the moral attention and may reward the moral confidence of mankind. Violence, deceit, false-swearing, why these are the sins of to-day. There is nothing original in sinning. The old vulgarity, and the old refinement upon it, we find from the beginning. Consider the words, for there is a philosophy in their very order: “violence,” “deceit,” “perjury.” You cannot invert that order without violating the philosophy of true development and evolution. There is an inspiration of order as well as of substance, and that inspiration is written here and proved by the fullest and happiest verification. We all begin with “violence.” The first man begins branch-breaking and fruit-stealing. He tells no lie, he has no deep plot against the Eternal: he puts out his hand and wrenches the branch, and the crash of that wood, hitherto untouched, sends pain through all the garden. The next man kills his enemy. The world’s sin began with violence; by-and-by violent men see that there is another way of accomplishing the purpose of the evil heart, so, without smiting and fire-kindling and rudeness, they begin to conspire and plot, and attach new meanings to words, and infuse unsuspected colours into the speech of commerce as between man and man: so language becomes manifold instead of simple: to the speaker it means one thing, to the hearer it means another thing, though the terms are the common property of the nation. After “deceit” comes the profanation of holy terms the sin against what may be termed the Holy Ghost of speech. We are, therefore, no further than this Old Testament text to-day; some are committing violence, some are plotting deceitful schemes and conspiracies, and others are standing up and insulting the spirit of truth lying not unto men, but unto God. There you have the range of the devil’s power: he oscillates from violence to perjury, touching the intermediate point of deceit. There is no genius in such an enemy; he is not fertile in invention; subjected to honest analysis he is to be laid out plainly on the world’s table in three parts, violence, deceit, perjury; and all the sin that can be committed can be brought under these three categories or one of them. And all this may be done away by offering to the priest “a ram without blemish out of the flock”! Bring the “ram” and all will be well! Steal the forbidden fruit, kill the hated Abel, swear with larger boldness than the audacity of Ananias and Sapphira, and when you are done, see to it that you pick out the right “ram,” offer it to the pontiff, let him slay it, and all will be well! That is an easy way out of difficulty! It is; but it is not the way of the Bible. Many persons who think they have escaped the Jewish ritual suppose they have only to see the priest, whisper the tale into his ear, furnish their “ram,” and go home released and sanctified. If they imagine a delusion so deep and aggravated in its infatuation, then they have indeed escaped Leviticus and the whole Pentateuch, and every line of the Gospels and the Epistles the whole canon of revelation. Mistakes are made about this matter which are of vital consequence. We have given the enemy occasion to mock us a good deal in some of these applications; we have so acted as to leave upon the enemy the impression that we can obliterate a whole week’s work of violence, deceit and perjury by going to church on Sunday especially if we are so learned in ancient law as to be quite sure that we have escaped the ancient ritual and now stand in the liberty of wantonness and in the blasphemy of licentiousness. There is to be no Sunday catharism washing by the priest or washing by the sinner’s own hand until some thing else has been done. What was the ancient law? The offender was to restore that which was taken away by violence, or that about which deceit was practised, or that wherein perjury was committed. That is the first step in the process. The whole thing in controversy must be replaced. Now may the man pray? No. There is no quid pro quo in morals. You cannot balance a crime by an apology; and you cannot drive iron into wood and extract it without leaving a wound behind. Extraction is not enough, restoration is not sufficient; after the full quantity has been restored, the man is to add twenty per cent to it. If he has robbed his employer of one hundred pounds, he must replace the hundred pounds, and he must add twenty pounds to it, then he may go to church! What a blessed thing it would be for some men if they could have escaped Leviticus! for those men who sneer at the Old Testament as at an obsolete document, made yellow by time, good enough in its day but outworn by the magazines of the hour. You cannot outlive morality, moral judgment, righteousness. There is no back door through what is called natural law by which we can escape the eternal demand and claim of truth. After restoration and the addition of the fifth part thereto, the man was to go and see the pontiff of Israel and arrange about the offering of the ram. The process was not complete until the ram had been offered. We do not sin downward only, we sin upward as well. Every social offence has a religious bearing; every wrong done in the marketplace reports itself in heaven. Thus life is solemn: actions have rebounds, and throbs, and issues, often incalculable, often infinite. The criminal has a hard life of it in the Bible. Some men have escaped the Bible; that is the reason they treat one another so violently, or with so fine a deceit, or with so flat a perjury. The moral tone of the Bible begets confidence. The book wants things to be foursquare, real, solid. A book with such a claim cannot be displaced by the most elaborate argument that founds itself upon smoke and rises into the dignity of evaporation. The Bible will have what is right: therefore, the Bible may be inspired! No such morality have I met in any other book accessible to me. Bible morality is critical, minute, detailed, most critical and exacting. There is no rough and ready method of bringing things to temporary equipoise. Nothing is settled until the root is made right, the fountain is purified, restoration is completed, compensation is effected, and prayer is said over the blood that atones.
Mark the process of repentance as well as the process of sin. There is a philosophy in the one as certainly as there is in the other. How was the offender to begin? He was to begin at the moral point. Preachers may be too much afraid of preaching in this tone, because they are afraid of being stigmatised by epithets that have nothing in them but the spite of their own utterers and mean inventors. We must not be afraid of preaching works and laws and rights. We do not honour the Book by such fear; we misinterpret its spirit and misapply its claim. Begin with the moral and work towards the spiritual restore, compensate, pray. No doubt it would suit some conditions of human nature to begin at the other end, because something might occur in the reverse process to prevent the completion of the whole. Hear not those priests though their name be Aaron who tell you to begin in metaphysical regions and work your way downwards, little by little, until you begin to bring back the property you stole. Restore the property before you see the high-priest, and give a fifth part of that which is taken back to the owner of that which was lost. Having done what is possible to humanity, begin the upper movement, and close the process with a look towards God. Let us have no whining, no canting, no sentimentality; let us rebuke the enemy wherein he thinks we are fanatics and can pray ourselves out of duties, bank ruptcies, and moral obligations. Is this preaching morality? I shall be thankful if that impression be made, for it is the one impression I wish to stamp upon the judgment and conscience of all men. This offers opportunities to every one immediately. It is not to be left to the offender first to obtain exactly clear views of the constitution of the Godhead before he begins to repay the man he has robbed. Believe me, we are not thus circumstanced that we have to fix upon a definite theory of the atonement for even the atonement has been debased into a theory until we begin to undo that which we have done amiss. We can restore stolen property: we can add to it a fifth part thereof or more, we may double it; and having done so, we must then ask pardon. Any Iscariot can throw back the thirty pieces of silver; but the only end of such villainy is to be hanged, and to die an unpitied death. We are not at liberty, as Christians, to put down upon a man’s threshold the money we stole, or the property we abstracted, and to run away drying our lips and lifting up our eyes to heaven and saying “All is now well!” We have not lied unto man only, we have lied unto God; we have wounded the Spirit of truth; we have outraged the harmony of heaven. We have a great religious task now to achieve and accomplish. A book insisting upon such regulations will hold its own when all the insects that have gathered upon it to eat it up have fallen away into forgetfulness. All wronged men should revere the Bible; it takes up their case; it insists upon justice being done to them, and upon justice blossoming into restoration, and restoration being crowned with prayer, atonement, and reconciliation. Bad men should dread the Bible; they have not a friend in any one of its pages; not one of its complete proverbs can they quote in vindication of evil spirit or of evil action. Men anxious about social regeneration and harmony should go to the Bible for law, precept and guidance. What is this but Christianity anticipated? Moses and the Lamb are at one here as otherwhere and everywhere. Said Christ “Think not I am come to destroy…. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.” Did Christ say anything about evil and the method of treating that evil before religious postures were assumed or oblations were attempted? He did. What did he say? He said, in spirit, exactly what Moses said. He saw men coming to the altar about to offer their gifts and to say their prayers, and he stopped them on the road and said to them “How stands it with you and your neighbour?” “My neighbour?” “Yes. Has thy brother aught against thee? Is there a feeling of hostility in thy heart against thy brother thy brother-man? If there is, do not go to the altar; you can do nothing there, except dishonour the very stones of which it is built. First go and be reconciled to thy brother make human and social relations right, begin at the visible point, make an impression upon the parties immediately concerned and through them upon observers, then go and offer thy gift.” Can we part with a book of which this is the moral tone! Here is a lesson for inquirers into the inspiration and authority of Holy Scripture. We cannot all begin at the uppermost points; many of us cannot seize recondite matters and adjust and determine them by adequate scholarship and information; but we can all begin our inquiry by asking, What is the moral tone of the book? What does it want to be at in its actual issue? It wants to reconcile man with man, to have restoration made where injury has been done; it would bring every man on his knees to the offended person saying “I have brought back that which I took away; I restore fourfold; pity me, forgive me, stoop over me and lift me up from this proper humiliation.” Does the book breathe a spirit of that kind? If so, no devil wrote it; no bad man ever inspired it; no clique of wrongdoers ever got up so complete a conspiracy. It would have father and mother honoured it would have the old folks at home made young again every day by the action of filial obedience, filial sympathy and filial help; it would set aside one day for rest every week sweet holy day: as far as possible, everything should stand still and rest awhile, taking its breath again, and looking the great look that takes in horizons and skies, constellations and thrones and powers; it would have honesty the law of life; it would have every loaf of pure flour without any leaven of untruthfulness, sharp practice, or evil skill in outwitting men. Is that the moral tone of the book? If so, I will not now trouble myself (the young inquirer may say) by questions I cannot now handle and perhaps may never be able to handle, but seeing that the book comes with such assertions of right and such claims, and insists upon them, and will in no sense be eluded, I will begin at that point, who knows but I may, step by step, go into the interior of the holy temple and see the inner lights and touch the inner mysteries? That is the right resolve; the issue of it will be that you will discover that the Sacred Book is one one as the many-coloured and resplendent sky.
Fuente: The People’s Bible by Joseph Parker
III
OFFERINGS
Leviticus 1-7
I make some general statements that apply to those books of the Pentateuch before Leviticus. In sacrifices of every kind, we commence with the fundamental idea of vicarious expiation. Vicarious means “in the place of another,” a substitute dying for another. The next advance in thought is the atonement that is made in heaven based upon the blood that he shed here upon earth. The next thought is, how the blood of the expiatory sacrifice is applied to the sinner. The next is, that but once is the expiatory blood ever sprinkled on the mercy seat; after that, it is sprinkled just outside the most holy place. There are sins that a man commits after Christ’s blood is applied, and for these sins there are offerings and the application to the forgiveness of sins; those particular offenses and all of these things are presented in this book and afterward realized in the New Testament idea.
First of all the offerings is the vicarious offering, simply because every other one depends on that. You couldn’t offer what is called a thank offering unless there had first been an expiatory offering based upon which the thank offering can be offered. One cannot offer a peace offering unless it is based upon the idea of an expiation that has preceded that peace offering. The fundamental idea then is the expiatory sacrifice of the substitutionary victim.
The word “burnt offering” is a very comprehensive term. A burnt offering may be a sin offering, it may be a consecration offering, it may be a meal offering or it may be a peace offering. Then the burnt offering may be burnt in whole or in part. In the case of a sin offering it is always burnt, every make his offering. Now, poor people could not have offered pigeon. Why? Why that variety? So that every one could bit of it; so in the consecration offerings; in others only a part is burnt. So it is very easy to get your mind confused on the burnt offering.
The next thought in connection with the burnt offering is, where it is burned. There are only two places where the burnt offering can be burned. If it is a sin offering as well as a burnt offering, it is all burned outside the camp; but if it is a consecration burnt offering, or of that kind, the burning is always on the brazen altar of sacrifice.
Now, let us take up the idea of the burnt offering which is for the purpose of consecration. These offerings, or consecrations, are of great variety. I will tell you why directly. One might offer a bullock, a goat, a sheep, a turtledove, or a young a bullock when they wanted to consecrate themselves unto God; it was more than they were able to pay. It is an indication of the extreme poverty of our Lord’s family that when they went to consecrate him they could not bring any more than a pair of turtledoves. The object of the variety is to enable everybody to make an offering, whether rich or poor.
The next thought in this connection is, that this must always be a whole offering, not a part. If one was rich enough to offer a bullock, he must offer the whole bullock and the whole bullock was burned. If he was so poor that he could only offer turtledoves, he never presented half of the turtledove or pigeon, but presented the whole dove, the whole pigeon.
The next thought is the last on the consecration offering, viz.: that no life can be consecrated unless it has first been saved; therefore, I say expiation comes first. Now leaving the expiation idea, let us see what is the thought. When a man is saved, saved by the blood of Jesus Christ, what is the first question for him? It is that his entire life and everything that he has is to be consecrated to God. This is the first thought. That was the thought when Jesus was presented in the Temple and when the appearance of the turtledoves indicated the consecration. Everything that he had was laid upon the altar of God.
