Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Leviticus 4:1
And the LORD spoke unto Moses, saying,
Lev 4:1-2. A general introduction like that in Lev 1:1-2. From here to Lev 6:7 a new class of sacrifices are prescribed, the Sin-Offerings and Guilt-Offerings, and the occasions on which they are to be brought are specified, while in chs. 1 3 nothing is said about when the sacrifices are to be brought; their ceremonial only is regulated. The Sin-Offering is for sins committed unwittingly ( through ignorance A.V.); for sins committed presumptuously (Heb. with an high hand, Num 15:30) the punishment is ‘that soul shall be cut off from among his people.’ The same distinction is drawn in Psalms 19 where ‘hidden (‘secret’ A.V.) faults ’ ( Lev 4:12) are contrasted with ‘presumptuous sins ’ ( Lev 4:13). After this general statement, the material and manner of the offering are prescribed for four different classes: ( a) the anointed priest (Lev 4:3-12), ( b) the congregation (Lev 4:13-21), ( c) a ruler (Lev 4:22-26), ( d) any one of the common people (Lev 4:27-35). Cp. Num 15:22-29.
We may observe that the directions for disposal of the Sin-Offering, though very similar in all four cases, are not absolutely identical. In ( a) and ( b) some of the blood is to be put upon the horns of the altar of incense inside the tent of meeting; all the rest of the blood is to be poured out at the foot of the altar of burnt offering at the door of the tent of meeting; the fat is to be burnt upon the altar of Burnt-Offering; the whole bullock is to be burnt without the camp: in ( c) and ( d) some of the blood is to be put upon the horns of the altar of burnt offering; all the rest is to be poured out at the foot of that altar; the fat is to be burnt upon the altar; there is no command given as to the remainder.
We notice that on no occasion is the whole burnt upon the altar, as in the case of the Burnt-Offering.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
And the Lord spake … Israel – This formula is the commencement of a distinct section of the Law.
Lev 4:2
If a soul shall sin – The sin-offering was a new thing, instituted by the Law. The older kinds of sacrifice Lev 2:1; Lev 3:1 when offered by individuals were purely voluntary: no special occasions were prescribed. But it was plainly commanded that he who was conscious that he had committed a sin should bring his sin-offering. In the abridged rules for sin-offerings in Num 15:22-31, the kind of sin for which sin-offerings were accepted is contrasted with that which cut off the perpetrator from among his people (compare Lev 4:22 with Lev 4:30). The two classes are distinguished in the language of our Bible as sin through ignorance and presumptuous sin. The distinction is clearly recognized in Psa 19:12-13 and Heb 10:26-27. It seems evident that the classification thus indicated refers immediately to the relation of the conscience to God, not to outward practices, nor, immediately, to outward actions.
The presumptuous sinner, literally he who sinned with a high hand, might or might not have committed such a crime as to incur punishment from the civil law: it was enough that he had with deliberate purpose rebelled against God (see Pro 2:13-15), and ipso facto was cut off from among his people and alienated from the divine covenant (see Lev 7:20; Exo 31:14; compare Mat 12:31; 1Jo 5:16). But the other kind of sin, that for which the sin-offering was appointed, was of a more complicated nature. It appears to have included the entire range of sins, negligences and ignorances for which we are accustomed to ask forgiveness. sin-offerings were required not only when the conscience accused the offender of having yielded to temptation, but sometimes for what were breaches of the Law committed strictly in ignorance Lev 4:13, Lev 4:23, Lev 4:28; Lev 5:17, and sometimes on account of ceremonial pollution. They are thus to be regarded as protests against everything which is opposed to the holiness and purity of the divine Law. They were, in short, to be offered by the worshipper as a relief to the conscience whenever he felt the need of atonement.
Sin through ignorance – Sin through error; that is, through straying from the right way. See Psa 119:67; Ecc 5:6.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
CHAPTER IV
The law concerning the sin-offering for transgressions committed
through ignorance, 1, 2.
For the priest thus sinning, 3-12.
For the sins of ignorance of the whole congregation, 13-21.
For the sins of ignorance of a ruler, 22-26.
For the sins of ignorance of any of the common people, 27-35.
NOTES ON CHAP. IV.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying. Continued to speak to him, or, after some pause made, proceeded to speak to him, and give things in commandment concerning the sin offering, what it should be, and for whom, as follows.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
The Expiatory Sacrifices. – The sacrifices treated of in ch. 1-3 are introduced by their names, as though already known, for the purpose of giving them a legal sanction. But in ch. 4 and 5 sacrifices are appointed for different offences, which receive their names for the first time from the objects to which they apply, i.e., from the sin, or the trespass, or debt to be expiated by them: viz., sin, i.e., sin-offering (Lev 4:3, Lev 4:8, Lev 4:14, Lev 4:19, etc.), and debt, i.e., debt-offering (Lev 5:15-16, Lev 5:19); – a clear proof that the sin and debt-offerings were introduced at the same time as the Mosaic law. The laws which follow are distinguished from the preceding ones by the new introductory formula in Lev 4:1-2, which is repeated in Lev 5:14. This repetition proves that Lev 4:2-5:13 treats of the sin-offerings, and Lev 5:14-19 of the trespass-offerings; and this is confirmed by the substance of the two series of laws.
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
| Law of the Sin-Offering. | B. C. 1490. |
1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 2 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a soul shall sin through ignorance against any of the commandments of the LORD concerning things which ought not to be done, and shall do against any of them: 3 If the priest that is anointed do sin according to the sin of the people; then let him bring for his sin, which he hath sinned, a young bullock without blemish unto the LORD for a sin offering. 4 And he shall bring the bullock unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation before the LORD; and shall lay his hand upon the bullock’s head, and kill the bullock before the LORD. 5 And the priest that is anointed shall take of the bullock’s blood, and bring it to the tabernacle of the congregation: 6 And the priest shall dip his finger in the blood, and sprinkle of the blood seven times before the LORD, before the vail of the sanctuary. 7 And the priest shall put some of the blood upon the horns of the altar of sweet incense before the LORD, which is in the tabernacle of the congregation; and shall pour all the blood of the bullock at the bottom of the altar of the burnt offering, which is at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. 8 And he shall take off from it all the fat of the bullock for the sin offering; the fat that covereth the inwards, and all the fat that is upon the inwards, 9 And the two kidneys, and the fat that is upon them, which is by the flanks, and the caul above the liver, with the kidneys, it shall he take away, 10 As it was taken off from the bullock of the sacrifice of peace offerings: and the priest shall burn them upon the altar of the burnt offering. 11 And the skin of the bullock, and all his flesh, with his head, and with his legs, and his inwards, and his dung, 12 Even the whole bullock shall he carry forth without the camp unto a clean place, where the ashes are poured out, and burn him on the wood with fire: where the ashes are poured out shall he be burnt.
The laws contained in the first three chapters seem to have been delivered to Moses at one time. Here begin the statutes of another session, another day. From the throne of glory between the cherubim God delivered these orders. And he enters now upon a subject more strictly new than those before. Burnt-offerings, meat-offerings, and peace-offerings, it should seem, had been offered before the giving of the law upon mount Sinai; those sacrifices the patriarchs had not been altogether unacquainted with (Gen 8:20; Exo 20:24), and in them they had respect to sin, to make atonement for it, Job i. 5. But the law being now added because of transgressions (Gal. iii. 19), and having entered, that eventually the offence might abound (Rom. v. 20), they were put into a way of making atonement for sin more particularly by sacrifice, which was (more than any of the ceremonial institutions) a shadow of good things to come, but the substance is Christ, and that one offering of himself by which he put away sin and perfected for ever those who are sanctified.
I. The general case supposed we have, v. 2. Here observe, 1. Concerning sin in general, that it is described to be against any of the commandments of the Lord; for sin is the transgression of the law, the divine law. The wits or wills of men, their inventions or their injunctions, cannot make that to be sin which the law of God has not made to be so. It is said likewise, if a soul sin, for it is not sin if it be not some way or other the soul’s act; hence it is called the sin of the soul (Mic. vi. 7), and it is the soul that is injured by it, Prov. viii. 36. 2. Concerning the sins for which those offerings were appointed. (1.) They are supposed to be overt acts; for, had they been required to bring a sacrifice for every sinful thought or word, the task had been endless. Atonement was made for those in the gross, on the day of expiation, once a year; but these are said to be done against the commandments. (2.) They are supposed to be sins of commission, things which ought not to be done. Omissions are sins, and must come into judgment; but what had been omitted at one time might be done at another, and so to obey was better than sacrifice: but a commission was past recall. (3.) They are supposed to be sins committed through ignorance. If they were done presumptuously, and with an avowed contempt of the law and the Law-maker, the offender was to be cut off, and there remained no sacrifice for the sin,Heb 10:26; Heb 10:27; Num 15:30. But if the offender were either ignorant of the law, as in divers instances we may suppose many were (so numerous and various were the prohibitions), or were surprised into the sin unawares, the circumstances being such as made it evident that his resolution against the sin was sincere, but that he was overtaken in it, as the expression is (Gal. vi. 1), in this case relief was provided by the remedial law of the sin-offering. And the Jews say, “Those crimes only were to be expiated by sacrifice, if committed ignorantly, for which the criminal was to have been cut off if they had been committed presumptuously.”
II. The law begins with the case of the anointed priest, that is, the high priest, provided he should sin through ignorance; for the law made men priests who had infirmity. Though his ignorance was of all others least excusable, yet he was allowed to bring his offering. His office did not so far excuse his offence as that it should be forgiven him without a sacrifice; yet it did not so far aggravate it but that it should be forgiven him when he did bring his sacrifice. If he sin according to the sin of the people (so the case is put, v. 3), which supposes him in this matter to stand upon the level with other Israelites, and to have no benefit of his clergy at all. Now the law concerning the sin-offering for the high priest is, 1. That he must bring a bullock without blemish for a sin-offering (v. 3), as valuable an offering as that for the whole congregation (v. 14); whereas for any other ruler, or a common person, a kid of the goats should serve, Lev 4:23; Lev 4:28. This intimated the greatness of the guilt connected with the sin of a high priest. The eminency of his station, and his relation both to God and to the people, greatly aggravated his offences; see Rom. ii. 21. 2. The hand of the offerer must be laid upon the head of the offering (v. 4), with a solemn penitent confession of the sin he had committed, putting it upon the head of the sin-offering, ch. xvi. 21. No remission without confession, Psa 32:5; Pro 28:13. It signified also a confidence in this instituted way of expiating guilt, as a figure of something better yet to come, which they could not stedfastly discern. He that laid his hand on the head of the beast thereby owned that he deserved to die himself, and that it was God’s great mercy that he would please to accept the offering of this beast to die for him. The Jewish writers themselves say that neither the sin-offering nor the trespass-offering made atonement, except for those that repented and believed in their atonement. 3. The bullock must be killed, and a great deal of solemnity there must be in disposing of the blood; for it was the blood that made atonement, and without shedding of blood there was no remission, v. 5-7. Some of the blood of the high-priest’s sin-offering was to be sprinkled seven times before the veil, with an eye towards the mercy-seat, though it was veiled: some of it was to be put upon the horns of the golden altar, because at that altar the priest himself ministered; and thus was signified the putting away of that pollution which from his sins did cleave to his services. It likewise serves to illustrate the influence which Christ’s satisfaction has upon the prevalency of his intercession. The blood of his sacrifice is put upon the altar of his incense and sprinkled before the Lord. When this was done the remainder of the blood was poured at the foot of the brazen altar. By this rite, the sinner acknowledged that he deserved to have his blood thus poured out like water. It likewise signified the pouring out of the soul before God in true repentance, and typified our Saviour’s pouring out his soul unto death. 4. The fat of the inwards was to be burnt upon the altar of burnt-offering, v. 8-10. By this the intention of the offering and of the atonement made by it was directed to the glory of God, who, having been dishonoured by the sin, was thus honoured by the sacrifice. It signified the sharp sufferings of our Lord Jesus, when he was made sin (that is, a sin-offering) for us, especially the sorrows of his soul and his inward agonies. It likewise teaches us, in conformity to the death of Christ, to crucify the flesh. 5. The head and body of the beast, skin and all, were to be carried without the camp, to a certain place appointed for that purpose, and there burnt to ashes, Lev 4:11; Lev 4:12. This was very significant, (1.) Of the duty of repentance, which is the putting away of sin as a detestable thing, which our soul hates. True penitents say to their idols, “Get you hence; what have we to do any more with idols?” The sin-offering is called sin. What they did to that we must do to our sins; the body of sin must be destroyed, Rom. vi. 6. (2.) Of the privilege of remission. When God pardons sin he quite abolishes it, casts it behind his back. The iniquity of Judah shall be sought for and not found. The apostle takes particular notice of this ceremony, and applies it to Christ (Heb. xiii. 11-13), who suffered without the gate, in the place of a skull, where the ashes of dead men, as those of the altar, were poured out.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
LEVITICUS- CHAPTER FOUR
Verses 1-3:
“If a soul” denotes that the following applies to all classes alike in Israel, no matter what their social, political, or religious status might be.