Now let us look at an era of Texas history. All of you who live in Texas have doubtless heard George Truett’s sermon on consecration. I am sure he has preached it a hundred times. The idea is the giving up wholly to God after you are first saved; that you cannot give your sinful nature to God, but if the blood of Christ has cleansed you, then you can come before God. That is what this Levitical law requires. He was to bring the turtledoves and the whole of them was to be put upon the altar.
Now let us look at the ritual for the consecration offering. When one made that offering, first of all he laid his hands upon it. That indicates the idea of the transfer of his sins to the victim; it also indicates that his faith laid hold on that victim for what was done for him in that offering. In the New Testament times, you will see that the laying on of hands came to signify the imparting of the Holy Spirit.
What was done with the expiatory blood? That was carried into the most holy place and sprinkled on the mercy seat. What was done with the blood of the victim in the consecration offering? It was never carried and sprinkled on the mercy seat, because it was based on the expiation, but it was sprinkled on the sides of the brazen altar. Now, get these significant thoughts in your mind. This is to show that one must offer to God, without any mental reservation whatever, an entire consecration of affection, of talents, of money, of everything that he has. That is why Brother Truett preached that sermon so much. He saw the little things that Christians were doing, and the ease with which they go along, and he wanted to preach that fundamental sermon which would show them that if they were God’s children then they were called upon to lay upon the altar themselves and everything that they had. As Paul says about the churches of Macedonia, that they first gave themselves and then gave their contribution. A contribution without giving yourself doesn’t count.
Now, let us get the idea of fire, the burning, that is, God’s acceptance of the consecration. When the fire consumes utterly the whole of the burnt offering that is laid upon the altar, that fire represents the idea of God’s acceptance and appropriation of the consecration of the entire life. Take, for example, the marvelous scene that occurred in the days of Elijah. The people assembled to determine who was the true God, Jehovah or Baal. The priests of Baal built their altar and laid their sacrifices on it, and then from morning till evening prayed: “O Baal, hear us; now if Baal be God, let him send down the fire and show that he accepts it.” Elijah wanted to show them the difference in the case of Jehovah. So when he had prepared the altar and laid the victim on it, he had barrels of water poured on the victim until the water filled the trenches around the altar of Jehovah. If Jehovah had fire hot enough to consume it, he was surely God. When he prayed, “O, Jehovah, hear us,” fire came down and devoured the sacrifice and licked up the water out of the trenches. The significance of the fire is that it is God’s acceptance of the offering.
The next thought is that which takes place when the smoke of the offering goes up. When you come to the New Testaments Paul says that when they made their offerings it was a sweet savour unto God (Phi 4:18 ).
Now let us take up the next burnt offerings, i.e., the meal offerings. This is not the consecration offering. This consists, as to its materials, of an agricultural product of one kind or another. And when they were brought up and put upon the altar, what is meant by it? It means that, as the whole life was consecrated to God in the consecration offerings, in this one the idea is service. First, we have expiation, then consecration, then service, and these thoughts presented in the book of Leviticus are of real value. If you were to go to preach a sermon on this, you would divide it thus: First, expiation, then atonement, then the consecration of the entire life which has been saved, then service.
There is another distinction between the meal offering and the consecration offering, viz.: that it is intended by the meal offering to make a contribution to the ministers of religion, priests in those times, preachers in these times; that it is a reasonable service of saved men, consecrated men, devoted to service, to minister carnal things to those who minister unto them spiritual things. So, a large part of the offering went to the priest, and to show the application of it in the New Testament Paul says that they went up to the altar and partook of the things of the altar. So God has ordained that those who preach the gospel should live of the gospel. In the last chapter of Leviticus there is this addition made, viz.: the tithe of all that God had given them, and that tenth, or tithe, was for keeping up the worship, or service of God. The peace offering must never precede the expiation. There is no peace with God until the sins are expiated. The peace offering is not all burned, only a part of it. The object of the peace offering was not to obtain peace. In other words, the peace offering relates to peace because of expiation, and Paul translates that idea into the New Testament language, “Being justified by faith, let us have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.” The justification is based on the expiation. There is no such thing as peace, spiritual peace with God, until first there has been justification and atonement and God has declared one justified. In this peace offering we come also to the idea of fellowship. Here the people share with the priest in eating of what is not burned. Only certain parts are burned; the other parts are kept for a feast and the people come up and eat with the officers and the priests in this.
We now come to a distinction in what are called sin offerings. In burning the offerings known as the sin offerings, if one was a king or a priest, he had to make a greater offering than if he had been one of the common people. Why is that? Now, just think about it. It means that if a king’s son sins or if the preacher sins, it is a greater offense than if any one else sins, because he occupies a higher position. It is required that those who bear the vessels of God should be holy. I heard a preacher say that he had as much right to do wrong as any one in his congregation. Perhaps he did, but the responsibility on that preacher to abstain from doing wrong is stronger than on a member of his congregation and he is held to a stricter and larger account.
I now call your attention to this feature of the sin offering, viz.: the Old Testament makes it perfectly clear that a sin offering must be made for a sin of which the person is unconscious; for sins that are unwittingly done. I heard a Methodist preacher give a definition of sin. He said, “Sin is a voluntary transgression of a known law.” I told him to strike out “voluntary” and strike out “known” and even then he would not have a true definition of sin. Suppose that a little child steps on a red-hot iron, does the child’s unwitting act or ignorant act keep that hot iron from burning its foot? You hold out a candle before a baby; it looks pretty and he will reach out and grab it and is burned. The law of nature is fixed. Now you apply that to the spiritual world. Law is not a sliding scale; law is a fixed thing; a thing is right or a thing is wrong, utterly regardless of whether we know it to be right or know it to be wrong. David offers this prayer: “Cleanse thou me from secret faults.” Not faults that he is keeping secret, but of which he is utterly unconscious.
And it is in this connection that I must speak of a very important matter of which Leviticus does not treat at all, viz.: the sin for which no offering can be made. We learn about it when we come to Numbers. The soul that doeth right in ignorance, an atonement shall be made for that sin; the soul that doeth ought presumptuously, no atonement can be made for that sin. If we sin wilfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sin but the certain fearful looking for judgment. Now, Jesus taught that a certain kind of sin is an eternal sin. It never has forgiveness, neither in this world nor in the world to come. That does not mean that some sins are forgiven here and some over yonder, but that God may forgive sins as for eternity and yet chastise the sinner here upon earth. When we come to the New Testament, particularly, to discuss the unpardonable sin, the sin for which there is no provision for forgiveness, I will show you how easily one may become possessed with the idea of committing the unpardonable sin.
I received a letter from a soldier in the regular army last year. He said, “I have never met you but I have heard that you have studied the Bible a great deal. I am in deep trouble. I have knowingly and wilfully committed sin.” Then he quoted that passage, “If we sin wilfully.” And he says, “Have I not committed the unpardonable sin?” I wrote him that his trouble arose from misunderstanding the kind of knowledge that meant; that it did not mean a sin against intellectual knowledge. The unpardonable sin is a sin against spiritual knowledge. Paul says that he sinned ignorantly, and that did not mean that he was intellectually ignorant of the Old Testaments, but he meant that he did not have the spiritual light that points to Jesus Christ.
The only way in which a man can commit the sin for which there is no atonement to be made is in a case like this: We will suppose that a great meeting is in progress, in which the power of God is marvelously displayed; in which the people of God are praying; in which the presence of God is felt in their gathering by any Christian. If, while preaching is going on in such a meeting and Jesus Christ is held up, a sinner is impressed by the Spirit of God that the preacher is telling the truth, that he (the sinner) is a lost soul, and that Jesus is his appointed Saviour, and he, under that spiritual knowledge, feels impressed to make & movement forward and accept Christ and turns away from that spiritual knowledge and says “No,” deliberately, maliciously, and wilfully walking away from it, that is the unpardonable sin. I heard a preacher once, when he saw a boy and girl laughing, accuse them of committing the unpardonable sin. I thought he was committing a great sin to make such accusation. Now, I have discussed the sin for which there is no offering. I have brought it in here because I don’t want to discuss it twice.
Suppose I should ask this question: What is the difference between the sin offering and the trespass offering? I will mention one; it is not all. Suppose a man in ancient times killed another one, the sin offering was made; suppose he stole $100 from a man, then he brought the trespass offering; one is called a sin offering and the other, trespass offering. In the trespass offering, one has to make restitution before he gets forgiveness. He can’t restore if he has killed a man; but if he has stolen money, if it is in his power, he must give the money back. Shakespeare asks this question: “Can a man be pardoned and retain the offence?” If he slips into your room and appropriates a piece of your property and goes off and says, “God forgive me,” God says, “Go and put the property back.” In the sin offering, there is no restitution on his part; there, the great sacrifice of Jesus is the one; but here is something he can do.
Now, who can answer this question: What denomination insists most on restitution where one has committed the trespass? I am sorry that I cannot say that it is the Baptists. It is the Roman Catholics. Just; let any one come and confess to a priest and want absolution don’t believe in confessing to a priest, but let that man come there and make that confession and that priest will insist on restitution before he will absolve him; no way to get out of it.
How is it with most people on that matter? They are ashamed to make restitution, because restitution exposes them. They often do it secretly. For instance, a man by unrighteousness, by burdening a thousand hearts, by bringing desolation into a thousand homes, will acquire an immense fortune. He does not feel right about it and wants to ease his conscience. He won’t come out and say, “I did wrong,” but he says, “I will give to one of the religious denominations, or I will build a church, or I will establish some good charity.” Do you know that a unique part of American history illustrates that part of the case? That is the conscience fund. The United States had to establish a conscience fund. They get so many letters of this kind unsigned: “I robbed the government by withholding a tax that was due. I should have paid it. My conscience so lashes me under religious conviction that I am compelled now to put that money back.” Now, this same conscience fund has assumed enormous proportions. Men feel that they do not want to come out and make a confession. They do not come out and say, “Mr. A and Mr. B confess to have stolen from the government.” It is a fine thing in America that conscience takes hold of us.
Now, study the difference in the trespass offering and the sin offering and you will see that in the case of the trespass offering there must be restitution not only in the law which was broken but fourfold. Zaccheus in the New Testament times says, “Lord, if I have wronged anybody, I restore it fourfold,” which is a reference to this law. As I have borne testimony to the fidelity of the Roman Catholics, I will tell you an amusing thing in literature. One of the greatest historic romancers was Sir Walter Scott, who wrote the book, The Betrothed. A certain castle was left in charge of a knight, to be held faithfully until the owner returned from the Holy Land. A certain number of Flemish people had come over from Flanders and had established a colony under the walls of the castle. When the old knight went out to fight his battle in which he thought he would die, he put this old Flemish man in charge of his castle. The priest distrusted the Flemish man. He believed the Fleming was about to receive overtures from the enemy. The danger was that they were about to destroy the castle. So they managed to get him to hold parley that if they would deliver a certain number of cattle, that he would consider opening the gates to them. The old priest disguised himself and heard the Fleming make that treaty and he determined to denounce him. The Fleming took the priest aside and said: “Father, I have a daughter, Rose. I got into financial trouble and I promised a man that I would give him my daughter if he would give me four hundred marks, and now I have received the four hundred marks and I don’t want to give my daughter.” “Sir, you must restore the four hundred marks.” “Well, but, Father,” he says, “those cattle you see coming yonder are the marks I received, the daughter Rose is this castle. Now, must I restore those cattle?” “No, you fool, the church makes a distinction in certain matters.” And the priest was right in his interpretation, because to restore those cattle meant not being true to the trust of the old knight and was to restore that over which the Fleming had no jurisdiction. He was very much amazed that he did not intend to betray him.
Suppose a man is called in to witness in a court and gives false testimony and an innocent man is made to suffer. He dies on the gallows. Now, this man whose false testimony convicted him has come under conviction himself, spiritual conviction. That prisoner is dead and gone. He brings the case to a preacher. “Now, what must I do? I cannot restore that man’s life.” The preacher says, “No, but you can restore his reputation; you can take the shame off his wife and children, and you must come out. I cannot encourage you that God will save you if you do not come out openly before the world and admit your guilt.” That illustrates the restitution idea; that if you cannot restore all and can restore part, you must restore all that you can.
QUESTIONS
1. Give a general statement applying to all the books of the Pentateuch touching sacrifices.
2. What of the signification of the blood sprinkled outside the most holy place?
3. What offering precedes all others and why?
4. What can you say of the sweep of burnt offerings?
5. What are the different kinds of burnt offerings?
6. What is the order of these offerings?
7. What of distinction in the burning?
8. Where were they burned?
9. What three characteristics of the consecration offerings?
10. Upon what must the consecration offering be based?
11. What modern preacher has a great sermon on consecration and what the main point?
12. What does the ritual prescribe for the consecration offering?
13. What of the signification of the laying on of hands?
14. What was done with the blood?
15. If an expiatory offering, where placed and why?
16. What of the signification of the fire in the consecration offering?
17. What Old Testament illustration of this idea of fire?
18. What does Paul gay of this from God’s viewpoint?
19. What is the idea of the meal offering?
20. Give the scriptural order of the sacrifices.
21. What is the object in the meal offering?
22. What New Testament corresponds to this teaching?
23. What was added later to supplement the offerings?
24. In the peace offering, how much burned?
25. What was the object, negatively and positively?
26. In the case of the sin offering, how burned?
27. Where was the blood placed?
28. What distinction in the case of kings and priests, and why?
29. For what kind of sins were sin offerings made?
30. What is sometimes given as a definition of sin?
31. What words should be stricken from this definition?
32. Is this, then, a good definition, and why?
33. What great sin is not discussed in Leviticus?
34. What is that sin?
35. What distinction between sin offering and trespass offering?
36. What said Shakespeare on this point?
37. What denomination insists most upon this?
38. How is this with most people?
39. How do some attempt to make restitution?
40. How has Uncle Sam provided for this?
41. Give a New Testament reference to the law of the trespass offering.
42. What of the point in the illustration from Scott?
43. What of the relation of this law to the trespass offering to salvation. Illustrate.
Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible
Lev 6:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
Ver. 1. And the Lord spake unto Moses. ] See on Lev 4:1 .
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Leviticus Chapter 6
THE TRESPASS OFFERING.
There is another form of the Guilt offering, which meets treachery against a neighbour, or falsehood as to something lost. This Jehovah counted against Himself indirectly, as the former case affected Him directly. Ignorance is not supposed in question with a neighbour, as it might easily be alas! in the things forbidden to be done by the commandments of Jehovah. It is obvious that these seven verses, though a fresh precept which Jehovah spoke to Moses, are the proper conclusion of chapter v. as in the Hebrew Bible. They ought not to be the opening section of Lev 6 as in the English Bible. Why the Revised V. did not rectify the mistake seems strange; as it shows how hampered they were by prejudice or restriction. For it severs the true complementary link with Lev 5:14-19 , and interferes with the due order of the laws of the offerings which begin with what is thus made of Lev 6:8 .
“And Jehovah spoke to Moses, saying, If anyone sin, and commit a perfidy against Jehovah, and lie to his neighbour as to a matter of trust, or a loan, or of robbery, or cheat to his neighbour; or have found what was lost and lieth therein, and sweareth falsely; in any of all these that a man doeth, sinning therein, then it shall be, if he hath sinned and hath trespassed that he shall restore what he robbed, or what he defrauded, or the trust entrusted to him, or the lost thing which he found, or all about which he swore falsely, and be shall restore it in the principal and shall add the fifth part more thereto: to whom it belongeth shall he give it on the day of his trespass offering. And his trespass offering he shall bring to Jehovah, a ram without blemish out of the flock according to thy valuation as a trespass offering unto the priest. And the priest shall make atonement for him before Jehovah, and it shall be forgiven him concerning anything of all he did to trespass therein” (vers. 20-26).
What grace on Jehovah’s part thus to regard wrongs against a neighbour as wrongs against Himself also, and to require a reparation and a like Guilt offering! Yet was it due to His glory and needed by man that a distinct ordinance should draw the line between them. The trespass against a neighbour brought out a new speech from Jehovah to Moses, instead of being a simple appendage as verses 17-19 were to verses 14-16, an appendage which refuses to allow the excuse of ignorance in the holy things of Jehovah.
Yet there is, as might be expected, no small variety in these wrongs which demanded a Trespass offering. The first form of the guilt here denounced appears to be a failure in private trust. It might be any valuable or document of use committed to the custody of a friend; it might be only an animal, book lent or an axe borrowed or money confided however small. But Jehovah took notice and bound up the trustful Israelite’s rights with His own name. The next would seem to be a matter public, of barter, or of virtual partnership perhaps in business, where the evil done was not viewed as a wrong but as a failure in responsibility, however fair in appearance. Here our version like the Septuagint renders it “in fellowship,” as distinct from the preceding case of private trust. The Vulgate translates loosely and confounds the two. The better Jewish authorities distinguish the second as a loan, from the former as a deposit. Then we have a violent exercise of power, followed by one of deceit as in withholding wages, etc.: both apt to be common and covering many a failure which Jehovah resented. Next, we have the finding of what one’s neighbour lost, and falsehood about it, even to perjury.
In every such case Jehovah demanded a Trespass offering as rigorously as in His holy things. Not only must there be restitution of the principal, but a double tithe, or fifth part, rendered as a penalty. And as His own honour was concerned, in the failure to maintain the holy relationship of Israel, an unblemished ram was prescribed as the one unvarying Trespass offering permissible. By this, and this only, the priest should make atonement for the guilty offerer, “and it shall be forgiven him,” with the striking addition here only “for any one of all which he did to trespass therein.”
But it is well to take note of the difference in the order prescribed between the guilt in Jehovah’s holy things (14-19) and that incurred in the cases of one’s neighbour (20-26), with which we are immediately concerned. In the former the offering took the first place; in the latter the reparation. Both were required. Jehovah regarded either as His dishonour: and the ram was equally necessary as the reparation with the added fifth part. But the difference of order was made to impress the Israelite’s heart with what touched Jehovah directly as compared with what was indirect in defrauding the neighbour. Who but God could have provided thus holily for His people in distinctions so nice and profitable? Neither Moses nor Aaron, nor Samuel, nor David, still less men later in a dark, fallen, and comparatively careless state. It was Jehovah from the beginning.
It was not yet nor could be under the law to proclaim remission of sins absolutely and for ever to every believer. This awaited the Lord Jesus and His accomplished work of redemption in the gospel. For “the blood of Jesus Christ, God’s Son, cleanseth us from every sin.” But it was no niggardly comfort the righteous Jehovah even then and thus gave the penitent Israelite, conscious of having sinned shamefully, and of desecrating the holy status of His people.
THE LAW OF THE BURNT OFFERING.
We followed the Hebrew text in taking the first section of the sixth chapter (vers. 1-7) as the end of Lev 5 to which it unquestionably belongs; so that Lev 6 begins with the new subject, the laws of the offerings, and Lev 7 concludes it.
These laws add supplementary particulars of distinct moment, which bring into relief the characteristics of each, especially marking where communion was permissible and enjoined. The first, or Burnt Offering, was the exception, though even there the skin of the victim was the priest’s perquisite. The portion of man, where. and as far as it was allowed, is noticed carefully.
“And Jehovah spoke to Moses saying, Command Aaron and his sons, saying, This [is] the law of the burnt offering: this, the burnt offering, [shall be] on the hearth upon the altar all night unto the morning, and the fire of the altar shall be kept burning on it. And the priest shall put on his linen raiment, and his linen breeches shall he put on his flesh, and he shall take up the ashes to which the fire hath consumed the burnt offering upon the altar, and he shall put them beside the altar. And he shall put off his garments, and put on other garments, and carry forth the ashes without the camp unto a clean place. And the fire upon the altar shall be kept burning on it, it shall not go out; and the priest shall burn wood on it every morning, and lay the burnt offering in order upon it, and shall burn thereon the fat of the peace offerings. Fire continual shall be kept burning upon the altar; it shall not go out” (vers. 1-6).
Spoken to Moses, this was a command for the priestly house. All that composed it were concerned; and they, as we are taught, point to Christ and His own, as Son over His house whose house are we (Heb 3:6 ). The law of the Burnt Offering is here set out clearly. It was to be on the hearth upon the altar all night unto the morning; whereas save for this it might have been thought that it was but for the day, that the offerer might rejoice in seeing that which was for his acceptance. Here on the contrary stress was laid on its burning “all night unto the morning, and the fire of the altar shall be kept burning on it.”
Here as elsewhere we discern the bearing of these types, save in an exceptional reference. It is for the comfort of faith now in the day of temptation in the wilderness. The morning without clouds has not yet dawned. It is the night still for Christ rejected of men, though the night is advanced, and the day has drawn nigh. But all through the darkness rises up uninterruptedly the: witness of our acceptance. Propitiation is made for every one associated by faith with the Burnt Offering. Man may slumber, the world be wrapt in darkness; but the offerer had the satisfaction of knowing that the fire that was kept ever burning upon the altar consumed that which was on his behalf a Fire Offering, an odour of rest to Jehovah.
What is here so carefully enjoined can scarcely be said to appear in chap. 1 which enters fully into the general instruction as to the Burnt offering, and its several kinds, the immaculate purity requisite for each, again the presentation of the victim, with the priest’s sprinkling of the blood, cutting it in pieces, and washing as specified, here passed over, save the fact of laying all on the wood upon the fire of the altar. Here, not there, is the stress laid on the continual burning all the night through till the morning. While Israel slumber during the dark, the sweet savour rises in unfailing efficacy for him that offered: even Israel are kept, however impenitent yet, for the blessing that will surely come, when they say, Blessed He that cometh in the name of Jehovah.
Then in vers. 3, 4 we read of the careful clothing of the offering priest with the linen garments that spoke of spotless righteousness. These were what the high priest wore when he entered into the holy of holies on atonement day; and these the priest must put on even when he should take up the ashes of the Burnt offering that the fire had burnt upon the altar to put them beside it. But of these he divested himself for other garments to take away the ashes at last to a clean place outside the camp.
Lastly in vers. 5, 6 the burning of the fire on the altar is again emphatically mentioned. Not only was the priest to burn wood on the fire of the altar every morning and to set in order then the Burnt offering, but thereon also was he to burn the fat of the Peace or Prosperity Sacrifices. And the law concludes with the fire to burn continually upon the altar; never was it to be extinguished. Is it possible that any shadow could more forcibly point to acceptance maintained with unchanging savour of rest before Jehovah?
It appears to me not to be the truth intended by the type, that the ever burning fire during the night pointed to the smoke of the torment of the lost ascending for ever and ever. Rather did it testify the wondrous meeting-place with God for a sinful man who brought the Burnt offering. But the unbeliever either foregoes the Burnt offering, or treads under foot the Son of God, and profanes His blood as a common thing. So the Epistle to the Hebrews speaks, not of God abstractly but of “our God” as a consuming fire. It was a sacrifice wholly burnt for acceptance. It shadowed Christ giving Himself up absolutely to God in death for us; and nothing but a sweet savour rising up, however tested to the uttermost. Therein was God glorified as to sin in Him Who knew no sin; and the issue for the believer is an efficacy perfect and everlasting.
So will it be for Israel at the end for the age to come, when they wake up from their long sleep in the dust of the earth. They will behold, as it were in the morning, the Burnt offering despised during the dark night. They will penitently acknowledge their shameless unbelief, when they considered the Messiah as stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted; whereas they will thankfully own that He was pierced because of their transgressions, bruised because of their iniquities – that the punishment for peace to them lay upon Him, and through His stripes came healing to them. The fire ever burning on the altar is in contrast with the smoke either of Babylon or of the Beast’s worshippers (Rev 14:11 , Rev 18:8-10 , Rev 19:4 ). It is Christ the holocaust to God for all believers.
THE LAW OF THE MEAL OFFERING.
Under this law comes to light the great prominence given to the eating of the Minchah, or Meal offering, by Aaron and his sons. This is one of its most marked characteristics. All the males among the children of Aaron were to eat of it. Here too is one of its strongest points of contrast with the Olah or Burnt offering, whereof no part was eaten but all rose up to God. However requisite and important the Minchah, it only accompanied the Burnt offering; and so here it is not a fresh or separate word from Jehovah but a sequel as in Lev 1:2 .
“And this is the law of the meal offering: the sons of Aaron shall present it before Jehovah, before the altar. And he shall take of it his handful of the fine flour of the meal offering and of the oil thereof, and all the frankincense which is on the meal offering, and shall burn [it] on the altar: a sweet odour of the memorial thereof to Jehovah. And the remainder thereof Aaron and his sons shall eat: unleavened shall it be eaten in a holy place; in the court of the tent of meeting shall they eat it. It shall not be baked with leaven. As their portion I have given it of my fire offerings: it is most holy, as the sin offering and as the trespass offering. All the males among the children of Aaron shall eat of it: an everlasting statute in your generations, from Jehovah’s fire offerings; what [or, who] ever toucheth these shall be holy” (vers. 7-11).
Varieties of form such as came before us in Lev 2 are wholly omitted now. From the law here given we could not gather anything as to this, but the one great general truth: the shadow of Christ, not giving Himself up in atoning death to Jehovah without blemish and unreservedly, but rather in the perfectness of His life on earth, all pure and in the Holy Spirit’s power, the fire only bringing out His matchless fragrance, the one like the other a fire offering to Jehovah for an odour of rest. Yet even the early chapter gives us the marked difference from the Burnt offering. For the Meal offering had only the priest’s handful of its flour and oil with all the frankincense taken out and burnt as its memorial on the altar: the rest went to Aaron and his sons.