The “Sin Offering” was similar to the “Whole Burnt Offering.” The “Sin Offering” was offered when one committed a “sin through ignorance,” bishgagah. The term covers all sins, except those committed in defiance, “with a high hand.”
This offering is a type of Jesus’ suffering for the sin principle. This is referred to by various terms: (1) Adamic sin; (2) inbred sin; (3) original sin; (4) total hereditary depravity. This may be illustrated: The fact that one sins does not make him a sinner; he sins because he is a sinner, Pr 23:7; Mt 12:34-37; 5:22, 28. Every human being inherits this sin nature, Ps 51:5; Ro 5:12; Eph 2:1-3. Jesus died for sin, the inherent depravity and inbred sin with which every human being is infected. Because this is true, no infant will be lost in hell; this holds true for any person who is mentally incapable of perceiving right and wrong, 1Ti 4:10.
The sins for which this sacrifice was offered were those committed merely because one is a sinner, as the natural result of the sin-nature. For example: the profane expletive when one unexpectedly mashes his finger; the lustful glance at another person; the sudden outburst of temper, etc. It does not refer to those deliberate acts which come as the result of planning and willful determination, such as “murder with malice aforethought,” or a carefully laid plan to commit immorality, etc.
The “Priest that is anointed” refers to the high priest. Verses 3-12 prescribes the manner in which he was to offer the sacrifice for his own “sin through ignorance.”
In the case of the high priest, he was to bring a “Sin Offering” of a young, unblemished bull.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
After Moses had treated of the offerings and other sacrifices, which were testimonies of gratitude and exercises of piety, he now descends to the sin-offering ( expiationem ) which held the chief place amongst the sacrifices, inasmuch as, without reconciliation, there could never be any intercourse between men and God; for since He deservedly abominates the whole human race on account of the corruption of our nature, and because we all continually provoke His wrath, the whole hope of salvation must needs be founded on the remedies provided for propitiating Him. This principle, being established, we must remember that Moses will henceforth speak of the expiatory sacrifices which propitiate God to men by the removal of their guilt. He here shews how God is to be appeased, where a man shall have sinned through ignorance or inconsiderateness; wherein too a distinction is laid down between different persons, since one kind of victim is required of a king, another of the priests, and another of ordinary persons; whilst regard is had to the poor, that they may not be burdened by so great an expense as the rich. But, since it will appear from the context that all kinds of ignorance are not here included, we must see what the word שגגה, shegagah, (256) means, which I have preferred rendering error rather than ignorance; for Moses does not refer to those transgressions into which we are ensnared, when we are led astray by the appearance of rectitude, so as to think ourselves without blame; but to those of which we take no heed, and whereby our minds are not pricked; or to those sudden falls, wherein the infirmity of the flesh so stifles the reason and the judgment as to blind the sinner. It is of such that Paul speaks when he bids us
“restore in the spirit of meekness those who are overtaken in a fault,” (Gal 6:1😉
for he does not mean those who are deceived by their good intentions (as they call it,) or rather by their foolish opinion, so as to be unconscious of their sin; but those who fall through the infirmity of their flesh, and whom Satan catches unawares in his snares; or who, at any rate, do not perceive the evil they have done, so as immediately to apply the remedy. This will be more clearly understood from Psa 19:12, where David, having asked pardon for his errors, seeks to be kept free from presumptuous sins. (257) The antithesis between שגיאות, shegioth, (258) and זדים, zedim, shews that those transgressions are called errors, in which there is no criminal pride against God. “If a soul shall sin — from all the commandments,” (259) is a harsh expression; and therefore some refer it to sins of omission, but I interpret it more simply, “If he sin by turning away from the commandments,” or “if he commit any thing opposed ( alienum) to the commandments.”
(256) S.M. says the word means, “a sin into which the perplexed mind has been driven under the impulse of some passion, through thoughtlessness, imprudence, or error, when inattentive to the dictates of reason and of the Spirit.” — W.
(257) “ A superbiis.” — Lat. “ De ses fiertes, et rebellions.” — Fr.
(258) Lexicographers make no distinction between the approximate roots שגג and שגה. Hence שגיאות, is regarded as meaning the same as the word used in Lev 4:2. By זדים, are understood sins committed with a high hand and rebellious spirit. — W.
(259) A. V., “against any of the commandments.” Ainsworth’s version is, “A soule, when it shall sin through ignorance of all the commandments,” etc.; and his Gloss. “ of all, understand, by doing any one of all the commandments. So Moses himself explaineth it in the words here following, and in Lev 4:13.”
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
Sacrifices for Sins
SUGGESTIVE READINGS
Lev. 4:2.If a soul shall sin. Be it noted that the foregoing sacrifices are specified as sacrifices already familiar to the Hebrew people. In distinction from those, the sin and trespass offering are for the first time mentioned. The law only just given on Sinai created a new standard of obedience and righteousness; thus, by the law is the knowledge of sin. It is here defined as against the commandments of the Lord, etc.; and to meet this new disclosure of human frailty and guiltiness, God appointed the sin and trespass offerings. Shall we not welcome a full discovery of our sinfulness, since it both disposes the sinner to despair of self-justification and constrains him to seek the redemption divinely provided? When God reveals sin it is to show its antidote; and with Him is plenteous redemption.
Through ignorance, i.e., inadvertently, as distinguished from deliberate and defiant disobedience (comp. Num. 15:30), for which there was no expiation. Are these of small import? Shall we think them of such inferior consequence as compared with sins done willfully? Let it then be recalled that Christ was crucified by inadvertence! That greatest act of human wrong was done through ignorance (Act. 3:17): Had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory (1Co. 2:8). Hence, though great the crime it may be forgiven mankind; as a wilful sin, done in the full light of knowledge, could not; but mans guilt at the Cross was a vast sin of inadvertence: Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do! (Luk. 23:34). Alas! for such as sin wilfully after they have received the knowledge of the truth! there remaineth for such no more sacrifice for sins (Heb. 10:26).
Lev. 4:3-12.The priest that is anointed, etc. Thus it is affirmed that even the highest personage in the priestly ranks is frail and as liable to sin as the commonest of the people; he may do according to the sin of the people (Lev. 4:3). Shall Christs ministers, then, dare assume to possess superior spiritual sanctity? [See Heb. 7:27-28.] The anointed priest was the high priest (Lev. 8:12); other priests were only consecrated. Yet, though he was frail as ordinary persons, his sacred office and privileges made his sin so much the greater that he had to bring a far more costly sacrifice for his atonement. [See Lev. 4:27-28.] God distinguishes concerning the criminality of sins: they who live nearer the light have less excuse for ignorance. So here, God requires most solemn arrangements for expiation: the blood is to be sprinkled seven times before the Lord, before the veil of the sanctuary, i.e., in front of the holy of holies, and even be smeared upon the golden altar itself! thus setting his sin in the very light of Gods countenance! How would this fill the anointed priest with self-reproach and shame! God cannot deal leniently with elevated souls. We shall be judged according to that we have.
Lev. 4:7.Pour all the blood at the bottom of the altar. By this rite the sinner acknowledged that he deserved to have his blood thus poured out like water. It likewise signified the pouring out of the soul before God in true repentance; and typified our Saviours pouring out His soul unto death.Henry.
Lev. 4:12.Without the camp. As being accursed, for it symbolically held the sinners guilt, he having laid his hand (Lev. 4:4) thereon. So did our Sin-Bearer suffer without the gate (Heb. 11:11-13). Thus, too, is sin removed from Gods presence by expiation, carried into oblivion, and consumed out of existence. Jesus put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.
Lev. 4:13-21.If the whole congregation, etc. Crime may spread itself throughout a community, a state, or a nation; and equally, a congregation or a church may lapse into evil conduct and contract iniquity. When the sin becomes known to them (Lev. 4:14), an expiation must be made with a solemnity equal to the high priests. Guilt is not less guilty because of its being prevalent in a community. God has declared against wrong-doers that though hand join in hand they shall not be unpunished. Sanctioned wrongs, evils connived at, customary misdemeanors, immoralities and impieties which find currency, popular sins, all are hateful to Jehovah, and none the less hateful because the moral or spiritual distemper rages amid the multitudes rather than confines itself to individuals. Nations have suffered Gods displeasure for unrepented sins; and churches have been withered for cherishing impurities which have wounded Christ in the house of His friends. True patriotism should bemoan and seek to remove the evils which degrade the national life; and earnest piety will show itself in endeavouring to arouse a lukewarm Church to repent and do her first works.
Lev. 4:22-26.When a ruler hath sinned. They who dispense laws are amenable to the Lawgiver; they who call others to account are themselves accountable the Supreme Ruler. The word ruler is rendered king in 1Ki. 11:34, Eze. 34:24, etc.; but God is King of kings, and Lord of lords; and before His bar they must stand in judgment if before the Cross they do not bow in penitence and faith. Be wise now, therefore, O ye kings; be instructed ye judges of the earth. Serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son, lest He be angry, etc (Psa. 2:10-12).
Lev. 4:27-35.One of the common people sin. The lowest are not overlooked by the searching eye of God. Though in his humble station he may be less instructed, less responsible for error, less blameworthy for sin, yet God demands expiation. If none are exempted from the sinfulness of his deeds, surely each should watch against sin, never excusing himself that he did it ignorantly, but seek to inform himself of Gods requirements, and thus come to understand his errors. Yes; and leaving his evil state, every one should seek the altar with his sin offering; go to Calvary with meek contrition and an upturned look of prayerful trust. Behold the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world.
SECTIONAL HOMILIES
Topic: SINS COMMITTED IN IGNORANCE (Lev. 4:1-12)
Our evil nature does not slumber; it acts. Dead as regards all power of living to God, it is full of untiring energy in living according to the prince of this world, the spirit which worketh in the children of disobedience. Cain and his children were dead towards God, yet full of activity in wrong, they builded cities and invented arts, living to Satan and themselves. So we are committers of sin, doers of iniquity. No remedy, therefore, would be commensurate with our need which failed to meet the consequences of committed sin. Accordingly the sin offering and the trespass offering were appointed.
Committed sin may be distributed into those committed in ignorance (and of these this chapter treats), and those committed consciously (which are dealt with in chapter 5).
I. MANS OWN DISPOSITION IS TO CONDONE INADVERTENT SINS.
In the heart of many there is readiness to think of sins of ignorance as if they were no sins; or if admitted to be sins and need mercy, such mercy is regarded rather as a right than as the unmerited gift of grace.
1. Ignorance is treated as if synonymous with guiltlessness. To act conscientiously, however dark or dead the conscience, is, in the esteem of many, to act blamelessly. Hence
2. The responsibilities which attach to knowledge become secretly a reason why knowledge is eschewed. Darkness is loved rather than light, because darkness brings quiet; whereas light has an awakening and convicting power.
To these errors of thought the appointment of the sin offering is an answer: it is designed to meet sins committed in ignorance. No one who reverences the Word of God will speak lightly of sins of ignorance after reading, If a soul shall sin through ignorance, etc. let him bring for the sin that he hath sinned, etc. (Lev. 4:4-5).
II. WHEREIN THE GUILTINESS OF INADVERTENT SINS CONSISTS.
The heinousness of such sins depends not so much on the character of the deed done as on that condition of heart which is capable of committing sin without knowing that it is sin; and commits it, perhaps, exultingly, triumphing in it as good! What must angels think of the state of that soul which is so thoroughly blinded, so utterly astray from God, as to violate His commandments and resist His will in total unconsciousness that it is doing wrong!