But the law opens with “the sons of Aaron” offering it “before Jehovah before his altar.” One might be the offering priest, to leave the memorial (ver. 8); but they were all concerned. It was priestly food, not properly man’s, whatever might be true of the corn and the oil generally. This was the Minchah or Meal offering to Jehovah, following the Burnt offering, and not otherwise. For the offerer in either case was an Israelite, a sinful man, though the offering was not in view of his sin or guilt like their appropriate offerings, but of the divine provision for his acceptance in drawing near. None but One could answer to this absolute fitness for being offered before Jehovah, before His altar. Every other needed first an offering for sin. Death in the Burnt offering was rather and fully the glorifying of God in the suffering Son of man, Himself morally glorified therein as God was. The fire of God drew out nothing, again, from all His activity here below, from the smallest no less than the greatest, but perfect fragrance before God. Only He could estimate it aright; so that “all the frankincense” with a sample of all the rest was burnt to God.
But here stress is laid on what remained: “and the remainder thereof Aaron and his sons shall eat,” not Aaron’s sons only, but Aaron with them (ver. 9). It is the entire priestly house, Christ and His own, whose house are we, those who now partake of a heavenly calling (Heb 3:1-6 : cf. Heb 2:11-13 ). The manna figures the Lord given from heaven for Israel’s food: and in John vi. the Lord declares Himself the bread of life for every one who beholds the Son and believes on Him, the Living Bread that came down from heaven, so fully and freely that if any man (not the Jew only) eat of this bread, he shall live for ever. It is for the sinner that believing on Christ he may have life eternal. But by grace through the same faith we become also a holy priesthood (1Pe 2 ) and, so brought nigh to God, we eat in a general way what pertains to the family (as the daughters did equally with the sons), the offering of the holy things, the first-fruits of a goodly land, etc.
Besides that holy fare, there was the more restricted privilege as here, of which the males alone partook. These types find their counterpart now in those that are Christ’s, where feeding on Christ pertains to the sanctuary, and appropriation their right according to the believer’s realisation of his nearness to God. The more we make our own the place in His presence by the work of Christ, the more also we enjoy Him as the food of our souls, not now merely as indispensable to having life, but in the way of communion and appreciation in the Spirit of all the perfection that God found in Him when thoroughly tried in His path here below. Hence it is that the Gospels afford to the spiritual mind such especial delight and divine joy in that which they furnish of Christ here below; whereas those who do not enter into their present nearness to God by His atoning work turn rather for comfort to the Epistles, especially such as those to the Romans, Galatians, and Hebrews, besides the first of Peter. This is well and of God; but as priests we are entitled to far more of Christ.
It will be observed that the right sense of what follows in ver. 9 is not “with unleavened bread,” but itself unleavened was to be eaten, and this not in “the holy place” but a holy place, rather in the court than in the house appropriated exclusively in its use to Jehovah, as indeed the last clause specifies expressly.
In ver. 10 the exclusion of all corruption is carefully repeated, as we know it was in the original institution of Lev 2 . So of Christ the written word declares that not only in Him was no sin, but that He knew none. What a contrast with every other man! Yet did He become very near, and knew manhood incomparably better than the first man (when created, made of full growth, instead of “come of woman” like the Second): a babe, a youth, a man, tested as none ever was, least of all Adam before he fell. Yet as become flesh, and put to the proof beyond all in a world of evil He is the Holy One of God, as demons cried out; and as the Father’s voice said, This is My Beloved Son in Whom I found My delight. If the Burnt offering witnessed the perfectness of His work in death, the Meal offering shows us the no less perfectness of what He Himself was here below under all conceivable trials. What a privilege to feed on Him thus given of God as our portion of His fire-offerings! Assuredly it is “most holy,” as the Sin offering and the Trespass offering, where absolute freedom from taint must be: else how could there be atonement before God? How forgiveness for the offender? It could be none but Christ, Whom unbelief would fain lower to level up wretched self and dishonour God, making His glory as impossible as man’s deliverance through the wreck of Christ’s person and work.
The last verse (11) reiterates solemnly the exceeding privilege Jehovah secures for ever to “all the males of Aaron’s children” in partaking of the Meal offering (in communion with Himself of Christ). As man He was the delight of God on the earth, only appreciated by those free of His presence; for even converted Israel will own, as their exceeding sin, that in seeing Him of old there was no appearance in Him to give them pleasure. He was despised and forsaken of men; not because of a single flaw in Him Who was wholly perfect, but because man alike was blind and evil, yea, God’s enemy. But Christ being what He was and suffering atoningly as He did, all is changed now for the believer. “Whatever [or, whoever] toucheth these [Jehovah’s fire-offerings] shall be holy.” Not only was the Meal offering “most holy,” but all that came in contact with it was separated from common use to Jehovah.
THE LAW OF THE MEAL OFFERING OF AARON AND HIS SONS.
There is a new divine communication for the next law. It was indeed a special case, peculiar to Aaron and his sons, and limited to the day of his anointing. The general word of the Meal offering on the contrary fell under that of the Burnt offering, of which it was the regular supplement. Hence, as it had no separate application, it had no separate law here any more than in the institution of Lev 1:2 . First and last they were bound together. So should we honour the Lord Jesus in our faith: not only His devotedness in giving Himself up to death sacrificially, but in all the holy and obedient activities of His life. In Him the Father found His delight; and so His voice declared. But is it not full of instruction, that in revealing those divine pictures the Burnt offering stands first, not the Meal offering? This simply and always follows as an adjunct, whatever might be the reversed order in the sequence of Christ and His work. How differently they speak who dwell on the Incarnation to disparage the Atonement? God sets aside what we might deem the order of nature, even in Christ Himself and His work.
“And Jehovah spoke to Moses, saying, This [is] the offering of Aaron and his sons, which they shall present to Jehovah on the day when he is anointed: the tenth part of an ephah of fine flour, as a continual meal offering, half of it in the morning and half of it in the evening. “In a pan with oil it shall be made; saturated thou shalt bring it in; baken pieces of the meal offering shalt thou present, a sweet odour unto Jehovah. And the anointed priest that shall be in his stead from his sons, shall make [or, offer] it: an everlasting statute, it shall be wholly burnt unto Jehovah. And every meal offering of the priest shall be wholly burnt; it shall not be eaten” (vers. 12-16).
In the Meal offering ordinarily, where an Israelite made his oblation to Jehovah, after his portion was taken by the offering priest and burnt on the altar, the remainder was for Aaron and his sons. It was Christ an offering to God throughout all His days here below, wholly separated to God’s will and glory. None but those who draw near to God, the priestly class, could appreciate Christ thus; not the Israelite simply as such, but those only who were free of the sanctuary. It was theirs to feed on Christ thus living on account of the Father. So in the First Epistle of John the fathers in the christian family, as distinguished from the young men and the babes (the , not the who embrace all the three): they are described as knowing Him that was from the beginning, that is to say, Christ as He was here below declaring God and manifesting the Father.
All disciples believed that He was the Christ and were born of God (1Jn 5:1 ); only the fathers knew Him that was from the beginning; only they found their delight and their food in His person as He walked on earth perfect God and man in one Person, solving all questions as they arose day by day, as only God could manifested in flesh and by ways no less than words. It is not meant that any, even of the twelve, could be thus characterised while He was here. Not even they then were “fathers.” It was when the Holy Spirit was given that such a class began to be; and thank God, it was not confined to apostles or prophets, to evangelists or pastors and teachers, who might or might not be fathers. It in no wise depended on such gifts, but a Spirit-taught entrance into Christ as here manifested, and as He is presented in the Gospels. Fathers have communion with Him there and then. How comparatively few such appear to have ever been! Biographies and autobiographies, writings and letters, even of the most valued servants of the Lord, abundantly prove it, as does living experience.
But the essential difference of the Meal offering before us is that it was wholly burnt to Jehovah. Of the tenth part of the ephah, or the omer here prescribed, the same measure as of the manna for an Israelite (Exo 16 ), no part was reserved for priestly food. For a Meal offering perpetual it was to be half in the morning and half in the evening; but not a morsel was to be eaten: the whole must be burnt on the altar. The reason is plain. It was for the priests, and therefore wholly went up to Jehovah. What an Israelite offered for himself, they were privileged to eat, all the males in a holy place; but their offering on the day of anointing was all for Jehovah, like the Burnt offering. It was no question of fellowship with others, but of Christ wholly offered up as a sweet savour to Jehovah on their own behalf.
THE LAW OF THE SIN OFFERING.
The right division of chapters fails here again. As verses 1-7 of the A.V. (assigned to Lev 6 ) ought to belong to chap. 5, so verses 24-30 ought not to be severed from Lev 7:1-21 , of which they form the proper beginning. They all were expressly parts of one communication from Jehovah.
“And Jehovah spake to Moses, saying, Speak to Aaron and to his sons, saying, This [is] the law of the sin offering. In the place where the burnt offering is slaughtered, the sin offering shall be slaughtered before Jehovah: it [is] most holy. The priest that offereth it for sin shall eat it; it shall be eaten in a holy place, in the court of the tent of meeting. Whatsoever toucheth the flesh thereof shall be holy; and if there be sprinkled of the blood thereof on a garment, that whereon it was sprinkled thou shalt wash in a holy place. But the earthen vessel wherein it was sodden shall be broken; and if it was sodden in a copper vessel it shall be both scoured and rinsed in water. Every male among the priests shall eat thereof: it [is] most holy. And no sin offering whereof blood is brought into the tent of meeting to make atonement in the holy [place] shall be eaten: it shall be burnt with fire” (vers. 17-23; or, 21-30).
No slight even in appearance could be tolerated in the Sin offering. Undoubtedly it had a character as remote as possible from the Burnt offering, as this was to impart acceptance, that was to get sacrificial quittance from positive sin. But the Sin offering must be slaughtered before Jehovah in the place where the Burnt offering was slaughtered. So indeed Christ alone was the adequate fulfilment of both in His death on the cross. Yet He was the last One in the universe to be thought of: grace alone gave Him, one with the Father and His dearest object throughout eternity. On earth too He became flesh. He was the Holy One of God. Yet never was holiness so proved and manifested as when God made sin for us Him Who knew no sin. Always absolutely separate to God from all evils and doing nothing but the things which pleased His Father, on the cross He gave Himself up without reserve to God and His glory, to suffer the judgment of sin, cost what it might; and it cost Him everything, even what was the extremes” horror to Him Who, being His beloved Son, became His righteous Servant, the True and faithful Witness. What was it for Him, abandoned by disciples, rejected by Israel, crucified by Gentiles, to cry, “My God, my God, why forsakedst thou me?” He was made sin for us. This He has left us who believe to confess as the answer. No wonder that even of the type the descriptive word is “most holy” (vers. 18, 22 or, 25, 29).
“The priest that offereth it for sin shall eat it.” Singled out thus the offering points to none other than Christ; and here in His eating the Sin offering is meant, not of course His work in suffering for sin, but His identification with him for whom the offering was presented. If holiness was conspicuous in the victim and righteousness in the judgment executed, what grace was in Christ thus making the offerer’s sin His own? So we know in His advocacy with the Father “if any one sin” (1Jn 2:1 ). His atoning death was not all. It is eating the Sin- offering is realised in Christ; as alive again for evermore that the offering priest’s here it was directed to be eaten in a holy place, in the court of the tent of meeting (26 A.V.).
The sanctifying power of this offering was strikingly attested in vers. 27, 28. “Whatsoever toucheth the flesh thereof shall be holy; and if there be sprinkled of the blood thereof on a garment, that whereon it was sprinkled thou shalt wash in a holy place. But the earthen vessel whereon it was sodden shall be broken; and if it was sodden in a copper vessel, it shall be both scoured and rinsed in water.” It was for God on behalf of sinners. For no other, no common, purpose could it be. For vessels of earth or copper no trace must remain. To the offerer it brought forgiveness of the sin.
But ver. 29 lets us into a truth, larger far than ver. 26, though not to be compared for its depth. “Every male among the priests shall eat thereof.” This was not confined to the offering priest. All the priestly males were to eat of it. Those who have access to God are called to identify themselves with a brother’s sin; as Christ does pre-eminently, so they too are to follow, strong in the grace that is in Him, confessing another’s sin as their own. For if He loves them, did He not both wash them from their sins in His blood and make them a kingdom, priests to His God and Father? Here it will be observed that we have the repetition of “it is most holy.” Wise and opportune this is. For many a male among the priests might on the one hand forget to eat, as did even Eleazar and Ithamar (Lev 10:16-18 ); as others more profane still might grievously transgress in their eating like Eli’s sons (1Sa 2:12-17 ), so that men abhorred the offering of Jehovah. Indeed “it is most holy,” and to be eaten only in a holy place.
Ver. 30 draws the line between these ordinary Sin offerings, where the priests thus partook of them, and the more solemn cases wherein the victim was burnt in a clean place without the camp, the blood being carried into the sanctuary for propitiation. So it was, if either the anointed priest sinned, or the whole congregation, as in the earlier cases of Lev 4 . In neither did the priests eat; in both communion for all was interrupted and must be restored. And the contrast is yet more marked in the day of atonement, when the foundation was laid for all, priests and people, during the year. All fasted, none eat, on that day. There was another exception, characteristic of the wilderness and therefore only given in Num 19 , the institution of the bte noir of the Rationalists, which, perplexing them beyond most things, becomes the occasion for their rancorous abuse of God’s word. For their principle of unbelieving, or as they say scientific, criticism blinds them, so that they can perceive neither its intrinsic truth nor its suited place. But there the Red Heifer stands, wholly burnt (save some of the blood previously sprinkled seven times before the tent of meeting) without the camp, and the ashes kept as a purification for sin. It has its own distinctive traits full of instruction spiritually for us of heavenly calling as exposed to the defilement of the desert world through which we pass to the rest of God.
When therefore it was a question of propitiating blood brought into the sanctuary, there was no eating on the part of the priests. The victim was burnt without the camp. How brightly and on both its sides was this fulfilled in Christ, glorified within, crucified without! Our place is with Him in both respects. Where it was only the restoration of an individual, the priests were called to eat of the Sin offering, as we now sympathise in loving intercession.
Fuente: William Kelly Major Works (New Testament)
the LORD. Hebrew. Jehovah. App-4.
spake. Compare Lev 5:14. Lev 6:1-7 belongs to Lev 5, according to the Structure (p. 134). See note on Lev 5:14.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Chapter 6
And thus, dealing with the trespass offerings and going on into Chapter six.
And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, if a soul sins, and commits a trespass against the Lord, and lies to his neighbor in that which was delivered ( Lev 6:1-2 )
In other words, if you are my neighbor and you loan me your car, and I go out and smash it, and then I say, “Well, you know I parked it at Lucky’s and I just left the keys in the ignition. And I went into the store and when I came out, it was gone, you know. You better file a stolen report.” And then they find the thing wrapped around a telephone pole some place and oh my, you know, they must have wrecked it. And I am lying to you about something that was entrusted to me. This is a trespass, and it would be necessary for me to make a confession and to offer an offering before the Lord for the forgiveness or the covering.
The Lord spake unto Moses [verse eight], saying, command Aaron and his sons, saying, This is the law of the burnt offering: and the burnt offering, because of the burning upon the altar all night unto the morning, and the fires of the altar shall be burning in it. And the priest shall put on his linen garments, his linen breeches and he shall put upon his flesh, and take the ashes which the fires consume with the burnt offering and the altar, and shall put them beside the altar ( Lev 6:8-10 ).
And then later carry them out.
But in verse thirteen,
the fire shall ever be burning upon the altar; it shall never go out ( Lev 6:13 ).
So God was the one who was to kindle the fire on the altar, but the priests were to never let it go out. Once God kindled the fire, it was their duty. All night long a priest would be on duty to put wood on the fire so that the fire of the altar would never go out. And so he goes ahead and explains again the offerings, the burnt offering. And then in Verse fourteen, the meal offering and the priest would get to eat this neat, hot bread themselves on this meal offering, what was left over. Part was unto the Lord and part was given to the priest more or less. Let’s see now, just a minute, hold on. On the meal offering was one that was to be wholly burnt and not to be eaten. There were other meal offerings of bread that the priests were to eat but not the meal offering.
Verse nineteen,
The Lord spoke to Moses, saying, This is the offering of Aaron and his sons, which they shall offer to the Lord the day in which they are anointed; and the fine flours, the meal offering the perpetual, half in the morning, and the other half at night. It shall be baked in the pan, and thou shall bring it in: and bake the pieces for the meal offering, the sweet savor to the Lord. The priest and his sons that is anointed in his stead shall offer it: as a statute forever unto the Lord; it shall be wholly burnt. For every meal offering for the priest shall be wholly burnt: it shall not be eaten. [That is if the priest himself offered the meal offering for himself.] The Lord spake unto Moses, saying, speak unto Aaron and unto his sons, saying, This is the Law of the sin offering: In the place where the burnt offering is killed, so the sin offering was to be killed before the Lord: it is most holy. The priest that offers it for sin shall eat it: in the holy place it shall be eaten, in the court of the tabernacle of the congregation. Whatsoever shall touch the flesh thereof shall be holy: and when the thing is sprinkled with the blood ( Lev 6:19-27 ).
Now, the priest did get a part of the offering. They always were able to take a part of the offerings to eat for themselves that the people brought. It was, in a way, a payment to the priest, but this thing became corrupted. You remember later on when Eli was the priest at the time of Samuel? He had a bunch of greedy sons who were also working in the office of the priest. And these guys, when people would come to offer their sacrifice to the Lord, they would take their hooks and they’d reach in and grab the fillets, the very best of the meat and all. And if people would object, then they’d give them a bad time and curse them and everything else. And so Eli got into trouble because he didn’t correct his sons in these things. But the bad thing about it is that they were creating in the minds of the people a negative reaction towards God because they were the priests representing God to the people. But they were so misrepresenting God by their greed, that they made the people actually hate to bring sacrifices to the Lord because of the horrible way that Eli’s sons were treating them; and thus, Eli was judged by the Lord for his failure to reprimand his sons in that regard. “
Fuente: Through the Bible Commentary
The first movement in this chapter completes the subject of the trespass offering in its application to other men. Carefully observe, however, that such a trespass is also trespass against the Lord: “If any one sin, and commit a trespass against Jehovah, and deal falsely with his neighbor. . . .” Five illustrations are given an examination of which will show that the underlying wrong in each case is violation of truth.
The divine provision for worship having been revealed in the offerings, instructions were now given concerning the method of offering, which will reveal the true attitude of the worshiper. In the burnt offering the priest was charged to observe a threefold carefulness. He must be robed in his garments of pure linen, must employ the ashes which signified expiatory sacrifice, and must guard the holy fire, which is the element by which the offering passes from the giver to God.
In connection with the meal offering there are four points to be noted, an absence of leaven, the agency of fire, the retention of a portion for the priests, and, finally, the perpetuity of the offering. As indicating the complete devotion of the priests the whole of their meal offering was to be consumed, no part being retained for themselves.
The law of the sin offering provided that it should be killed in the place of the burnt offering. In this offering the one supreme care of the worshiper was to be recognition of the fact that it was a most holy thing, no part of which must be defiled. Moreover, the portion of the offering devoted to the purpose of sustenance must be eaten in the Holy Place. Thus the supreme importance of the expiatory method is clearly revealed.
Fuente: An Exposition on the Whole Bible
Trespass-Offerings and Restitution
Lev 5:14-19; Lev 6:1-7
The root idea of the Hebrew word for trespass is failure of duty through negligence. In addition to the sin itself, which is against God, as the august Custodian of the law and order of the universe, the injury, which such negligence inflicts upon ones neighbor, must be met by a compensation and fine. Any sum which another has lost through us should, of course, be repaid, and a fifth part added, if required. But probably, the main lesson of the trespass-offering is that we cannot injure any fellow-creature without offending against God. Our offence penetrates beyond the thin veil of humanity and the visible universe into the unseen Holy.
In dealing with all failures in regard to our fellows, there are three points, therefore, always to bear in mind: First, we must confess the sin to God; second, we must seek out our brother and confess to him, and ask his forgiveness, that we may win him, as our Lord said, Mat 18:15; and, third, we must make restitution, with an addition. This was the teaching under the Law. Should it be less under the Gospel of love?
Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary
Lecture V The Trespass Offering
The offering which we are now to consider presents what we might call the primary aspect of the work of the cross. It meets the awakened sinner as the answer to his fears, when troubled about his trespasses, anxiously inquiring, How can I be saved from the legitimate consequences of my sins? Every sin is an offence to the majesty of heaven. It is a trespass against the holy government of God, and righteousness demands that amends be made for it, or else that the trespasser be shut away from Gods presence forever. A trespass may also be against our fellow-men, but even in that case the sin is primarily against God. David trespassed most heinously against his soldier-friend, Uriah the Hittite, and against Bathsheba herself, and in a wider sense against all Israel. But in his prayer of confession, Ps. 51, he cried out from the depths of his anguished heart, Against Thee, Thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in Thy sight. And so keen is his sense of the wickedness of it all that he realizes the blood of bulls and of goats can never wash out the stain, and so he cries, looking on in faith to the cross of Christ, Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean; wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow. It is this aspect of the cross that is brought before us in the trespass offering.
In the thirteen verses of Lev 5:14-19; Lev 6:1-7 we have the reason for, and the character of, the trespass offering. First we read, If a soul commit a trespass, and sin through ignorance, in the holy things of the Lord; then he shall bring for his trespass unto the Lord a ram without blemish out of the flocks, with thy estimation by shekels of silver, after the shekel of the sanctuary, for a trespass offering: and he shall make amends for the harm that he hath done in the holy thing, and shall add the fifth part thereto, and give it unto the priest: and the priest shall make an atonement for him with the ram of the trespass offering, and it shall be forgiven him. This is the first aspect of the trespass. It is something done against the Lord Himself; but, as in the case of the sin offering, it is done through ignorance. So again we are reminded that God looks upon all sin as springing from the ignorance that is in man; unless in the final refusing of the Lord Jesus Christ, the great Sin Offering. To do this is to be guilty of wilful and eternal sin. An Israelite might sin in the holy things of the Lord in various ways. For instance he might underestimate the size of his annual crop, and so ignorantly bring to the priest a lesser tithe than the law demanded. But when the truth of the condition of things was brought to his attention he was not to pass over the offence as a matter of no moment, but he was to bring a trespass offering, and with it the estimated amount, to which he added by direction of the priest the fifth part. The trespass offering was offered in accordance with the law, and the silver was given to the priest to be brought into the sanctuary of Jehovah. Thus where sin abounded grace did much more abound. And if we may so say, God actually received more because of the mans blunder than He would have received apart from it. How clearly this comes out in the work of the Cross! By it God has received far more glory than He ever lost by mans sin. In Psalm 69 we hear the Holy Sufferer on Calvary saying, Then I restored that which I took not away. We had robbed God; He became our trespass offering, and He, thereby, made amends to God for all the wrong we had done, and added the fifth part thereto. For we are not to think for a moment of the sufferings of our Saviour as though they barely sufficed to atone for our transgressions. There was in that work of Calvary such infinite value that it not only met all the actual sins of all who would ever believe in Him, but there was over and above that such value as will never be drawn upon by all the repentant sinners in the universe of God.
The unblemished ram for a trespass offering tells of the Holy One who was led as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so He openeth not His mouth. Here was the Prince of the flock, the tall stately ram, submitting to death in order to atone for our guilt. He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon Him; and with His stripes we are healed.
In verses 17-19 we read, And if a soul sin, and commit any of these things which are forbidden to be done by the commandments of the Lord; though he wist it not, yet is he guilty, and shall bear his iniquity. And he shall bring a ram without blemish out of the flock, with thy estimation for a trespass offering, unto the priest: and the priest shall make an atonement for him concerning his ignorance wherein he erred and wist it not, and it shall be forgiven him. It is a trespass offering: he hath certainly trespassed against the Lord. Here the important truth that is emphasized is that Gods Word is the standard of judgment, not my knowledge of it. The soul that committed any offence ignorantly, anything forbidden in the law of God, was guilty, even though he knew it not, and apart from the trespass offering he must bear his iniquity. It is not that God is going to hold men responsible for light they never had, but He does hold them responsible to avail themselves of the light He has given. He gave the law to Israel; they were guilty, therefore, if they ignored it and did not become acquainted with its commandments. Having Moses and the prophets they were responsible to hear them, as Abraham declares to the rich man in Hades. And then today, what shall we say of those who have the whole Word of God, and yet allow the Bible to lie neglected in their homes, and never even take the trouble to seek to know the mind of the Lord? How guilty will they be judged in the coming day who have deliberately ignored this divine revelation and so fail to learn the will of God!
In Bunyans immortal allegory it was as the man Graceless read in the Book that he realized the weight of the burden upon his back. And it is as the truth of the Word of God is brought to bear upon the consciences of sinners that they feel their sins and cry out for deliverance, and, thank God, when the load of our sins is thus brought home to us, the trespass offering is nigh at hand. We have but to come to God pleading the merits of the atoning work of His beloved Son to find there full atonement for all our iniquities.
In chap. 6:l-7 we have the other side of things, sin against ones neighbor. But even that is a trespass against the Lord, and so we are told; If a soul sin, and commit a trespass against the Lord, and lie unto his neighbor in that which was delivered him to keep, or in fellowship, or in a thing taken away by violence, or hath deceived his neighbor; or have found that which was lost, and lieth concerning it, and sweareth falsely; in any of all these that a man doeth, sinning therein : then it shall be, because he hath sinned, and is guilty, that he shall restore that which he took violently away, or the thing which he hath deceitfully gotten, or that which was delivered him to keep, or the lost thing which he found, or all that about which he hath sworn falsely; he shall even restore it in the principal, and shall add the fifth part more thereto, and give it unto him to whom it appertaineth, in the day of his trespass offering. Here, too, the principle noted above is found. Man himself benefits by the provision of the trespass offering. The one who had been wronged was really better off than before, after the sin had been confessed and the fifth part had been added to that which was returned when the offerer brought his trespass offering to the Lord. For as in the previous case, if he had deceitfully robbed his neighbor, or had found something that was lost and had hidden it intending to keep it himself, or had in any other way wronged or defrauded another, his trespass offering was not acceptable to God unless he made full restitution by returning the thing that he had deceitfully gotten and then adding to it the fifth part. How wondrously does this bring out the matchless grace of God. Throughout the eternal ages it will be seen that, as Tennyson puts it, in The Dreamer,
Less shall be lost than won.