1. What such sinfulness has wrought. It was thus that multitudes in Israel hated and persecuted the Lord Jesus, that Paul shed the blood of Stephen, resisting the testimony of the Holy Ghost from one whose face shone with heavenly brightness while he spake; that Paul again verily thought he was doing God service when persecuting the saints. All this argued thorough blindness of soul, thorough alienation of heart from God.
2. Sin in ignorance is the embodiment in action of those dark principles of enmity against God which lie embosomed in the human heart.
III. GODS EMPHATIC WITNESS AGAINST INADVERTENT SINS.
1. Sources of Divine remonstrance against such sins.
(1) In Nature. Throughout the heathen world the eternal power and Godhead are declared by the works of Gods hands. The heavens declare the glory of God, etc. (Psalms 19) He left not Himself without witness in that He gave them rain, etc. (Act. 14:17). The invisible things of Him, etc. (Rom. 1:20).
(2) In Scripture. The Jews, in addition to the testimony of creation, had the written Word. To them were committed the oracles of God (Rom. 3:2).
(3) By living preachers. From them came many a warning, line upon line, precept upon precept.
(4) In conscience. The consciences both of Jews and Gentiles were often made to feel the appeals of God; as Paul made Felix tremble.
2. Mans resistance of the Divine remonstrance. Satan and mans own evil disposition quenched or obscured the light. As they turned from the light
(1) Their conscience became more hardened. And as it hardened, sins of ignorance were multiplied, and
(2) Committed with a higher and more reckless hand.
3. Such daring ignorance, how is it fostered?
(1) By the perversion of revealed truth. Truth had been revealed to, received by, Israel; but received to be betrayed. Their imposing systems of worship and sacrifice were constantly distorted, were false renderings of Divinely given truth.
(2) Erroneous teaching was welcomed. In vain, therefore, the Scriptures spake of Jesus; in vain John, His forerunner, testified; in vain the Lord Himself proved by His words, His character, His miracles, that He was indeed the Son of the living God. The light of holiness and grace shone fruitlessly upon their hearts, whose natural darkness was deepened by the systematic influence of a religious corruption which had sanctified error by holy titles, and had blessed wickedness in the name of God.
Nor has it been otherwise in Christendom. The history of the Church of God supplies countless instances of souls so nourished from childhood in error as to be deadened in every power of right discernment and apprehension. What wonder, seeing that our hearts naturally love darkness, that sins of ignorance should abound!
IV. GODLY SOULS ARE BETRAYED INTO THE COMMISSION OF INADVERTENT SINS.
It would be happy could we assert even of real Christians that they were free from these fearful sins of ignorance.
1. How are Christians betrayed thereinto? Whenever they give themselves up to the guidance of any individual, or of any system not strictly accordant with Gods revealed truth, they will surely act against Christ and His commandments ignorantly. Hence nothing operates more terribly against the progress of truth than the misdirected energies of real Christians ignorantly sustaining error, ignorantly resisting light.
2. Christians may therefore be beguiled. Paul was keenly alive to their peril. He knew how easily the souls of believers can be bewitched. O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you? He knew how easily Satan can transform himself into an angel of light to deceive.
3. If where there is most diligence and watchfulness there may be sins of ignorance, how much more where there is negligence or slumber, or acquiescence in the prevailing evil of the age!
V. SINS IN THE GODLY ARE MOST HEINOUS IN GODS ESTEEM.
Addressed as is this chapter to those who were ostensibly the separated people of God, it teaches us especially respecting sins of ignorance committed by believers.
1. Sins are greater in proportion to the spiritual status of those who commit them. The loftier our privileges, the nearer we are brought to God, the more intimately we are connected with His service, the more terrible must be the consequences of transgression.
2. Gods name was more dishonoured. The sins of an instructed Israelite threw discredit on the God he acknowledged.
3. Sacred life was defamed. With the priest or Israelite there should have been found understanding and the fear of the Lord.
Notes: (a) God had a right to expect such sins to be avoided. The priests were anointed that they might minister in the near presence of God: their employment was in holy things; their place the sanctuary. As instructed in the Word of the Lord, acquainted with the ways of His house, their lips were to keep knowledge; and others through them were to learn the ways of the Lord. Sins of ignorance were therefore the very sins that should have been absent from the priest.
(b) Sin is to be estimated by a mans spiritual elevation. As here; by the holiness of the things and places in which the priest ministered, and by the disastrous consequences to others, as well as to himself, that flowed from its commission.
VI. EXPIATION PROVIDED FOR SINS OF INADVERTENCE.
Sin, as in the priest, had invaded the holy place, had entered before the veil, had taiuted the place of his ministration, had defiled the altar, had involved others in its consequences: the stain must be effaced, either by vengeance consuming the sinner, or be expiated by the blood of a substituted victim.
God, in the unsearchable riches of His grace, appointed the sin offering; on whose head the transgressor laid his hand, and whose blood was sprinkled before the Lord. Thus was denoted
1. Against Whom the sins were committed. Seven times the blood was sprinkled before the Lord. Against Thee, Thee only, have I sinned, etc. (Psa. 51:4).
2. The process of purging. The ground on which the priest was accustomed to stand, the altar at which he ministered, were covered with blood: thus the taint was covered over, himself purchased back from destruction, the privileged place he had occupied preserved unforfeited.
3. Its suggestion of death. The remainder of the blood was poured out at the bottom of the altar, betokening that the just requisition of Gods holiness had been metmet by death. It was the token of accomplished and accepted atoning death. It was blood shed.
4. Its suggestion of wrath. On fire, kindled not on the altar, not even within the camp, but without the gate, the place of dishonour and reproach, like the fire of Gehenna, it was devoured as an accursed thing.
VII. TYPICAL INTIMATIONS OF CHRISTS DEATH FOR MANS SINS.
1. Gods condemnation of our Substitute. Faith, as it stands by the fire without the camp, and gazes on the devoted parts of the sin offering being consumed, beholds
(1) The memorial of what Christ became on account of His people.
(2) Sees not only their sins, but their sins judicially ended.
(3) That their guilt is remembered no more as the subject of wrathevidenced by the ashes; for ashes are the token of fire having burned itself out.
2. Gods acceptance of our Substitute. The internal parts of the victim were burned on the altar; representing the inherent excellencies of Christ, and accepted as a sweet savour by God. Jehovah provided for us One whose excellencies are here presented for our vileness. In atonement Divine holiness requires in the Surety not only that He should bear every penalty, but that He should also present a substitutional perfectness for us. Thus, while sins committed in ignorance showed the inherent corruption of our inmost nature; the acceptance of the inmost parts of the sin offering by God upon His holy altar declares the satisfaction made by Christ on our account.Homiletically developed from Thoughts on Leviticus, by B. W. NEWTON.
Topic: SINAIS LAW NECESSITATED THE ORIGIN OF THE SIN OFFERING (Lev. 4:2; Lev. 4:13-14; Lev. 4:22; Lev. 4:27, etc.)
Revelation from God and religious feeling in man are not synonymous, are not synchronous. The religious feeling is instinctive. Revelation comes to inform and guide that instinct. Prior to any revelation, man was religious. Within himself, in the thoughts and fears and aspirations of his own soul, man possesses the incitements to religion, i.e., to recognise and seek and propitiate God.
I. EARLIEST ANNALS OF HUMAN HISTORY SHOW MAN TO HAVE BEEN RELIGIOUS.
1. Touched by conscious dependence, man acknowledged it by tributary gifts to Deity.
2. Grateful for enjoyed blessings or providential deliverances, he brings to his altar a thank offering.
3. Troubled by sense of error, wrong, guilt, he rears an altar and offers some propitiatory presentation. Well nigh every ancient people thus expressed religious feeling, even where no revelation was given. Either these votive and appeasement offerings originated in
(a) The outcry and outlook of the human soul for its unseen and unknown God; or
(b) An intimation, in some form, from Heaven that men should seek the Lord if haply they might feel after Him and find Him (Act. 17:27).
But, whether by supernatural intimation or by spiritual intuition, man has always been religious.
Turning to the Hebrew scriptures we find offerings on some rude form of altar presented to God by the children of the first human family, Cain and Abel. And noteworthy: they bring their offerings not as if they were adventuring upon and originating a new mode of worship, but as if in conformity with a custom already existing.
Through the antedeluvian period, and following the dispersion of Noahs descendants, worship by altar offerings was preserved in all branches of the Semitic family. [Compare ATWATER on Tabernacle of the Hebrews.]
II. PRIOR TO THE SINAITIC LAW NEITHER SIN OR TRESPASS SACRIFICES WERE INSTITUTED.
The early patriarchs were familiar with burnt offerings and meat offerings; but, until the Exodus, sacrifices for expiation seem to have had no specific existence.
1. Subordinately every ancient sacrifice of victims on the altar intimated conscious sin and desire for expiation. But it was only subsidiary. The sacrifice was not offered with the single and supreme thought of atonement for sin. Those remoter sacrifices expressed self-surrender and allegiance rather than expiation. No sacrifice is recorded as a distinct effort to expiate for sin prior to the Sinaitic law.
2. Until the law was given sin was not clearly realised and felt. There was doubtless a vague and indefinite sense of wrong in men, but where there is no law there is no transgression (Rom. 4:15). So also by the law is the knowledge of sin (Rom. 3:20); but sin is not imputed where there is no law (Rom. 5:13)
3. The conviction of man of sin rendered the Sin offering a necessity. The law convicted man of sin; his inherent guiltiness had not been apprehended till it stood revealed in the light of Gods holy commandments. Hence this provision of the sin offering has relation to a man sinning against any of the commandments (Lev. 4:2; Lev. 4:13-14; Lev. 4:22; Lev. 4:27, etc.). The law entered that the offence might abound (Rom. 5:20).
III. In the Sin offering ASSURANCE OF SALVATION MEETS THE AWAKENED CONSCIOUSNESS OF GUILT.
It seems evident that the sacrificial offerings of the Hebrews became modified and developed in order to meet the advancing consciousness of sin. With a nearer acquaintance with God came a keener sense of unworthiness and wrong. Hence their sacrifices became increasingly expiatory.
1. Sin, essential and inherent sin, was so pressed upon mans conscience by the standard of perfect and unattainable righteousness given in the law, as to render the sin offering an absolutely necessary provision of Gods mercy.
2. Hence the expiatory element in sacrifice, which had been subordinate until the law, was raised into eminence and vividness in the newly and specially instituted offering of the sin sacrifice.
3. And in the sin sacrifice a prophecy of Gods purpose was given to provide the great expiatory sacrifice of Calvary, in which all anticipatory sacrifices were to be completed and annulled.
Topic: IGNORANCE IN SINNING (Lev. 4:2; Lev. 4:13; Lev. 4:22; Lev. 4:27.)
If a soul sin through ignorance; but a soul should not be so ignorant as to inadvertently sin. Has not God plainly declared what ought not to be done? (Lev. 4:2). If therefore they have done somewhat against any of the commandments of the Lord concerning things which should not be done, they are guilty (Lev. 4:13). Such ignorance must be either from carelessness, which shows culpable neglect; or through blindness, which argues wilful repudiation of light. A perverse will, an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God, a refusal to come to the light lest their deeds should be made manifest; these are criminal, and are sternly condemned
I. MANS PERCEPTION OF RIGHT AND WRONG CANNOT BE AN ALLOWED STANDARD. He may sin through ignorance.
1. Neither his judgment nor his conscience is an adequate guide in detecting sin. There are many wrong things which escape mans cognizance, many which his conscience fails to condemn, many which indeed seem right unto a man and his heart approves, which God cannot tolerate. [See Addenda, p. 57, Ignorance v. Knowledge.]
2. Hence the inquiry, What is sin? must be determined from without a man, and not from within him. God must be heard. God is light, and in Him is no darkness at all. He knows what is sin; and He has revealed it in the commandments of the Lord
3. The presence of sin in man, sin even ignorantly contracted, imperils mans relationship to God. He cannot look upon sin. It must be cast out from His presence. Carry it forth without the camp (Lev. 4:12). Sin, therefore, interrupts mans approach to God, prevents his acceptable worship of God, and alienates his relationship with God.
II. GODS ESTIMATE AND MEASUREMENT OF SIN REGULATED THE ATONEMENT. Bring for the sin which he hath sinned, etc. (Lev. 4:3). All the depths and subtilties of sin were in Gods thoughts when He arranged for its expiation.