For God maketh even the wrath of man to praise Him, and the remainder of wrath He doth restrain. The skeptic may ask sneeringly, Why did a righteous and omnipotent God ever permit sin to raise up its hideous head in the universe, thus defiling the heavens and the earth? But the work of the cross is the answer to it all. Mans relationship to God as a redeemed sinner is far greater and more blessed than the mere relationship of creature to Creator. And the grace of God has been magnified in the great trespass offering of the cross in a way it never could have been known if sin had never come in at all.
How precious the words of verse 7, And the priest shall make an atonement for him before the Lord: and it shall be forgiven him for any thing of all that he hath done In trespassing therein. Do these words come to any poor, anxious, troubled soul? Do you wonder sometimes if you have sinned beyond all hope of mercy? Oh, be persuaded, if you will but come to God bringing the trespass offering, that is, putting your hearts trust in the Lord Jesus, looking to Him alone for salvation, every sin will be forgiven; all that you have done will be blotted out forever, and be in Gods sight as if it had never been.
Years ago at the close of a great meeting in Chicago where Gipsy Rodney Smith was the preacher, a strong man came weeping up the aisle at the close of the evangelists address, sobbing out the story of his sin and shame. To the gipsy who sought to help him he exclaimed, Oh, sir, my sin is too great ever to be forgiven. Quick as a flash the preacher said, But His grace is greater than all your sin. Dr. Towner, the beloved hymn-writer and musician, who was standing by, caught the words, and as he walked home that night they took form in his heart and mind, and he composed the chorus:
Grace, grace, Gods grace,
Grace that is greater than all our sin.
The melody of the verses was also given to him, and he jotted them down when he reached his home. The next day he gave them to Julia Johnston, who has written so many precious songs of praise, and she composed the verses of the well-known hymn bearing the title of the chorus. The first stanza of it reads:
Marvelous grace of our loving Lord,
Grace that exceeds all our sin and our guilt,
Yonder on Calvarys mount outpoured,
There where the blood of the Lamb was spilt.
Through the years since, the song has borne its story of grace greater than all our sins, to tens of thousands of anxious souls. This indeed is the message of the trespass offering.
In chap. 7:1-7 we have the law of the trespass offering. As in the case of the sin offering, we are twice told that it is most holy. God would never have left the least room for the thought that the humanity of our blessed Saviour was ever defiled by sin. We are told of Him, He knew no sin, and, He did no sin, and, In Him is no sin. How carefully God guarded this! Even on the very morning of His trial and throughout the day of His execution it was manifest. Pitates wife sent the message, Have thou nothing to do with that just Man. Pilate himself declared, I find no fault in Him; the thief upon the cross exclaimed, This Man hath done nothing amiss; and the Roman centurion, awed by the marvelous events of that dreadful hour, declared, Certainly this was a righteous Man. And yet we see the Just One suffering for us the unjust, that He might bring us to God!
The trespass offering was to be killed at the altar and the blood sprinkled round about the altar. Certain parts of the victim were burned upon the altar, thus going up to God as an expression of divine judgment against our sins, while other parts were eaten by the priests in the holy place, as in the case of the sin offering, for we are told, As the sin offering is, so is the trespass offering: there is one law for them: the priest that maketh atonement therewith shall have it. Every believer is a priest to-day, and it is the hallowed privilege of every one of us to feed upon the trespass offering. We do this as we read the Word of God and meditate upon what it reveals as to the atoning work of our Lord Jesus Christ in order to put away all our sins and trespasses and fit us for the presence of a holy God.
Psalm 69 most fittingly links with these Levitical instructions. It is the psalm of the trespass offering; it gives us our blessed Lord going to the cross, rejected of men, bearing the judgment due to our sins. It is there, as already mentioned, we hear Him saying, I restored that which I took not away. He confessed our sins as His own, and He can say, The zeal of Thine house hath eaten Me up; and the reproaches of them that reproached Thee are fallen upon Me. It is in verses 20 and 21 of this psalm that we read, Reproach hath broken My heart; and I am full of heaviness: and I looked for some to take pity, but there was none; and for comforters, but I found none. They gave Me also gall for My meat; and in My thirst they gave Me vinegar to drink. How plainly this shows that it was on the cross that His soul passed through the anguish here depicted, and as we contemplate Him as the great Trespass Offering we exclaim with the psalmist, This also shall please Jehovah better than an ox or bullock that hath horns and hoofs (ver. 31). What the sacrifices of old could not accomplish, namely, the actual putting away of sin, has been accomplished through the finished work of our Lord Jesus, that one offering, never to be repeated, which He made on our behalf upon the accursed tree. We cannot add to this finished work, and, thank God, we cannot take from it. It stands alone in its marvelous completeness. In it God has found infinite satisfaction, and in it the believing sinner finds satisfaction too. The answer of the old monk to the young man who came to the monastery gate inquiring what he should do to put away his sins, is in full accord with the truth of the trespass offering. The aged man replied, There is nothing left that you can do. And he then endeavored to show his inquirer how fully Christ had met every claim of God against the sinner there upon the Cross. To attempt to put away our own sins is but folly and ignorance combined.
Not what these hands have done
Can cleanse this guilty soul;
Not what this toiling flesh has borne
Can make my spirit whole.
Not what I think or do
Can give me peace with God;
Not all my prayers, or toil, or tears,
Can ease this awful load.
Thy blood alone, Lord Jesus,
Can cleanse my soul from sin;
Thy Word alone, O Lamb of God,
Can give me peace within.
And so we come to the end for the present of our meditation upon these five offerings and their typical import. I have not attempted to go into them exhaustively; others have done that, and their writings are easily available and well worth careful and thoughtful consideration. I have simply sought to emphasize the great outstanding truths in regard to the Person and work of our Lord Jesus Christ suggested by the sacrifices of old, and I trust not without profit to every one of us. Oh, to know more of Him and to appreciate in a fuller way His wondrous work which has meant so much to God and which is the basis of our eternal blessing!
Here we see the dawn of heaven,
While upon the cross we gaze;
See our trespasses forgiven,
And our songs of triumph raise.
So sang Sir Edward Denny, and so may each penitent believer sing, as he stands by faith by the sacrifice of the trespass offering.
-H. A. Ironside
Fuente: Commentaries on the New Testament and Prophets
Reciprocal: Exo 20:15 – General Exo 22:1 – he shall Lev 7:33 – that offereth Luk 19:8 – I restore
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Lev 6:4. The lost thing which he found. This must be published and restored. If it be a garment, it should either be hung up on the road, or taken to some turnpike house. Else how can we expect to recover what we may lose. He who finds a thing, and conceals it, is regarded by ancient laws as a thief.
Lev 6:5. Shall add the fifth part. A thief was to restore double, because he was professedly a depredator. Exo 22:4. But in embezzlement, a shade of human weakness is deemed a slight diminution of the guilt.
Lev 6:10. The priest shall take up the ashes, that is, when the fire has consumed the burnt-offering on the altar. So the French: Apres que le fen aura consum l holocauste.
Lev 6:23. Every meat-offering [Hebrews mincha] for the priest, shall be wholly burnt. The priests shared in the minchas of the people, but not in their own; the whole was consumed. Had the priest ate his own mincha, he had done nothing for his soul. This teaches that how lenient soever a minister may be to the people, he must not be lenient to himself.
Lev 6:25. Law of the sin-offering. Burnt-offerings were of two kinds; the one was burnt on the altar, and the other without the camp. Part of the former might, as in the prescribed cases, be eaten by the priests and their families, but not of the latter: the skin and all the interior must be burnt.
REFLECTIONS.
In the former chapter we have traced the atonements for sins of ignorance and negligence; we now come to known and wilful transgressions of the divine law. And blessed be God, that no sinner might be discouraged from repentance, atonement was provided for these sins also; but not without confession, restitution, and the superadding of a fifth part to the injured person.
Hence the promulgation of this law suggests a dreadful idea of the complicated nature of sin. The man who has defrauded his neighbour through covetousness, and other sins, will next tell lies to cover his crime, and by persisting, he is every moment keeping up a sort of living lie in the sight of God, and of his church. How dreadful is the state of his mind. Should death approach; should a stroke hurry him away in that state before the awful tribunal, we have every ground to fear that his soul is lost.
The covenant of God does not allow of private and concealed repentance; nor of bringing a sacrifice by proxy. He must come himself and acknowledge his sin, having first made restitution to his neighbour with interest. God will never receive a mans prayers while he retains his neighbours goods. How happy would it be, if christians of all denominations would unite with the magistrates and peace-officers, to enforce the existing laws of morality and christian discipline; then taverns and alehouses would be brought under legal cognizance, drunkards and swearers would be punished, and the seducers of unprotected innocence would either be compelled to marry or flee their country. Professor Ostervald, in his treatise on the Causes of corruption, in conjunction with the ministers and magistrates, made a successful attempt in Switzerland; but perseverance is requisite in a good cause. What are good laws unenforced? The wicked, if left alone, will run to destruction.
The Jew who should presume to participate of the sacred feast with his sin unpurged, was to be cut off or excommunicated. He who despised the means of purity, despised the God of purity. And he who comes to worship God in his pride and covetousness, in his hatred and quarrels, shall have no access to him in prayer. And in the day when he shall knock without, saying, Lord, Lord, open unto methe Lord will answer, depart hence, I know you not.
The heart must not only be sincere in bringing its sacrifice, but the fire must be holy which consumes it, and ever kept burning on the altar; for it was the fire which went forth from the Lord, and burnt on the altar, accepting the first sacrifice in the covenant of Sinai. Into this fire pieces of the victims were continually thrown, which burnt upon the altar by night and by day, shadowing forth the sacrifice of Christ, the efficacy of which is for ever prevalent. The fire also of his holy love, shed abroad in the heart, should burn there in sanctifying comfort. Whenever that fire is low, and seems extinguished, we must stir it up, and add fresh fuel by meditation and prayer.
We here see that the priest so honoured as mediator between God and the sinner, must be a humble man. He must put off his fine linen; and in dirty clothes wheel the ashes out of the camp, or convey them away in some other manner. And seeing that Jesus has suffered for us without the camp, bearing our reproach, it becomes us to perform the humblest service in his church, out of regard for his holy name.
Fuente: Sutcliffe’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Leviticus 5:14 – 6:7
These verses contain the doctrine of the trespass offering, of which there were two distinct kinds, namely, trespass against God, and trespass against man. “If a soul commit a trespass, and sin through ignorance, in the holy things of the Lord, then shall he bring for his trespass unto the Lord, a ram without blemish out of the flocks, with thy estimation by shekels of silver, after the shekel of the sanctuary, for a trespass offering.” Here we have a case in which a positive wrong was done, in the holy things which pertained unto the Lord; and, albeit this was done “through ignorance,” yet could it not be passed over. God can forgive all manner of trespass, but He cannot pass over a single jot or tittle. His grace is perfect, and therefore He can forgive all. His holiness is perfect, and therefore He cannot pass over anything. He cannot sanction iniquity, but He can blot it out, and that, moreover, according to the perfection of His grace, and according to the perfect claims of His holiness.
It is a very grave error to suppose that, provided a man acts up to the dictates of his conscience, he is all right and safe. The peace which rests upon such a foundation as this will be eternally destroyed when the light of the judgement-seat shines in upon the conscience. God could never lower His claim to such a level. The balances of the sanctuary are regulated by a very different scale from that afforded by the most sensitive conscience. We have had occasion to dwell upon this point before, in the notes on the sin offering. It cannot be too strongly insisted upon. There are two things involved in it. First, a just perception of what the holiness of God really is; and, secondly, a clear sense of the ground of a believer’s peace, in the divine presence.
Whether it be a question of my condition or my conduct, my nature or my acts, God alone can be the Judge of what suits Himself, and of what befits His holy presence. Can human ignorance furnish a plea, when divine requirements are in question? God forbid. A wrong has been done “in the holy things of the Lord;” but man’s conscience has not taken cognisance of it. What then? Is there to be nothing more about it? Are the claims of God to be thus lightly disposed of? Assuredly not. This would be subversive of every thing Like divine relationship. The righteous are called to give thanks at the remembrance of God’s holiness. (Psalm 97: 12) How can they do this? Because their peace has been secured on the ground of the full vindication and perfect establishment of that holiness. Hence, the higher their sense of what that holiness is, the deeper and more settled must be their peace. This is a truth of the most precious nature. The unregenerate man could never rejoice in the divine holiness His aim would be to lower that holiness, if he could not ignore it altogether. Such an one will console himself with the thought that God is good, God is gracious, God is merciful; but you will never find him rejoicing in the thought that God is holy. He has unholy thoughts respecting God’s goodness, His grace, and His mercy. He would fain find in those blessed attributes, an excuse for his continuing in sin.