1. Mans faulty apprehension of sin would have narrowed the atonement. We should then have found our guilt exceeding the provisions; an unexpiated sinfulness would have remained beyond the appeasement we had made.
2. Sin has been expiated according to Gods measurement of sin. Hence a full atonement for the believers sins of ignorance as well as for his recognised sins has been made in Christ.
(a) This, if apprehended, lays the ground of a settled peace. All may be left with Christ.
(b) This will exalt our conception of the fulness and efficacy of the Saviours sacrifice.
(c) This will assure us of acceptable and satisfactory fellowship with God, since all sin is propitiated.
III. Ignorance concerning sin argues MANS REAL HELPLESSNESS IN DEALING WITH IT.
Even if he could, by any process, rid himself of sin, what can he do with the sin of which he is not cognizant? There is guiltiness in man which never comes (until he is Divinely enlightened) within the range of his own consciousness or conscience.
1. Mans ignorance of sin proves his total inability to put it away. He is like a physician, when himself so sick as to become delirious, attempting to prescribe and apply remedies for his recovery. [See Addenda, p. 57, Perils of Ignorance.]
2. Even the most elevated human conscience is inadequate to determine and depose sin. Who can understand his errors?
3. If there may be sin eluding our detection, how would the dread of undetected and unexpiated guilt destroy all peace were we left to deal with our sin?
4. No happy communion with God would be possible were a misgiving over lurking sin troubling our hearts. An uneasy mind, anxious on the question of sin, would mar all worship and blessedness.
(a) A happy spiritual life rests upon an assured peace.
(b) Assured peace must rest on a perfectly purged conscience.
(c) A purged conscience must rest on the foundation of a perfect remission of all our sins, whether sins of knowledge or of ignorance.
And He is the propitiation for our sins.
Topic: DEFILED SANCTITIES (Lev. 4:6-7.)
The priest shall dip his finger in the blood, and sprinkle of the blood seven times before the Lord, before the veil of the sanctuary. And the priest shall put some of the blood upon the horns of the altar of sweet incense before the Lord, etc.
The sin of a priest marks the wrong-doing of exalted and privileged souls, and the defamation wrought by one so eminent in sacred relationship and service. In his misdemeanour a defiled foot would taint the holy ground on which he stood; a defiled hand would taint the altar at which he ministered.
1. Christians occupying exalted positions, enjoying elevated privileges, rendering distinguished service for God, may fall into sin.
2. They know that the dishonour done to God is commensurate with the dignity of their position and the holiness of their profession.
3. So acutely is their guilt felt by them when thus brought under consciousness of sin, that its burden and bitterness would overwhelm them were there not adequate grace in the sin offering for even such sin as theirs.
Here, therefore, it is clearly shown by the Holy Spirit
I. That HOWEVER FAR SIN MAY HAVE PENETRATED, even though to the very veil of the sanctuary, and WHATEVER SOLEMN AND SACRED THINGS SIN MAY HAVE DEFILED, even though it be the holy altar itself, thither THE ATONING BLOOD FOLLOWS, carrying full expiation where sin has carried defilement.
1. When sin enters the inmost recesses of a Christian soul, high in sacred relationship and godly service, into the motives, thoughts, affections of a holy man, it intrudes to the very veil of the sanctuary wherein God dwells. Sin thus invades scenes so hallowed, the very vestibule of the Divine indwelling.
2. When sin mars the life and conduct and ministries of a consecrated servant of the Lord, who had occupied high station in the church, and fulfilled prominent functions in the sanctuary, it profanes the very altar of Jehovah, for it casts a stain and defamation on the holiest solemnities of the Christian profession. In touching one who dwells so near God, and whose life is so devoted to Him, sin lays its defiling hand on that which on earth is most godly, which most represents God, and which is nearest God.
Can there be atonement and purifying for such desecration of most holy things?
Yes, the virtue of the Redeemers blood penetrates to any shrine, to every object sin has reached.
And where sin abounded grace doth much more abound. [See Addenda, p. 57, Pardon.]
II. That THE DISHONOUR DONE TO GOD, to the SANCTITIES OF A GODLY LIFE, and to the SOLEMNITIES OF SANCTUARTY MINISTRIES was compensated for in offering upon that altar of sweet incense the symbols of the INHERENT AND INTRINSIC EXCELLENCY OF CHRIST.
1. The inward excellency of the victim (represented in the fat that covereth the inwards, etc.) is laid on the sacred altar in lieu of, and as an appeasement for, the inward impurity of the sinner, whose soul had contracted defilement through ignorance. And in that precious excellency of Jesus as our Substitute God receives a perfectly satisfactory compensation. The ill savour of our sin dishonoured God and defiled His holy altar; but on the sweet incense altar Christ offered so fragrant a presentation as to answer for all the fallibilities and faults of man.
2. Especially is this perfectly acceptable offering of Christs excellence a consolatory fact in contrast with the imperfection which discredits the most consecrated and sacred human life. Even a priest anointed with the holy oil (Lev. 4:3), called to minister at the altar and before the veil of the sanctuary, may sin according to the sin of the people. Alas! there is none righteous, no, not one. Men may be now anointed of the Holy Ghost, raised to a holy priesthood in Christ, elevated to loftiest spiritual privileges, made partakers of the heavenly gift, and yet may defile all this sacred excellence through sin. The best of men are but men at the best. But Christ was holy, harmless, undefiled. In Him was no sin. And in Him Gods soul delighted. And in Him God was honoured by a perfection so unsullied as to obliterate the dishonour done to Him by mans faultiness and sin.
Topic:SINS FEARFUL ASPECTS. If a soul shall sin (Lev. 4:2); if a priest shall sin (Lev. 4:3); if the whole congregation of Israel shall sin (Lev. 4:13), etc
Sin! The sound is brief. But it presents a dark abyss of thought.
I. Think much of sin: IT IS EARTHS DEATH-BLOW
It marred the beauty of a beauteous world, stripped it of its lovely robe; caused life to wither and decay, etc. It placed its foot upon a perfect workmanship and left it a disordered wreck.
II. Think much of sin: IT IS MANS RUIN.
Its most tremendous blight fell on our inner life. It drove the soul from peaceful fellowship with God; changed the loving child into a hardened rebel; robbed the mind of light; made the heart a whirlpool of tumultuous passions, a spring of impure streams. It is the malady, the misery, the shame of our whole race. It is the mother ofdeath; it digs each grave; every widow and orphan tastes its gall. It fills each hospital with sick; strews the battle-field with slain. It is the core in every grief, the worm that gnaws the root of peace.
III. Think much of sin: ITS TERRIBLE DESTRUCTION DIES NOT IN THE GRAVE
There is a region where its full effects run revel. It kindled quenchless flames; sharpened the undying sting of an upbraiding conscience; bars the hopeless in that outer darkness, where weeping ever weeps, and wailing ever wails.
IV. Think much of sin: it works this bitter and eternal anguish because GODS CURSE ATTENDS IT.
It raised a rebel hand against His will; dared to violate His holy law; strove to lay His honour in the dust; trampled on the statute book of Heaven. Therefore Gods anger fiercely burns against it; hence every misery follows in its rear. He must be wretched who has God against him.
V. Think much of sin: REGARD IT WITH AN EARNEST DREAD.
No power can over-paint the terrible reality of what sin is, what sin has done, what penalties it evokes. Those terrors of a human heart are the best prelude to the tidings of the sin offering. Tears magnify the Cross. Hell seen betimes is hell escaped for ever. Though sin is death, the sinner need not die. There is a way by which the vilest may stand pure. Gods love decreed a plan. He willed a ransom, and His Son achieved it. Flee to the Sin Offering. Blessed are they whose curse descends on the Saviours Cross.From Christ is All, by Dean of Gloucester.
Topic: HOW THE SIN OFFERING MEETS MANS INMOST NEED (Lev. 4:27; Lev. 4:35)
The trespass offering provides expiation for specific acts of transgression, for what man does; the sin offering provides expiation for the evil inherent in man, for what he is. Our error is to see sinfulness only as it breaks into expression in deeds; God sees that there is in us a sinfulness which is essential, and which is the source whence the evil acts proceed; that so tainted is mans moral nature as that he may sin without even recognising his conduct to be sinful. It is a mere peradventure whether, having sinned, his sin will even come to his knowledge (Lev. 4:28).
I. MOURNFUL RECOGNITION OF THE SINNERS INHERENT CORRUPTION.
Sin is in our very nature. The institution of the law of commandments does not create us sinners, it only reveals us to be sinners. It holds the standard up which discloses how void man is of righteousness, of rightness. This inherent corruption is
1. Not realised by the unenlightened. Unconverted persons only apprehend sin as it appears in actions; they repudiate, or fail to recognise, the fact that they are essentially, and in all the springs of thought and life, sinful.
2. Faintly discerned at first by the awakened. The young convert perceives and bewails his trespasses more than his sin. He deplores that he has done evil, but scarcely sees how really he is evil.
3. Supremely apprehended by the most godly. Those highest in grace, with conscience most illumined and heart most instructed through fellowship with God, and realisation of the beauty of Christ, and enlightenment of the Holy Ghost, abhor themselves and not their acts only. In me, that is, in my flesh, dwelleth no good thing. Most keenly is this realised by holiest men. The flesh lusteth against the spirit, so that when we would do good evil is present. [See Romans 7 and Gal. 5:17.]
II. JOYOUS SATISFACTION OVER THE INCLUSIVE ATONEMENT OF JESUS. A sweet savour unto the Lord; an atonement for him (Lev. 4:31).
When the painful fact is realised that sin in us, as well as trespasses by us, constitutes our condemnation, what consolation comes in the fact that an offering for sin, as well as offerings for trespasses, was appointed by God. Thus Christ was made sin for us; He bore our sin; as well as was delivered for our offences.
1. Because of our indwelling sinfulness Christ was offered as our Sin Sacrifice (Lev. 4:29).
2. Because Christ was offered as our Sin Sacrifice we who trust in Him are saved from an indwelling sin (Lev. 4:35).
Note, therefore:
(1) When the Spirit reveals to believers their deeper sinfulness (He shall convince of sin, Joh. 16:8), it is not to destroy their peace in Christ, or rob them of joyful realisation of His full atonement; but to reveal how much Christs salvation is needed, and to provoke to fuller gratitude and faith.
(2) To doubt our justification and acceptance because we see our sin, betrays a low estimate of Christs work for us, and reflects on the all-abounding graciousness of God in providing the sin offering. He put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. He by Himself purged our sins (Heb. 1:3).
Topic: THREE ASPECTS OF SIN OFFERING (Lev. 4:3; Lev. 4:13; Lev. 4:22; Lev. 4:27)
I. THREE DISTINCT CLASSES OF TRANSGRESSION ARE SPECIFIED.
1. The priest that is anointed and the whole congregation of Israel are classed together as if identified. For the priest represented all Israel, and all Israel suffered in the error of the priest, so that the individual and collective sin are to be atoned for on precisely the same conditions and by precisely the same methods. This points to those transgressors who had enjoyed sacred privileges, and were in covenant relation to Jehovah, representing godly souls who yet had erred from their integrity.
2. The ruler represents the civil and secular life of a people, men of state dignity, social eminence, and foremost in patriotic affairs rather than in the church; statesmen, legislators, magistrates, civil functionaries. These may err from their uprightness.
3. The common people gather in the multitudes, who are distinguished by no eminence, burdened by no public responsibility, holding no office in Church or State, simple ordinary persons exposed to none of the temptations and perils of an exalted station. Yet these may err and lapse into wrong.
II. THREE ALIENATIONS WROUGHT BY SIN are intimated.
1. Gods dwelling-place in the tabernacle was rendered unsanctified. Holiness becometh Thine house, O Lord, for ever. But instead of stainless sanctity sin had been carried by the priest before the veil of the sanctuary. The holy place was sullied in Gods sight.
2. Gods worship was marred. The whole congregation had to pause in consecration and peace offerings, in the joy of adoration, and to assume the sad attitude of criminals suing escape from vengeance by bringing a victim which must be treated as accursed in order that sinful men might be spared. It turned aside the homage of a happy people from Jehovah, while they bowed in mournful prostration as a multitude of condemned transgressors.