On the contrary, the renewed man exults in the holiness of God. He sees The full expression thereof in the cross of the Lord Jesus Christ. It is that holiness which has laid the foundation of his peace; and, not only so, but he is made a partaker of it, and he delights in it, while he hates sin with a perfect hatred. The instincts of the divine nature shrink from it, and long after holiness. It would be impossible to enjoy true peace and liberty of heart, if one did not know that the claims connected with “the holy things of the Lord” had been perfectly met by our divine Trespass Offering;. There would ever be, springing up in the heart, the painful sense that those claims had been slighted, through our manifold infirmities and shortcomings. Our very best services, our holiest seasons, our most hallowed exercises, may present something of trespass “in the holy things of the Lord” – “something that ought not to be done.” How often are our seasons of public worship and private devotion infringed upon and marred by barrenness and distraction! Hence it is that we need the assurance that our trespasses have all been divinely met by the precious blood of Christ. Thus, in the ever-blessed Lord Jesus, we find One who has come down to the full measure of our necessities as sinners by nature, and trespassers in act. We find in Him the perfect answer to all the cravings of a guilty conscience, and to all the claims of infinite holiness, in reference to all our sins and all our trespasses; so that the believer can stand, with an uncondemning conscience and emancipated heart, in the full light of that holiness which is too pure to behold iniquity or look upon sin.
“And he shall make amends for the harm that he hath done in the holy thing, and shall add the fifth part thereto, and give it unto the priest: and the priest shall make an atonement for him with the ram of the trespass offering, and it shall be forgiven him.” (Lev. 5: 16) In the addition of “the fifth part,” as here set forth, we have a feature of the true Trespass Offering, which, it is to be feared, is but little appreciated. When we think of all the wrong and all the trespass which we have done against the Lord; and, further, when we remember how God has been wronged of His rights in this wicked world, with what interest can we contemplate the work of the cross as that wherein God has not merely received back what was lost, but whereby He is an actual gainer. He has gained more by redemption than ever He lost by the fall. He reaps a richer harvest of glory, honour, and praise, in the fields of redemption, than ever He could have reaped from those of creation. “The sons of God” could raise a loftier song of praise around the empty tomb of Jesus than ever they raised in view of the Creator’s accomplished work. The wrong has not only been perfectly atoned for, but an eternal advantage has been gained, by the work of the cross. ‘This is a stupendous truth. God is a gainer by the work of Calvary. Who could have conceived this? When we behold man, and the creation of which he was Lord, laid is ruins at the feet of the enemy, How could we conceive that, from amid those ruins, God should gather richer and nobler spoils than any which our unfallen world could have yielded. Blessed be the name of Jesus for all this. It is to Him we owe it all. It is by His precious cross that ever a truth so amazing, so divine, could be enunciated. Assuredly, that cross involves a mysterious wisdom “which none of the princes of this world knew; for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.” (1 Cor. 2: 8) No marvel, therefore, that round that cross, and round Him who was crucified thereon, the affections of patriarchs, prophets, apostles, martyrs, and saints, have ever entwined themselves. No marvel that the Holy Ghost should have given forth that solemn but just decree, “If any man love not our Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha.” (1 Cor. 16: 22) Heaven and earth shall echo forth a loud and an eternal amen to this anathema. No marvel that it should be the fixed and immutable purpose of the divine mind, that “at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things on earth, and things under the earth; and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” (Phil. 2: 10, 11)
The same law in reference to “the fifth part” obtained in the case of a trespass committed against a man, as we read, “If a soul sin, and commit a trespass against the Lord,* and lie unto his neighbour in that which was delivered him to keep, or in fellowship, or in a thing taken away by violence, or have deceived his neighbour, or have found that which was lost, and lieth concerning it, and sweareth falsely; in any of all these that a man doeth, sinning therein: then it shall be, because he hath sinned, and is guilty, that he shall restore that which he took violently away, or the thing which he hath deceitfully gotten, or that which was delivered him to keep, or the lost thing which he found, or all that about which he hath sworn falsely; he shall even restore it in the principal, and shall add the fifth part more thereto, and give it unto him to whom it appertaineth, in the day of his trespass offerings) (Lev. 6: 2-5)
{*There is a fine principle invoked in the expression, “against the Lord.” Although the matter in question was a wrong done to one’s neighbour, yet the Lord looked upon it as a trespass against himself. Everything must be viewed in reference to the Lord. It matters not who may be affected, Jehovah must get the first place. Thus, when David’s conscience was pierced by the arrow of conviction, in reference to his treatment of Uriah, he exclaims, “I have sinned against the Lord.” (2 Sam. 12: 13) This principle does not, in the least, interfere with the injured man’s claim.}
Man, as well as God, is a positive gainer by the cross. The believer can say, as he gazes upon that cross, “Well, it matters not how I have been wronged, how I have been trespassed against, how I have been deceived, what ills have been done to me, I am a gainer by the cross. I have not merely received back all that was lost, but much more beside.”
Thus, whether we think of the injured, or the injurer, in any given case, we are equally struck with the glorious triumphs of redemption, and the mighty practical results which flow from that gospel which fills the soul with the happy assurance, that “all trespasses” are “forgiven,” And that the root from whence those trespasses have sprung, has been judged “The gospel of the glory of the blessed God” is that which alone can send forth a man into the midst of a scene which has been the witness of his sins, his trespasses, and his injurious ways – can send him back to all who, in anywise, have been sufferers by his evil doings, furnished with grace, not only to repair the wrongs, but, far more, to allow the full tide of practical benevolence to flow forth in all his ways, yea, to love his enemies, to do good to them that hate him, and to pray for them that despitefully use him and persecute him. Such is the precious grace of God, that acts in confession with our great Trespass Offering. – such are its rich, rare, and refreshing fruits!
What a triumphant answer to the caviller who could say, “Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?” Grace not merely cuts up sin by the roots, but transforms the sinner from a curse into a blessing; from a moral plague, into a channel of divine mercy; from an emissary of Satan, into a messenger of God; from a child of darkness, into a son of the light; from a self-indulgent pleasure-hunter, into a self-denying lover of God; from a slave of vile, selfish lusts, into a willing-hearted servant of Christ; from a cold, narrow-hearted miser, into a benevolent minister to the need of his fellow-man. Away, then, with the oft repeated taunts, “Are we to do nothing?” – “That is a marvellously easy way to be saved” – “According to this Gospel we may live as we list.” Let all who utter such language behold yonder thief transformed into a liberal donor, and let them be silent for ever. (See Eph. 4: 28) They know not what grace means. They have never felt its sanctifying and elevating influences. They forget that, while the blood of the trespass offering cleanses the conscience, the law of that offering sends the trespasser back to the one whom he has wronged, with” the principal” and “the fifth” in his hand. Noble testimony this, both to the grace and righteousness of the God of Israel! Beauteous exhibition of the results of that marvellous scheme of redemption, whereby the injurer is forgiven, and the injured becomes the actual gainer! The conscience has been set to rights, by the blood of the cross, in reference to the claims of God, the conduct must be set to rights, by the holiness of the cross, in reference to the claims of practical righteousness. These things must never be separated. God has joined them together, and let not man put them asunder. The hallowed union will never be dissolved by any mind which is governed by pure gospel morality. Alas! it is easy to profess the principles of grace, while the practice and power thereof are completely denied. It is easy to talk of resting in the blood of the trespass offering, while “the principal” and “the fifth” are not forthcoming. This is vain, and worse than vain. “He that doeth not righteousness is not of God.” (1 John 3: 10)
Nothing can be more dishonouring to the pure grace of the gospel than the supposition that a man may belong to God, while his conduct and character exhibit not the fair traces of practical holiness. “known unto God are all his works,” no double; but He has given us, in His holy word, those evidences by which we can discern those that belong to Him. “The foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are His: and, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.” (2 Tim. 2: 19) We have no right to suppose that an evildoer belongs to God. The holy instincts of the divine nature are shocked by the mention of such a thing. People sometimes express much difficulty in accounting for such and such evil practices on the part of those whom they cannot help regarding in the light of Christians. The word of God settles the matter so clearly and so authoritatively, as to leave no possible ground for any such difficulty. “In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.’ It is well to remember this, in this day of laxity and self-indulgence. There is a fearful amount of easy, uninfluential profession abroad, against which the genuine Christian is called upon to make a firm stand, and bear a severe testimony – a testimony resulting from the steady exhibition of “the fruits of righteousness which are by Jesus Christ unto the glory and praise of God.” It is most deplorable to see so many going along the beaten path – the well-trodden highway of religious profession, and yet manifesting not a trace of love or holiness in their conduct. Christian reader, let us be faithful. Let us rebuke, by a life of self-denial and genuine benevolence, the self-indulgence and culpable inactivity of evangelical yet worldly profession. May God grant unto all His true-hearted people abundant grace for these things!
Let us now proceed to compare the two classes of trespass offering; namely, the offering on account of trespass “in the holy things of the Lord,” and that which had reference to a trespass committed in the common transactions and relations of human life. In so doing, we shall find one or two points which demand our attentive consideration.
And, first, the expression, “if a soul sin through ignorance,” which occurs in the former, is omitted in the latter. The reason of this is obvious. The claims which stand connected with the holy things of the Lord, must pass, infinitely, beyond the reach of the most elevated human sensibility. Those claims may be, continually, interfered with – continually trespassed upon, and the trespasser not be aware of the fact. A man’s consciousness can never be the regulator in the sanctuary of God. This is an unspeakable mercy. God’s holiness alone must fix the standard, when God’s rights are in question.
Oh the other hand, the human conscience can readily grasp the full amount of a human claim, and can readily take cognisance of any interference with such claim. How often may we have wronged God, in His holy things, without ever taking a note of it in the tablet of conscience – yea without having the competency to detect it. (See Mal. 3: 8) Not so, however, when man’s rights are in question. The wrong which the human eye can see, and the human heart feel, the human conscience can take notice of. A man, “through ignorance” of the laws which governed the sanctuary of old, might commit a trespass against those laws, without being aware of it, until a higher light had shone in upon his conscience. But a man could not, “through ignorance,” tell a lie, swear falsely, commit an act of violence, deceive his neighbour, or find a lost thing and deny it. These were all plain and palpable acts, lying within the range of the most sluggish sensibility. Hence it is that the expression, “through ignorance” is introduced, in reference to “the holy things of the Lord,” and omitted, in reference to the common affairs of men. How blessed it is to know that the precious blood of Christ has settled all questions whether with respect to God or man – our sins of ignorance or our known sins! Here lies the deep and settled foundation of the believer’s peace. The cross has divinely met ALL.
Again, when it was a question of trespass “in the holy things of the Lord,” the unblemished sacrifice was first introduced; and, afterward “the principal” and “the fifth.” This order was reversed when it was a question of the common affairs of life. (Comp. Lev. 5: 15, 16 with Lev. 6: 4-7) The reason of this is equally obvious. When the divine rights were infringed, the blood of atonement was made the great prominent matter. Whereas, when human rights were interfered with, restitution would naturally assume the leading place in the mind. But, inasmuch as the latter involved the question of the soul’s relation with God, as well as the former, therefore the sacrifice is introduced, though it be last in order. If I wrong my fellow man, that wrong will, undoubtedly, interfere with my communion with God; and that communion can only be restored on the ground of atonement. Mere restitution would not avail. It might satisfy the injured man, but it could not form the basis of restored communion with God. I might restore “the principal” and add “the fifth,” ten thousand times over, and yet my sin remain, for “Without shedding of blood is no remission.” (Heb. 9: 22) Still, if it be a question of injury done to my neighbour, then restitution must first be made. “If thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee, leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.” (Matt. 5: 23, 24)*
{*From a comparison of Matt. 5.23, 24 with Matt. 18. 21, 22, we may learn a fine principle, as to the way in which wrongs and injuries are to be settled between two brothers. The injurer is sent back from the altar, in order to have his matters set straight with the injured one; for there can be no communion with the Father so long as my brother “hath ought against me” But, then, mark the beauteous way in which the injured one is taught to receive the injurer. “Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times? Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, until seven times; but, until seventy times seven.” Such is the divine mode of settling all questions between brethren. “Forbearing one another, and forgiving one another, if any man have a quarrel against any even as Christ forgave you, so also do ye. (Col 3: 13)}
There is far more involved in the divine order prescribed in the trespass offering, than might, at first sight, appear. The claims which arise out of our human relations must not be disregarded. They must ever get their proper place in the heart. This is distinctly taught in the trespass offering. When an Israelite had, by an act of trespass, deranged his relation with Jehovah, the order was, sacrifice and restitution. When he had, by an act of trespass, deranged his relation with his neighbour, the order was, restitution and sacrifice. Will any one undertake to say this is a distinction without a difference? Does the change of the order not convey its own appropriate, because divinely appointed, lesson? Unquestionably. Every point is pregnant with meaning, if we will but allow the Holy Ghost to convey that meaning to our hearts, and not seek to grasp it by the aid of our poor vain imaginings. Each offering conveys its own characteristic view of the Lord Jesus, and His work; and each is presented in its own characteristic order; and we may safely say, it is, at once, the business and the delight of the spiritual mind to apprehend both the one and the other. The very same character of mind which would seek to make nothing of the peculiar order of each offering, would also set aside the idea of a peculiar phase of Christ in each. It would defy the existence of any difference between the burnt offering and the sin offering ; and between the sin offering and the trespass offering; and between any or all of these and the meat offering or the peace offering. Hence, it would follow that the first seven chapters of the Book of Leviticus are all a vain repetition, each successive chapter going over the same thing. Who could cede ought so monstrous as this? What Christian mind could suffer such an insult to be offered to the sacred page? A German rationalist or theologian may put forth such vain and detestable notions; but those who have been divinely taught that “all scripture is given by inspiration of God,” will be led to regard the various types, in their specific order, as so many variously-shaped caskets, in which the Holy Ghost has treasured up, for the people of God, “the unsearchable riches of Christ.” There is no tedious repetition, no redundancy. All is rich, divine, heavenly variety; and all we need is to be personally acquainted with the great Antitype, in order to enter into the beauties and seize the delicate touches of each type. Directly the heart lays hold of the fact that it is Christ we have, in each type, it can hang, With spiritual interest, over the most minute details. It sees meaning and beauty in everything – it finds Christ in all. As, in the kingdom of nature, the telescope and the microscope present to the eye their own special wonders, so with the word of God. Whether we look at it as a whole, or scrutinise each clause, we find that which elicits the worship and thanksgiving of our hearts.