3. The individual conscience was molested. Sin raised a barrier between the soul and God, separated the sinner from the Divine acceptance, and destroyedso long as it lay on the conscienceall fellowship, all bliss.
III. THREEFOLD APPEASEMENTS WROUGHT BY THE BLOOD are suggested.
1. The blood being sprinkled before the Lord, before the veil of the sanctuary, secured Jehovahs relationship with His people (which, but for this atonement, must have been severed) and His continued dwelling in their midst.
2. The blood being put upon the golden altar preserved the basis of acceptable worship, so that the flame of the sweet incense might acceptably ascend to God, He being propitiated by the atonement.
3. By pouring all the blood at the bottom of the altar the claims of God on the individual soul were met, for thereby substitutionary death was attested. [Compare Notes on Leviticus, by C. H. M.]
Topic: THE EMINENT SINFULNESS OF ERROR IN THE PRIEST (Lev. 4:1-12)
Contrition for sin must always have some proportion to its malignity and magnitude. In the gradations of the sin offeringas in all the other sacrificesthis truth is clearly taught. Not that any amount of contrition could really atone for any sin; but the contrition symbolised in the sacrifice was to bear some proportion to the character of the sin to be condoned. The same sin in the priest would be considered greater than in the people, from many considerations.
I. From the superior position he occupied. Placed in front of the people, and anointed to a conspicuous as well as dignified office, being mediator between God and man.
II. From the superior privileges he enjoyed. He had exemption from many secular anxieties that would irritate and embarrass others; was not exposed to many temptations that encompassed others; had more familiar and frequent fellowship with Jehovah than the common people; and was constantly coming in contact with influences in the discharge of his duties that would tend to render his falling into error inexcusable and very culpable.
III. From the superior knowledge he possessed. He would be intimately acquainted with the requirements of the law, having to expound and enforce it; and he would have ample means and opportunities for ascertaining the purpose of the precepts enjoined, and of avoiding omissions and mistakes.
IV. From the superior influence he exerted. The priest would be looked up to by the people as an example, and his influence would be very powerful upon Israel for good or for evil. The old saying, Like priest, like people, has much truth in it; and if sin had been allowed in the priest to be passed over and healed up slightly, it would have been like offering a premium to sin and proclaiming an indulgence to transgression. The sin of the priests would not only taint all the holy places that they frequented in the prosecution of their sacerdotal work and worship, but it would contaminate the magnetic circle of moral influence by which they were enveloped, and which necessarily affected the minds and morals of the people among whom they daily ministered. Sin grows heinous according to the rank and influence of the transgressors; and God acknowledged the exalted position of the priests by exacting larger sacrifice from them in the sin offering than from the common people. Sins in the priestswho were regarded as the theocratic earthly head of Israelwould tend to debase the moral sense of the whole community. The sins of the priest were conspicuous, and the sacrifice, therefore, was conspicuous too; and, as the unintentional offender brought the young bullock for an offering, we read in his obedienceanxiety and willingness to be forgiven, as well as confession of his sin. The fact that the offering was equal to that required for the sin of the whole congregation, and more than was to be made for the sin of a ruler, showed how great the contrition and self-abasement were. There was no oil mixed with the sin offering to suggest gladness; no fragrance of frankincense; no festive joy or communion, as at the meat offering. Everything about it denoted sorrow and suffering on account of wrong-doing.F. W. Brown.
Topic: THE SIN OFFERING OF IGNORANCE FOR THE CONGREGATION (Lev. 4:13-22)
The people were as liable to sin through ignorance as the priest, so provision was made for their forgiveness as had been mercifully made for his. The laws recently promulgated were so many, minute, and complicated that the people would be liable to misinterpret and misunderstand them. The Divine Lawgiver knew that; made provision to meet such liability by appointing an offering easily available and that would effectually atone. The people had mixed before their exodus with an idolatrous nation; their old propensities and practices would pursue them in the wilderness, as their old foes had pursued them even though they had been delivered from their final bondage. The offering for the sins of ignorance of the people teaches us
I. That error is so indigenous to, and insidious in man, that a whole community may become the victim of it.
(a) A whole community may sin ignorantly when
1. It unwittingly obeys unrighteous human laws.
2. When it misinterprets a righteous Divine law.
3. When it is misled by the incorrect interpretations of its leaders.
4. When it is unaware of the existence of the law.
In any of the above instances the persons committing sin do so ignorantly, and such wrong-doing, though unintentional, may incur guilt, i.e., may entail evil consequences. Let us pray and strive to be saved from such delinquencies.
(b) A whole community may sin ignorantly
1. Even when it has anointed and authoritative leaders.
2. Even when it has ample means of ascertaining the truth.
3. Even when it is surrounded by helpful and hallowed associations.
We see these facts exemplified in the history of Israel. How constantly they went wrong wilfully, and frequently ignorantly, although blessed with peculiar and pre-eminent advantages. Notwithstanding our light and knowledge we are in danger of falling into error; our high privileges may even prove a snare to us, put us off our guard, and render us an easy prey to sin.
No nation is exempt from this danger. If Gods ancient people were not exempt, where He specially manifested His presence and power, where His will was openly made known, no people at any subsequent period of the worlds history can be exempt.
No church is exempt, for although the Spirit takes of the things of Christ and shows them unto His people, and leads them into all truth, yet we only see as through a glass darkly, and know in part. The Church has committed great errors in all ages, and no man, and no body of men, however saintly, are infallible. The larger the disc of light the greater the circumference of darkness.
No family is exempt. Where the best interests and welfare of each is sought there may be sins committed ignorantly, yet fraught with disastrous consequences. We may mislead by the advice we give, misjudge in the opinions we form; may omit to discharge our duty by neglecting judicious and necessary discipline and counsel.
II. That when a whole community becomes the victim of inadvertent error nothing but a general expiation will atone for it.
The elders of the congregation laid their hands upon the heads of the offering to be presented to the Lord to denote that the whole people confessed their sin and desired its removal, and the priest did with the bullock as with his own sin offering. Thus he made an atonement for the people, and their sin was forgiven. Such a service and sacrifice would be equivalent to a season of national confession and humiliation, and would be accepted as such in the sight of God. We are not under the law, but under grace, yet the principle that was underlying these old rites exists still, and though we are called upon to offer no bullock for our individual or national sins, yet we are expected to present the sacrifice of broken and contrite hearts to the God against whom we have wittingly or unwittingly sinned, and to expect that our sacrifice will be accepted through the atonement of our great Redeemer, who is at once our Sacrifice and Priest. When sin is participated in by a nation, or church, or family, the whole community and circle should participate in the contrition, acknowledging complicity in the commission of the sin, and deprecating the consequences which, but for forgiveness, would inevitably ensue.
In our united and public worship we should unitedly and publicly confess sin, for if we are not conscious of any flagrant and high-handed sins, we are sure to have upon us the stain of some inadvertent offence against the Divine laws. In many thingsyea, in all thingswe all offend. There is full and free forgiveness for all secret and unknown faults as well as for open, unmistakable sins.F. W. B.
Topic: THE SIN OFFERING FOR THE RULER (Lev. 4:22-26)
By the sin offering of the ruler being inferior in quality to that of the priest, the Lord taught the people that no secular position was so high as that of the priests, and that no influence was so potent and extensive as that which he, by virtue of his person and position, exerted. The humblest sacred office is higher than the highest secular position, and the sincere believer and true disciple in the Kingdom of Heaven, though poor and obscure in the world, is a king and a priest unto God. We learn from this rite
I. That persons in the highest positions of secular authority among men are held responsible to God.
It has often been said that a king can do no wrong; but the teaching of the old economy shows us that kings could do wrong, and that rulers could do wrong through ignorance, and that their ignorant acts of wrong-doing were not connived at or condoned by the King of Heaven. When they committed error, even by mistake or in ignorance, the law could not be broken without the Lawgiver being slighted and insulted. The inculcation of this truth, and the institution of this rite, would arouse rulers to be circumspect in their conduct, and check them in the exercise of their regal authority, when tending to grow exacting and despotic.
II. That persons in the highest positions of secular authority among men must humble themselves before God and men when they discover their public errors.
The example of the ruler would influence the people injuriously. The atonement of his sin was therefore to be made in a public manner before the Lord, and in the presence of the people he must acknowledge his offences. Just as mercy adds lustre to crowned heads, so the acknowledgment of inadvertent errors or wilful sins will purify and dignify the conscience, and add to the glory of earths mightiest potentates.
III. That persons in the highest positions of secular authority among menthus humbling themselvesobtain forgiveness of their sins and arrest the consequences of their guilt.
God was just, and yet the justifier of the penitent sinner; He demanded atonement that His broken law might be vindicated, and His slighted authority satisfied. The people would see the exceeding heinousness of sin, how exacting and inevitable its penalty, that a priest or a ruler could not sin ignorantly without having to humble himself and seek forgiveness from Him whose laws he had broken. The guilt of such sins would be arrested, their moral consequences would be removed. Such sins would not likely be repeated, they could not be ignorantly by the same persons, and they probably would not be wilfully, when they had been shown to be so offensive in the sight of God, and when for them such sacrifices had to be made. When a course of sin is arrested a multitude of sins are hiddennot only blotted out, but preventedsins of the past removed and sins of the future restrained. Guilt removed here, and consequences hereafter.F. W. B.
Topic: THE SIN OFFERING OF ONE OF THE COMMON PEOPLE (Lev. 4:27-35)
The law of the sin offering of ignorance included all persons and positions. The sanctity of the priest did not shield him from its demands and scrutiny. The dignity of the ruler did not hedge him in from its surveillance. The multitude of the congregation did not hinder the action of its claims; and the obscurity of any one of the congregation did not excuse or exempt an offender from its requirements. So soon as the sin was discovered to, or by the offender, expiation according to Divine direction must be promptly and penitently made for them. The sin offering for one of the common people teaches us
I. That obscurity of social position does not shut men out from the cognizance of the great God. The requirement of an offering from a common person who might inadvertently sin, showed that none were too obscure to be observed by the eye of the Lord. Each member of the congregation of Israel was a creature of God, each had a soul capable of sinning, and needing forgiveness, and each one was recognised by and known unto Him. The actions of all men are not only seen, but their moral quality judged.
II. That obscurity of social position does not shut men out from the government of the great God.
Laws were imposed upon and obedience expected from each and all. The poorest might look at the manifestation of God in the shekinah cloud, and recognise Him as their King.
III. That obscurity of social position does not shut men out from the clemency of the great God.
The offering required from a common person was not so great and costly as that required from a priest or ruler; it was adapted to the humbler circumstances of the offerer. This showed that the great God was not willing that even the poorest among the people should perish, not willing that they should sin on without an offering, and so become reprobates. He restoredthough they might have sinnedto His fellowship and friendship. The Lord is good to all, and His tender mercies are over all His works. In the nature and extent of the sin offering we see foreshadowed the fact that in the great sin offering of the Lamb of God provision is made for the forgiveness of all. We have redemption through His blood, even the forgiveness of sins.F. W. B.
OUTLINES ON VERSES OF CHAPTER 4
Lev. 4:2.Theme: SIN THROUGH IGNORANCE.
1. The seat of sin. If a soul, etc.body with organs only instruments of soul.
2. The source of sin. Ignoranceof GodHis love, mercy, grace, etc.
3. The strength of sin. Law, commandments.
4. The stain of sin. Deeprequires blood to wash it away.
Temptation in itself not sin; yielding is sin. Ignorance of Israel inexcusable. They had sacred memories, public directions, repeated remindings. The Judge of all the earth will do right with those who have never heard His name; but those who know His will and do it not Shall be beaten with many stripes.F. W. B.
Lev. 4:3.Theme: SIN IN THE PRIESTHOOD. If the priest that is anointed do sin.
I. A HOLY OFFICE DOES NOT ENSURE INFALLIBILITY.
II. Occupants of a holy office are SPECIALLY CALLED TO SANCTITY. Be ye clean that bear the vessels of the Lord.
III. Eminently privileged and enlightened, they who minister before God SHOULD BE MOST VIGILANT LEST THEY SIN. To sin through ignorance should be impossible.
IV. Sin in Gods priests had to be PURGED BY A GREAT SACRIFICIAL EXPIATION. Expressing
1. The peculiar magnitude of sin in them.
2. The boundless sufficiency of redemption, even for them.
Lev. 4:6. Note: SEVENFOLD PURGING. Sprinkle of the blood seven times before the Lord.