Christian reader, may the name of the Lord Jesus ever be more precious to our hearts! Then shall we value everything that speaks of Him everything that sets Him forth – everything according a fresh insight into His peculiar excellency and matchless beauty.
NOTE – The remainder of Lev. 6, together with the whole of Lev. 7, is occupied with the law of the various offerings to which reference has already been made. There are, however, some points presented in the law of the sin offering and the trespass offering which may be noticed ere we leave this copious section of our book.
In none of the offerings is Christ’s personal holiness more strikingly presented than in the sin offering. “Speak unto Aaron and to his sons, saying, This is the law of the sin offering. in the place where the burnt offering is killed shall the sin offering be killed before the Lord: it is most holy . . . . . .Whatsoever shall touch the flesh thereof shall be holy…All the males among the priests shall eat thereof: it is most holy.” (Lev. 6: 25- 29) So also in speaking of the meat offering, “it is most holy, as is the sin offering, and as the trespass offering.” This is most marked and striking. The Holy Ghost did not need to guard with such jealousy, the personal holiness of Christ in the burnt offering; but lest the soul should, by any means, lose sight of that holiness, while contemplating the place which the Blessed One took in the sin offering, we are, again and again, reminded of it by the words,” it is most holy.” Truly edifying and refreshing it is to behold the divine and essential holiness of the Person of Christ shining forth in the midst of Calvary’s profound and awful gloom The same point is observable in “the law of the trespass offering. (See Lev. 7: 1, 6) Never was the Lord Jesus more fully seen to be “the Holy One of God” than when He was “made sin” upon the cursed tree. The vileness and blackness of that with which He stood identified on the cross, only served to show out more clearly that He was “most holy.” Though a sin-bearer, He was sinless. Though enduring the wrath of God, He was the Father’s delight. Though deprived of the light of God’s countenance, He dwelt in the Father’s bosom. precious mystery! Who can sound its mighty depths How wonderful to find it so accurately shadowed forth in “the law of the sin offering ‘”
Again, my reader should seek to apprehend the meaning of the expression, “all the males among the priests shall eat thereof.” The ceremonial act of eating the sin offering, or the trespass offering, was expressive of full identification. But, to eat the sin offering – to make another’s sin one’s own, demanded a higher degree of priestly energy, such as was expressed in all the males among the priests.” “And the Lord spake unto Aaron, Behold, I also have given thee the charge of mine heave offerings, of all the hallowed things of the children of Israel; unto thee have I given them by reason of the anointing, and to thy sons, by an ordinance for ever. This shall be thine of the most holy things, reserved from the fire: every oblation of theirs, every meat offering of theirs, and every sin offering of theirs, and every trespass offering of theirs, which they shall render unto me, shall be most holy for thee and for thy sons. In the most Holy place shalt thou eat it; every male shall eat it: it shall be holy unto thee. and this is thine; the heave offering of their gift, with all the wave offerings of the children of Israel: I have given them unto thee, and to thy sons, and to thy daughters with thee, by a statute for ever: every one that is clean in thy house shall eat of it.” (Num. 18: 8-11)
It demanded a larger measure of priestly energy to eat of the sin or trespass offering, than merely to partake of the heave and wave offerings of gift. The “daughters” of Aaron could eat of the latter. None but the “sons” could eat of the former. In general, “the male,” expresses a thing according to the divine Idea: “the female,” according to human development. The former gives you the thing in full energy; the latter, in its imperfection. How few of us have sufficient priestly energy to enable us to make another’s sin or trespass our own! The blessed Lord Jesus did this perfectly. He made His people’s sins His own, and bore the judgement thereof, on the cross. He fully identified Himself with us, so that we may know, in full and blessed certainty, that the whole question of sin and trespass has been divinely settled. If Christ’s identification was perfect, then, the settlement was perfect, likewise; and that it was perfect, the scene enacted at Calvary declares. All is accomplished. The sin, the trespasses, the claims of God, the claims of man – all have been eternally settled; and, now, perfect peace is the portion of all who, by grace, accept as true the record of God. It is as simple as God could make it, and the soul that believes it is made happy. The peace and happiness of the believer depend wholly upon the perfection of Christ’s sacrifice. It is not a question of his mode of receiving it, his thoughts about it, or his feelings respecting it. It is simply a question of his crediting, by faith, the testimony of God, as to the value of the sacrifice. The Lord be praised for His own simple and perfect way of peace! May many troubled souls be led by the Holy Spirit into an understanding thereof!
We shall here close our meditations upon one of the richest sections in the whole canon of inspiration. It is but little we have been enabled to glean from it. We have hardly penetrated below the surface of an exhaustless mine. If, however, the reader has, for the first time, been led to view the offerings as so many varied exhibitions of the great Sacrifice, and if he is led to cast himself at the feet of the great Teacher, to learn more of the living depths of these things, I cannot but feel that an end has been gained for which we may well feel deeply thankful.
Fuente: Mackintosh’s Notes on the Pentateuch
Lev 5:14 to Lev 6:7. The Trespass or Guilt Offering.This is of two kinds, though the principle of amendment is the same. The first kind is stated vaguely; committing a trespass (the word means acting unfaithfully or treacherously; it is coupled with sinning unwittingly in Lev 5:15; Lev 5:17). The offence consists in treating what is Yahwehs as if it were not Yahwehs, i.e. in-correctness, really unintentional, connected with some offering. If not unintentional, the penalty is different (Num 15:30). The offerer is not said to kill the guilt offering; though elsewhere, the offerers act of killing is carefully mentioned, and it seems to be implied in Lev 7:2. The second case is intentionaltrickery in a matter of deposit or pledge (RVm), or theft, or oppression, or keeping anothers property, or falsehood; all these are trespasses against Yahweh, and as such must be atoned for by a trespass or guilt offering. This offering consists in restitution and, in the first case, amends; the restitution is a ram; the amends is one fifth of the value of the ram. In the second case, the object held back is itself restored with an addition of one-fifth of its value; and a ram is offered to Yahweh as well. The amends necessitates a valuation; this is to be made in sanctuary shekels (see on Lev 27:16-25). Lev 5:17-19 seems to add nothing to the preceding; there is no mention of amends, and guilt offering is spoken of, with reference to the subjects of sin offering in Leviticus 4. Perhaps it is an older fragment; cf. Ezr 10:19, where for the sin of marrying foreign wives, a ram is offered by the people for their guilt. In the case of trespass against ones neighbour, the procedure is parallel; in this case, the restitution is mentioned before the ram of the guilt offering. But the latter is as necessary as the former; all morality is the concern of Yahweh, and in every trespass He is injured. This is one of the few references to social morality in P. The earlier prophets refer to little else, and Ezekiel, in ch. 18, confines his catalogue to non-ritual offences, to be purged only by repentance.
Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible
TRESPASS MANWARD (vv. 1-7).
Though this trespass is directly involved with another person, yet it is against the Lord, for He is Creator and concerned about how His creatures are treated. One may have lied to his neighbor in reference to something that had been entrusted to him to keep or as to a pledge he had made, or he may have actually cheated his neighbor in some way. Or he may have found what was lost and instead of restoring it to its owner, he had sworn falsely about it. This could not be said to be a sin of ignorance, but he may have resorted to lying because of fear or weakness. Yet he must then not cover the matter over, but confess his sin and fully restore anything that the neighbor had lost and add one-fifth to the value of it.
The offering he must make also was the same as in the case of trespass in sacred things, a ram without blemish. Thus people would be restrained from such trespass by knowing they would lose by it when it came to light. But the offering was intended to direct men’s hearts to something higher, though they could not realize its symbolical significance until Christ Himself was offered for our sins. Yet many must have realized that there was in the offerings a significance higher than they understood. They would recognize this in the measure in which they believed that God was wiser than they. For the time being also the offering gave a governmental forgiveness, but not the eternal forgiveness that is found only in the one sacrifice of Christ.
THE LAW OF THE BURNT OFFERING (vv. 8-13)
In contrast to the sin offering which was to be offered once a year, except for specific occasions of sin, the burnt offering was to be continual. There was an evening and morning sacrifice, and the fire on the altar was never to be put out. The significance of this is plain. There is never a time when God does not receive honor from the value of the sacrifice of Christ. For we have seen that the burnt offering all ascended to God in fire, so that it speaks of that aspect of the sacrifice of Christ that is all for the glory of God.
Evidently every morning the priest must put on his linen garments, (which emphasize the moral purity of the Lord Jesus as Great High Priest) and remove the ashes from the altar and put these beside the altar. Even that which was burned was not to be treated carelessly. For then the priest changed his garments and carried the ashes outside the camp to a clean place. What remained was only the reminder that the sacrifice had done its work. Thus the sacrifice of Christ will never be forgotten.
THE LAW OF THE MEAL OFFERING (vv. 14-23)
We have seen that the meal offering is a virtual appendix to the burnt offering. It speaks of Christ, not in His atoning sufferings, but in the purity of sinless Manhood in all His life on earth. Any meal offering, voluntarily brought by one of the people must have a handful of the meal taken, with its oil and all its incense, by the priest, and burned on the altar as a sweet aroma to the Lord. No incense was left for the priest.
The offering must not be baked with leaven, and the remainder was given to the priests to eat. Also anyone who touched this offering was thereby sanctified (or holy). This illustrates the sanctifying power of a personal relationship with the Lord Jesus.
THE DAILY MEAL OFFERING (vv. 19-23)
This deals with the meal offering on behalf of the priests. Beginning from the day the priests were anointed, they were to bring a meal offering of one tenth of an ephah of fine flour, offering one half of it in the morning and one half at night. Thus it was offered along with the continual burn offering (vv. 9-12). This was made in a pan with oil, and offered as a sweet savor to the Lord, which seems to infer that incense was offered with it. But the priests could not partake of this offering: it was to be wholly burned (vv. 22-23)
THE LAW OF THE SIN OFFERING (vv. 24-30)
Verse 25 is a repetition of what has before been said of the sin offering. It was to be killed in the same place as the burnt offering, before the Lord. It was most holy. But verse 26 adds what had not been said before: the priest who offered it was to eat its flesh in the holy place. This would be in the case of the sin of a ruler or one of the people, for in the cases where the blood of the sin offering was taken into the sanctuary, nothing was to be eaten by the priest.
The eating of the sin offering by the priest signifies his entering into and feeling the seriousness of the sin as though it had been his own, just as the Lord Jesus confessed Israel’s sins as though He had been responsible for them (Psa 40:12; Psa 69:5-6). Whatever touched the flesh of the animal would be holy, which speaks of any personal connection with the sacrifice of Christ being the means of sanctifying us from the guilt of sin, for the touching speaks of the touch of faith.
As well as everyone being constituted holy through touching the flesh of the sin offering, we are told that any garment on which the blood of the sacrifice was sprinkled was to be washed with water (v. 27). Garments speak of habits, and if our habits are brought in contact with the truth of the blood-shedding of Christ, these habits must be cleansed from defilement by the washing of water by the Word of God.
If the offering was boiled in an earthen vessel, the vessel was to be broken, never used again. But if boiled in a copper pot, the pot was to be scoured afterwards and rinsed in water. Then scripture adds that all the males among the priests may eat the flesh. For even wives of the priests were not considered priests under law. Today, under grace, all believers, male and female, are priests (1Pe 2:5), so that there is no select class of priests in any official position.
Verse 30, however, insists that no sin offering was to be eaten if its blood was brought into the sanctuary: it was to be burned.