The different treatment of the blood is here to be noticed. Whilst in the case of the other sacrifices the priest threw the blood upon the walls of the altar of burnt offering (see Lev. 1:5), in the sin offering the high priest is
1. First, to dip his finger seven times in the blood, and sprinkle it before the Lord.
The finger, according to the rules which obtained during the second temple, was that of the right hand, as the blood was always taken and sprinkled with the right hand. [The right hand is the symbol of strength, as if denoting that the act was done with a resolute purpose to find purifying.ED.]
2. Seven, being a complete number, is used for the perfect finishing of a work.
Hence, the seven days of creation (Gen. 2:2; Gen. 2:8); seven branches in the golden candlestick (Exo. 25:37; Exo. 37:23); seven times the blood was sprinkled on the day of atonement (Lev. 16:14); seven times was the oil sprinkled upon the altar when it was consecrated (Lev. 8:11); seven days were required for consecrating the priests (Lev. 8:35); seven days were necessary for purifying the defiled (Lev. 12:2; Num. 19:19); seven times Naaman washed in the Jordan (2Ki. 5:10-14); seven days Jericho was besieged, and seven priests with seven trumpets blew when the walls fell down (Joshua 6); the Lamb had seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God (Rev. 5:6); seven seals are on Gods book (Rev. 5:5), etc.Ellicotts Commentary.
Lev. 4:6.Note: EXPIATION WROUGHT IN THE GAZE OF HEAVEN. Before the Lord, before the veil of the sanctuary.
1. The phrase BEFORE THE LORD indicates that the act of expiation was to be performed in the immediate presence of
(1) Him whom the sin had dishonoured;
(2) Him whom the sprinkled blood was to propitiate; and on the very spot where the priest had ministered, and which
(1) By priestly sin had been desecrated, and
(2) By expiatory blood was to be again sanctified.
This twofold effort of expiation, reconciliation to God, and sanctification of sacred scenes, suggests what the sinner has to secure through the blood of Christ, viz.:
(a) Jehovah propitiated, so that man may stand unrebuked in His presence.
(b) Defiled scenes reconsecrated, so that God may still dwell in the temple, in the human heart. That must be sanctified, for ye are the temple of God.
2. The phrase BEFORE THE VEIL OF THE SANCTUARY indicates that the act of expiation was to be performed in the gaze of the angel hosts. That blue veil was all overwrought with cherubic and angel forms, typical of the firmament, the heavenly world, crowded with the angelic hosts.
1. For angelic beholders watch and bewail mans sin.
2. They joy in the presence of God over the sinners repentance.
3. They desire to look into the wonders of redemption.
4. They minister unto those who are heirs of salvation.
Hence
(a) Having beheld Gods holy place defiled, they watch its re-hallowing, and thus ponder how are justified the ways of God with men.
(b) Having witnessed the withdrawal of God from the defiled scenes (for your iniquities have separated between you and God, and your sins have hid His face from you, Isa. 59:2), they are eager observers of the renewal of favour and fellowship between God and the expiated soul. The father ran and fell on his neck and kissed him; and the father said to his servants (comp. Psa. 103:20-21; Zec. 3:4-5), Bring forth the best robe, etc.
Lev. 4:6.Theme: SEVENFOLD SPRINKLING.
To denote completeness, perfection, to indicate how deeply dyed sin was, and impress the mind that it fully was forgiven: sprinkled before the Lord To teach
(1) That all sin is committed against Him.
(2) That all sin must be forgiven by Him. Atonement and mediation the basis and means of pardon.F. W. B.
Lev. 4:12.Theme: SIN LOATHED BY GOD. Even the whole bullock shall he carry forth without the camp, etc.
If the law reveals sin in man, it is to drive the convicted and condemned sinner to the sacrifice for sin. The law was not given to make men holy, but to prove us sinners. Deluded souls, blinded by the deceiver, try to keep the law and thus become righteous: in vain! For the law makes nothing perfect; it unveils mans deformity that he may hide himself in the redeeming merits of Christ.
I. SINS HATEFULNESS. Carry forth without the camp.
Look at the sin offering, and see there how hateful sin is! See how the perfect Substitute, Gods own beloved One, is cast out.
1. Our sin is repulsive, odious, an offence to God. He cannot bear it in His presence.
2. He in whom sin centres is repelled as loathsome, yes: be it Jesus, our Surety, on whom our sin is laid; or be it man himself, carrying his own unpardoned sinsthe sin-bearer is banished!
II. SINS ANNIHILATION. Shall he be burnt. Nothing remaining.
1. Sin consumed. Behold the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world. Those dead ashes tell of sins annihilation.
2. Sins cancelled. All our bewailing over our sins could never cancel one; if, therefore, they were not all cancelled when Christ died for our sins they cannot now be cancelled. There remaineth no more offering for sin.
(a) If the sin offering has been sacrificed and accepted, we may joy in the fact of sin for ever expiated.
(b) We may rejoice, even when most convinced of sin, that God asks no penalty beyond the death already borne. [See Addenda, p. 57. Pardon.]
Lev. 4:12.Theme: DISCIPLESHIP FOLLOWING CHRIST TO REPROACH. The whole bullock shall he carry forth without the camp.
This act is to be viewed as expressing
a. The place which the Lord Jesus took for us, as bearing sin.
b. The place into which He was cast, by a world which had rejected Him.
The use which the Apostle, in Hebrews 13, makes of Christs having suffered without the gate is deeply practical: Let us go forth, therefore, unto Him, without the camp, bearing His reproach.
1. The place where He suffered expresses our rejection from earth. Though His death has secured us a city on high, it has forfeited for us a city below.
2. In suffering without the gate He set aside Jerusalem as the present centre of Divine operations. There is no such thing now as a consecrated spot on earth.
3. Christ has taken His place as a suffering One, outside the range of this worlds religionits politics, and all that pertains to it. The world hated Him, and cast Him out.
Wherefore, the word is, Go forth,
I OUTSIDE EVERY RELIGIOUS CAMP.
You must go forth out of every holy city, every religious system which men set up, to find the rejected Christ.
1. From the gross absurdities of ignorant superstitions.
Christ is not to be found amid the ruins of Jerusalem, amid the so-called sacred scenes and the relics of antiquity. A single ray of revelation shows that we must go forth from all such trifles to find communion with a rejected Christ.
2. So, when men set up a camp, and rally round a standard on which is emblazoned some dogma of truth, or some imposing institution, when they appeal to some orthodox creed or splendid ritualit then requires much spiritual discernment for the proper application of the words let us go forth, and much spiritual energy and decision to act upon them. Still, they should be discerned and acted upon, for the atmosphere of a camp is destructive of personal communion with a rejected Christ.
3. It is the tendency of our hearts to drop into cold stereotyped forms. These forms may have originated from real visitations of the Spirit. The temptation is to stereotype the form when the spirit and power have departed. This is, in principle, to set up a camp. The Jewish system could boast a Divine originits temple, splendid worship, priesthood, sacrifices, etc. Where is the system which could put forth such powerful and lofty pretentions to-day? And yet the command was to go forth. It is our proneness to slip away from communion with Christ, and sink into a dead routine.
II. Outside the Camp TO THE LORD JESUS Unto Him.
Not glide from one system to another, from one set of opinions to another, from one company of people to another, but from all which merits the appellation of a camp to Him who suffered without the gate.
1. The Lord Jesus is as thoroughly outside the gate now.
The religious world put Him outside eighteen centuries ago; and the religious world of that day is, in spirit and principle, the religious world of the present moment. The world has covered itself with the cloak of Christianity.
2. If we would walk with a rejected Christ we must be a rejected people.
Our Master Buffered without the gate, we cannot reign within the gate. If we walk in His footsteps whither will He lead us? Surely not to the high places of this Godless, Christless world.
His path, uncheered by earthly smiles,
Led only to the Cross.
He was a despised Christ, a rejected Christ, a Christ outside the camp.
3. Bearing His reproach, let us go forth unto Him.
Not bask in the sunshine of the worlds favour Let us be faithful to a rejected Lord. While our consciences repose in His blood, let our hearts affections entwine themselves around His sacred Person. We ask a bold separateness from the world, a joyous, living attachment to Christ.Arranged from Notes on Leviticus, by C. H.M.
Lev. 4:13.Theme: HIDDEN SIN.
Sin may be hidden, undetected by the doer; may be concealed from others; but cannot from God. The genesis of sin(a) begins in secret chambers of heart, (b) proceeds to, exhibits itself in, words and deeds. No sin so secret and subtle but known fully to God. Thought, feeling, intention, are known to Him. Sins of heart need pardonunfulfilled evil purposes need forgiveness.F. W. B.
Lev. 4:20.Theme: GOOD NEWS.
I. Of appointment of mediatorPriest.
II. Of acceptance of sacrificeAtonement.
III. Of proclamation of pardon. Shall be forgiven them.
In the Gospel we have these glad tidings fully and freely proclaimed, and all centred in Christ.F. W. B.
Lev. 4:27.Theme: COMMON PEOPLE.
I. No one so common as to be overlooked by God.
II. No sin so trivial as to be connived at by God.
Life, then, is real, solemn earnest, even in humblest. Venial as well as mortal sins to be deprecated and avoided.F. W. B.
Lev. 4:20.Theme: FORGIVEN. It shall be forgiven them.
Based on the atonement. No forgiveness otherwise. The priest shall make an atonement for them and it shall be forgiven them. The terms of forgiveness are fixed: and the order in which forgiveness is gained is determined. Atonement first: then forgiveness.
I. THE CONSCIOUSNESS OF FORGIVENESS: how is it gained?
The mind of the Jewish offerer was set at rest by the presentation of his sin offering. How did he know that the sin for which he brought his sacrifice was forgiven?
Because God had said It shall be forgiven him.
1. His peace of heart rested on the testimony of God.
2. His peace of heart rested on the offered and accepted sacrifice.
It was a transaction with a covenant promise. The transaction effected (atonement made for him, the promise was believed (it shall be forgiven him). Thus
(a) FAITH in Gods Word and in the Saviours atonement imparts the peace and satisfaction of forgiveness to the sinner.
For an offerer of the sin offering not to believe that his sin was forgiven would have reflected on the truthfulness of God who had pledged forgiveness as the issue of atonement. To doubt is to make God a liar. We must believe!
(b) Christs crucifixion is a fact; as really so as the death of the victim for the sin offering. The blood of Christ is our satisfaction to justice: as the blood of the victim was. What then? Sin is expiated. That fact stands. The believer sees in Christ One who has been judged for his sin; One who made himself responsible for his sin. And, as God sealed His acceptance of that sacrifice by Christs resurrection, the sinners pardon and justification are truths to be held with the joy of faith.
II. THE REALISATION OF FORGIVENESS: What it ensures?
1. All fear of judgment and wrath is eternally set aside. God made Him to be sin for us that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him (2Co. 5:21). Our judgment, the wrath due to sin, these were settled, effected, on the accursed tree, between Divine holiness and the Spotless Victim. Justice has no charge to bring against the believer, because it has no charge to bring against Christ. If a charge could be brought against a soul identified with Christ by faith, it would deny the perfectness of Christs work on his behalf.
2. Eternal life is inherited: for the death which sin brings is escaped by its falling on the Substitute. The sin is gone, because the life to which it was transferred is gone. There is no other death required. The sinner does not die: for Christ has died his death. It remains to the forgiven and justified soul that he lives: he that believeth in Me shall never die (Joh. 11:26). The judgment and death of Christ on the Cross were realities; then the righteousness and life of the believer are also realities. Imputed sinours laid on Christwas a reality; imputed righteousnessChrists transferred to usis a reality. The death of Jesus satisfies all the demands made as to human sin, satisfies them for ever. [Comp. Notes on Leviticus, by C. H. M.] [See Addenda, p. 57, Pardon.]
Lev. 4:27. Theme: CULPABILITY OF IGNORANCE. If any one sin, etc.
The majesty of the law of God was exhibited, and declared, by the fact that it could not be broken inadvertently with impunity; and the mercy of God was displayed in that, for any transgression, an offering would not only be accepted, but was commanded. It is an eternal law that the moral quality of an action lies in the intention Sins, committed through ignorance, may be fraught with disastrous consequences, as in the case of those who rejected and crucified Christ through ignorance, for whom He prayed on the Cross saying they know not what they do. Their ignorance was not wholly excusable; they shut their eyes to evidences of the Messiahship; through pride and prejudice they regarded Him as an imposter and usurper, and had, as Jesus said, no cloak for their sins.
Saul of Tarsus, though blameless, as touching the righteousness which is in the law, yet his legal blamelessness did not exempt him from errors of ignorance, nor did his scrupulous conscientiousness prevent him from doing wrong; for he persecuted the Christians, and thought he was doing God service. The Pharisee in the Temple thought himself better than other men, and seemed unaware of the heinous pride and wicked self righteousness that prevented him going down to his house justified as did the poor publican. Even conscience needs educating and enlightening; it has shared the fate of all the other faculties, and is liable to seriously mislead us.
We may commit sins of ignorance.
I. Through mere want of thought; through absolute neglect.
II. Through lack of knowledge that might have been acquired.
III. Through misapprehension of information, or direction given.
IV. Through defectiveness of memory, not retentive or ready at the needed juncture to prevent error.
V. Through not heeding protests and obstacles which God may have paced in the way, and presented against wrong-doing.
The sacrifice provided for sins of ignorance shows that God does not connive at the errors and mistakes of any one; and, that for inadvertent wrong-doing, as well as for highhanded sins, pardon must be sought. We need to pray to be forgiven for unknown, as well as for known sins; and to be cleansed from secret faults, as well as to be kept back from presumptuous sins.F. W. B.
Lev. 4:27Theme: SCRIPTURE THE ANTIDOTE FOR IGNORANCE
Sin through ignorance, while he doeth somewhat against any of the commandments of the Lord.
Honest-hearted reception of the Word of God can alone preserve us from ignorance.
I. ACQUAINTANCE WITH SCRIPTURE: This alone is the effectual remedy for the darkness of ignorance.
I. Is not the light of Scripture hidden today, other lights being substituted instead?
(1) Think of the manner in which ceremonial rites (many of them mere inventions of man), ministered, too, by unholy hands, have supplanted the true and saving ministrations of the Gospel of the grace of God.
(2) Think of multitudes while yet in their sins, because unsanctified by faith in Jesus, being taught falsely to say to the great Shepherd of Israel, We are Thy people, and the sheep of Thy pasture.
(3) Think how many, uncommissioned by God, unacquainted with His truth, untaught by His Spirit, have usurped the place of ministers of Christ, and are so owned and honoured.
(4) Think how professed discipleship of Christ has degenerated into seeking unholy place and gain, coveting the splendour of Solomon rather than the reproach of Jesus.
2. Is there not a natural tendency in the heart of man to how to perverted and falsely assumed authority?
The prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests bear rule by their means, and Thy people love to have it so.
(1) All such authority, neither based upon nor guided by truth, can only lead into the darkness to which itself belongs. What wonder, then, that ignorance should settle upon that soul which has made itself the slave of such authority! What wonder if it should welcome falsehood, and fight against truth, and congratulate itself most when furthest from the principles of Christ!
(2) Individuals, too. as well as collective bodies, may claim an authority which God has never given. And not unfrequently fear, or affection, or self interest, or a disposition to lean upon others, causes it to be gladly recognised. But such authority, seeing that it is not grounded upon truth, that it directs not to the Scriptures alone, can only lead towards, if not into, darkness.
II. CLOSE ADHERENCE TO SCRIPTURE: This alone will save us from the false leadings and lights of our age.
1. Is that which we hear true or false? Is it or is not the Word of God? Such are the great questions we have to ask ourselves now.
2. The faithful use of the Scripture will expose many an error, detect many a sin of ignorance, and show us much that we have not sufficient grace to attain.
3. Instruction and exhortation of the Scriptures is employed by the Lord to free His people from the sins of ignorance and their disastrous consequences.
III. THE STEADY LIGHT OF GODS WORD: This is appointed to shine on in the darkness, until the day dawn.
The energies of Satan, and the impelling of evil in us, are active to resist the Scriptures and quench the sacred light of truth.
1. The delusions of Satan and of the human heart struggle to increase darkness and confirm error. And we cannot wonder that they prosper in their plans during a period marked by our Lord Himself as one wherein iniquity shall abound.
2. Yet the greater the darkness the more precious is any light that is available in our midst. Amid all the dark and stifling scenes through which the fierce passions of men, under Satan, are hurrying alike the Church and the world, the Word of God remains unchanged and unchangeable; the only one steady light.
3. Happy they who stand most apart from the tumults, and cleave most closely to the Scriptures, and most meditate therein.
4. If, as the history of Christianity peculiarly shows, the perpetual effort of Satan be to hide, veil or distort the light of Scripture, let our effort be to unveil it, and to give stead direction to its beams. He will not have lived in vain who shall have caused one ray of light from the Word of God to rest steadily on a heart that was dark to it before.
IV. SCRIPTURE LIGHT WILL SURELY MANIFEST SINS OF IGNORANCE: how, then, can we have courage to use, or to approach a light, so certain to reveal such sins both in ourselves and others, if there were no Sin Offering?
What hope could we have unless we were able to say that the whole family of faith are protected for ever under its efficacy? We have not again to offer it: it has been offered, once and for ever offered, every ceremony fulfilled, every ordinance obeyed.
Let us use it, not to nurture ignorance, listlessness and slumber, but to encourage ourselves to cleave to and maintain the light of revealed truth, which, however beset by evil, however much it may be for the time shrouded, shall never have its essential brightness marred by one element of darkness, on to the hour when it mingles with the light of the eternal day.Developed from Thoughts on Leviticus, by B. W. Newton, Vol. I.[See Addenda, p. 58, Scripture Light.]
ILLUSTRATIVE ADDENDA TO CHAPTER 4
IGNORANCE. Classical quotations:
Ignoratione rerum bonarum et malarum maxime hominum vita vexatur.Cicero.
[Through ignorance of what is good and bad the life of man is greatly perplexed.]
O miseras hominum mentes! Oh pectora cca!Lucretius.
[How wretched are the minds of men, how blind their understandings.]
Quantum animis errois inest!Ovid.
[What error there is in human minds!]
IGNORANCE versus KNOWLEDGE
When you know a thing, to hold that you know it; and when you do not know a thing, to allow that you do not know itthis is knowledge.Confucius: Analects.
Wisdom is humble that he knows no more.
Cowper: The Task.
The first step to self-knowledge is self-distrust. Nor can we attain to any kind of knowledge except by a like process.J. C. and A. W. Hare: Guesses at Truth.
All things I thought I knew; but now confess
The more I know I know, I know the less.
Owen.
Ignorance is the curse of God;
Knowledge the wing wherewith we fly to heaven.Henry VI.
By knowledge we do learn ourselves to know,
And what to man, and what to God we owe.Spencer: Tears of the Muses.
Conviction of ignorance is the door-step to the temple of wisdom.Spurgeon.
PERILS OF IGNORANCE
Modern science has shown that the seeds of epidemic and miasmatic diseases are generated and exert their activity during the night, and in places unvisited by the suns beamsa true image of the evils developed from unillumined ignorance.
So long as thou art ignorant be not ashamed to learn. Ignorance is the greatest of all infirmities, and when justified the greatest of all follies.Isaak Walton.
Ignorance is the night of the mind, but a night without moon or star.Confucius.
Ignorance, when voluntary, is criminal, and that man may be properly charged with that evil which he neglected or refused to learn how to prevent.Johnson.
EXPLANATION OF MANS IGNORANCE
Ignorance of things very near to us, and in which we are nearly concerned, may be from two causes:
i. From want of Light. Nothing can be perceived in the dark. If you are in a dark room, though it be richly adorned and furnished, all is lost to you. If you stand in a dark night on the top of a hill that commands a fine prospect, still you are able to see no more than if you were in a valley. Though you were in a dangerous place, with pitfalls, precipices, thieves and murderers all around you, still you might imagine yourself in safety, if you had no light with you.
ii. It may be from some ignorance or obstruction between you and the object. Thus, your dearest friend or greatest enemy might be within a few yards of you, and you know nothing of it, if there were a wall between you.
These comparisons may in some measure represent our state by nature. God is near: in Him we live and move and have our being! Eternity is near; we stand upon the brink of it. Death is near; advancing towards us with hasty strides. The truths of Gods Word are most certain in themselves, and of the utmost consequence to us, but we perceive none of these things, we are not affected by them, because our understandings are dark, and because thick walls of ignorance, prejudice and unbelief stand before the eyes of our minds, and keep them from our view.
PARDON
I believe in the forgiveness of sinsThe article of the creed which brought peace to Luthers troubled mind when seeking the way of salvation. Oh my sins! my sins! was his cry, almost of despair; from which, however, he was greatly relieved by the good counsel and comforting advice of Staupitz. But the work was not yet finished. One day all his fears and terrors bad returned, when an old monk entered his cell, and Luther opened his heart to him. The venerable old man was unable to follow his soul in all its doubts as Staupitz had done, but he knew his creed, and found much consolation in it for his own heart; so he repeated to Luther the cheering article, I believe in the forgiveness of sins.
These simple words, pronounced with much sincerity in the decisive moment, diffused great consolation in Luthers mind. From that instant light sprang up in his rejoicing heart.
I feel more sure than ever that the right thing is to take each sin the moment the conscience feels it, to the blood of Jesus, and there, having once purged it, to remember it no more. I dont think of one scriptural example of a sin once forgiven ever being charged upon the conscience again; and I suppose the yearly sins were never expected to be again brought to mind, after the scapegoat had borne them into the land of forgetfulness. Oh for grace to plunge into the ocean of Divine forgiveness.A L. Newton.
SCRIPTURE LIGHT
At a missionary meeting in Mangaia, after the whole Bible had been received in their own language, an aged disciple rose up to exhort the people to read the whole Bible through. Lifting his own new Bible before the congregation, he exclaimed, My brothers and sisters, this is my resolve: the dust shall never cover my new Bible, the moths shall never eat it, the mildew shall never got it! my light, my joy!
What ignorance of the Bible existed in Europe before printing was introduced! stephanus relates of a certain doctor of Sorbonne, who, speaking of the Reformers, expressed his surprise at their mode of reasoning by exclaiming, I wonder why these youths are constantly quoting the New Testament. I was more than 50 years old before I knew anything of a New Testament. And Albert, Archbishop and Elector of Mentz, in the year 1530, accidentally meeting with a Bible, opened it, and having read some pages of it, observed, I do not indeed know what this book is, but this I see, that everything in it is against us. Even Carolastadius, who was afterwards one of the Reformers, acknowledged that he had never begun to read the Bible till eight years after he had taken his highest degree in divinity.
Dr. Samuel Johnson, distinguished as writer on morals, and whose writings have seldom been excelled in energy of thought and beauty of expression, said to a young gentleman who visited him on his dying bed young man, attend to the voice of one who has possessed a certain degree of fame in the world, and will shortly appear before his Maker: read the Bible every day of your life
Salmasius, one of the most consummate scholars of his time, saw cause to exclaim bitterly against himself: O, I have lost a world of timetime, the most precious thing in the world! Had I but one year more, it should be spent in perusing Davids Psalms and Pauls Epistles. O sirsaddressing those about himmind the world lees and God more!
Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell
e. THE SIN OFFERING 4:15:13
(1)
ITS APPLICATION Lev. 4:1
(2)
ITS GRADES
(a) FOR THE HIGH PRIEST 4:212
TEXT 4:112
1
And Jehovah spake unto Moses, saying,
2
Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If any one shall sin unwittingly, in any of the things which Jehovah hath commanded not to be done, and shall do any one of them:
3
if the anointed priest shall sin so as to bring guilt on the people, then let him offer for his sin, which he hath sinned, a young bullock without blemish unto Jehovah for a sin-offering;
4
And he shall bring the bullock unto the door of the tent of meeting before Jehovah; and he shall lay his hand upon the head of the bullock, and kill the bullock before Jehovah.
5
And the anointed priest shall take of the blood of the bullock, and bring it to the tent of meeting:
6
and the priest shall dip his finger in the blood, and sprinkle of the blood seven times before Jehovah, before the veil of the sanctuary.
7
And the priest shall put of the blood upon the horns of the altar of sweet incense before Jehovah, which is in the tent of meeting; and all the blood of the bullock shall he pour out at the base of the altar of burnt-offering, which is at the door of the tent of meeting.
8
And all the fat of the bullock of the sin-offering he shall take off from it; the fat that covereth the inwards, and all the fat that is upon the inwards,
9
and the two kidneys, and the fat that is upon them, which is by the loins, and the caul upon the liver, with the kidneys, shall he take away,
10
as it is taken off from the ox of the sacrifice of peace-offerings: and the priest shall burn them upon the altar of burnt-offering.
11
And the skin of the bullock, and all its flesh, with its head, and with its legs, and its inwards, and its dung,
12
even the whole bullock shall he carry forth without the camp unto a clean place, where the ashes are poured out, and burn it on wood with fire: where the ashes are poured out shall it be burnt.
THOUGHT QUESTIONS 4:112
49.
Just what is involved in an unwitting sin or a sin through error?
50.
Are these sins omissions or overt acts? Cf. Jos. 20:3 and Deu. 19:4 and show how these texts relate here.
51.
Why wouldnt we be aware of sin if it was a decision and action for which we are responsible? Cf. Heb. 5:2.
52.
Who is the anointed priest? Cf. Heb. 7:27-28.
53.
What significance is there in limiting the sacrifice for the priest to a bullock?
54.
The offering of the priest was to not only help him but the worshippershow?
55.
Why bring the blood to the veil?
56.
What possible meaning is there in placing his finger in the blood?
57.
Why sprinkle the blood seven times? Cf. Heb. 10:10; 1Pe. 3:18.
58.
What is represented by the horns of the altar?
59.
The priests must leave the holy place to pour out the rest of the blood. Where does he go?
60.
What of the bullock is burned upon the altar? This part of the sacrifice is very much like the peace offeringwhy?
THE SIN OFFERING 4:15:13
Grades Of Sin Offerings For Different Persons
The Ritual Of The Sin Offering
The Work Of The Priest
Purpose: Unintentional Specific SinsAtonement
THE GARMENTS OF THE SONS OF AARON Exo. 8:13
Aarons Sons or the Priests
1.
Bonnets
2.
Coat
3.
Band
4.
Robe
5.
Drawers (under-garment) (All white fine linen)
61.
What is to happen to: (1) the skin, (2) all the flesh, (3) the head, (4) its legs, (5) intestines, (6) dung?
62.
How would it be decided that a clean place had been found?
PARAPHRASE 4:112
Then the Lord gave these further instructions to Moses: Tell the people of Israel that these are the laws concerning anyone who unintentionally breaks any of My commandments. If a priest sins unintentionally, and so brings guilt upon the people, he must offer a young bull without defect as a sin offering to the Lord. He shall bring it to the door of the Tabernacle, and shall lay his hand upon its head and kill it there before Jehovah. Then the priest shall take the animals blood into the Tabernacle, and shall dip his finger in the blood and sprinkle it seven times before the Lord in front of the veil that bars the way to the Holy of Holies. Then the priest shall put some of the blood upon the horns of the incense altar before the Lord in the Tabernacle; the remainder of the blood shall be poured out at the base of the altar for burnt offerings, at the entrance to the Tabernacle. Then he shall take all the fat on the entrails, the two kidneys and the loin-fat on them, and the gall bladder, and shall burn them on the altar of burnt offering, just as in the case of a bull or cow sacrificed as a thank-offering. But the remainder of the young bullthe skin, meat, head, legs, internal organs, and intestinesshall be carried to a ceremonially clean place outside the campa place where the ashes are brought from the altarand burned there on a wood fire.
COMMENT 4:112
Lev. 4:1-2 This is the sin offering for sin through ignorance or sin through error. These are not sins of omission, but acts committed by a person when, at the time, he did not suppose that what he did was sin. Although he did the thing deliberately, yet he did not perceive the sin of it. So deceitful is sin, we may be committing that abominable thing which casts angels into an immediate and an eternal hell, and yet at the moment be totally unaware! Want of knowledge of the truth, and too little tenderness of conscience, hide it from us. (Bonar)
The provisions for this offering teach us at least two wonderful lessons: (1) the heinousness of sin. Sin is marked by God whether man marks it or not. Even when a man sins unwittingly God sees it and it must be accounted for. This is wholly in keeping with the character of God. No laws of God are broken in the physical world without the consequent results. How many trees in the primeval forest have broken and crashed to the earth without the ear or eye of any man? God does not and cannot treat sin lightly. Were a scorpion on our brow, prepared to thrust in its deadly sting, when we were unconscious of any danger, surely the friend would deserve thanks who saw the black creature upon us and cried aloud to us to sweep it away. Such is the sin of ignorance; and God, who is a God of knowledge, is the gracious friend. (Bonar) This leads us to the second lesson: (2) The infinite love and care of our heavenly Father. The same compassionate heart of our great High Priest who tenderly looks upon the ignorant (Heb. 5:2) is found in the provision under the economy of Moses for poor ignorant sinners.
Lev. 4:3-4 We need to mention here that the sweet savor offerings are now past and we now approach those wholly identified with sin. They are two in number: (1) the sin offerings, and (2) the trespass offerings. The sin offering has four grades or applications: (1) For the individual (Lev. 5:6-9); (2) for the ruler (Lev. 4:22-26); (3) for the congregation (Lev. 4:13-21); (4) for the priest (Lev. 4:3-12). Verses one through twelve discuss the sin offering for the priest (including the high priest). All three grades involve three areas: (1) Gods dwelling among the people in the tabernacle; (2) the worship or approach of the people to God; (3) the conscience of each individual before God. Blood is the answer to the need in each area: (1) the blood was sprinkled seven times by the priest before the Lord upon or in front of the veil of the sanctuary. This obtained or secured the presence of God in the midst of His people, i.e. God could and did because of the blood dwell among them; (2) the blood upon the horns of the golden altar. The foundation of all worship is bloodthe flame and the incense could because of the blood ascend before God; (3) the remaining portion is poured out at the base of the brazen altar. Here the claims of the individual conscience were met at the altar of burnt offering. The burnt offering is the death of our Lord in our place. Each individual is represented and satisfied in the One who died for all. In the pursuit of his priestly functions the high priest has been deficient in wisdom and has made a mistake in the order of service, or he has in some manner defiled some of the holy vessels. In this he has left the sanctuary door open to Satan. Since he represents all the congregation he also involves them in his unwitting sin. He needs for these reasons to offer a sin offering for himself. At the same time people soon learn to sympathize with him and pray for him since he is one with them in his need of forgiveness. The young bull to be brought for a sacrifice is the same as the sin offering to be made for the whole congregation (except that the priest offers a male without blemish and the congregation has a female without blemish.) The most expensive of all offerings are here made. It costs much to obtain our standing before God.
Lev. 4:5-6 Why sprinkle the blood seven times? Seven throughout the scripture is a sign or symbol of completeness or perfection. It was only on the great day of atonement that the blood was taken within the veil to be sprinkled upon and before the ark of the covenant. As sin is first of all against God it is appropriate that the first use of the blood is concerned with His satisfaction. It might intimate that atonement was yet to rend the veil, and that the beautiful veil represented the Saviours holy humanity (Heb. 10:20). How expressive was the continual repetition of this blood-sprinkling. As often as the priest offered a sin-offering the veil was wet again with blood which dropped on the floor of the holy place. It was through the veil, that is to say His flesh, the way was opened for usbut it was a body already drenched in The sweat of bloodshed in Gethsemane before it was broken or opened on Calvary.
Lev. 4:7 Lets attempt to enter with the priest into the holy place and stand in the flickering light of the golden candlestick and gaze solemnly seven times intermittently at the blood and at the scarlet and blue woven design of the cherubim on the veilthe blood has been placed either before or on the veil. When the anointed priest was thus engaged, was he not a type of Jesus in the act of expiating His peoples guilt? A true high priest probably knelt and then prostrating himself on the ground, as he sprinkled the blood before the veil; and it would be with many tears, and strong crying from the depth of his soul, that he touched the altars horns. What a picture of our Saviour in the garden, when He fell on His face, and being in agony, prayed more earnestly, and offered up supplications, with strong crying and tears, to Him that was able to save Him from death (Heb. 5:7). Although, in this case, the priests sense of guilt was personal, and therefore was deep and piercing, yet when Jesus took our sins, He too felt them deeply, and felt them as if they had been His own . . .
At length the priest comes from the Holy Placeleaving it, however, filled with the cry of blooda cry for pardon!and proceeds to the altar of burnt-offering, directly opposite the door. There he pours out the rest of the blood, at the foot of the altar, his eye looking straight at the Holy Place. Within and without the Holy Place, the voice of atonement was now heard ascending from blood. What a sermon was thus preached to the people! Atonement is the essence of itatonement needed for even unwitting sins of ignorance. There is no trifling with God. What a ransom for the soul is given! Lifelifethe life of the Seed of the woman. What care to present itwhat earnestness! The Holy Place is filled with its cry, and the courts without also; and the priests soul is intently engaged in this one awful matter.
Lev. 4:8-10 The regulations in these verses concerning the fat and its offering upon the altar to Jehovah are identical to those for the fat of the peace offering. It would seem to say that once the blood has been shed and applied there is peace.
The leading object in the sin offering is to shadow forth what Christ became for us, and not what He was in Himself. This quality however is not entirely omitted, as we have observed earlier. In the fat burnt upon the altar is the apt expression of the divine appreciation of the preciousness of Christs Person, no matter what place He might, in perfect grace, take, on our behalf, or in our stead. He was made sin for us, and the sin offering is a divinely-appointed shadow of Him in this respect. But, inasmuch as it was the Lord Jesus Christ, Gods elect, His Holy One, His pure, His spotless, His eternal Son that was made sin, therefore the fat of the sin offering was burnt upon the altar, as a proper material for that fire which was an impressive exhibition of divine holiness. (C. H. MacKintosh)
Lev. 4:11-12 We come now to, in one way, the most impressive portion of the ritual for the sin offering. We are using a rather large bibliography in our research for this study. We have what we consider some original observationsbut we make no apology for composite expressions or direct quotations. For these verses the words of Andrew Bonar are beautiful: But that the priest, and all present, might go home with an awful conviction of the heinousness even of forgiven sin, other things remained to be done. We are not to forget sin, because it has been atoned for; and we are not to think lightly of sin, because it is washed away. Our God wishes His people to retain a deep and lively sense of their guilt, even when forgiven. Hence the concluding ceremonies in the case of the priests sin.
The very skin of the bullock is to be burnt (here the word is burn up)thus expressing more complete destruction than even in the case of the whole burnt-offering. Here is the holy law exacting the last mite; for the skin is taken, and the whole flesh, the head and legs (Lev. 1:8), the intestines, and the very dungeven the whole bullock! Unsparing justice, that is, unspotted justice! And yet more. As if the altar were too near Gods presence to express fully that part of the sinners desert which consists in suffering torment far off from God, all this is to be done without the campa distance, it is calculated, of four miles from the Holy Place. In all sacrifices, indeed, this separation from God is represented in some degree by the ashes being carried away out of the camp; but, to call attention still more to this special truth, we are here shewn the bullock burnt on the wood, without the camp, where the ashes were wont to be poured out. It was over the very ashes that lay poured out there; for, in the last clause of the verse, the preposition on is used. The clean place is defined to be this place of ashes. It was clean, because, when reduced to ashes by consuming fire, all guilt was away from the victim, as intimated in Psa. 20:3, Let Him turn thy burnt-sacrifice to ashes (on), the word used here also.
At this part of the ceremonies, there was meant to be exhibited a type of hell. This burning afar off, away from the Holy Place, yet seen by the whole congregation, was a terrible glance at that truthThey shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb; and the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever (Rev. 14:10).
It is plain, also, that God took the opportunity which this offering afforded, or rather shaped this part of the rites belonging to the offering, in order to show somewhat more of Christs death. In every sacrifice which was of a public nature, or for a public person, the animal was carried without the camp, as we may see in chapter Lev. 16:27, on the day of atonement. The reason of this was that, in these cases, Christs public sacrifice, as offered to the whole world, and to every creature, and as fulfilling the laws demands to the last mite, was to be especially prefigured. It is carried without the camp, as Jesus was crucified outside of the gates of Jerusalem (Heb. 13:12), that it might be in sight of all the camp, as Christs one offering is held up to all the world, to be used by whosoever will. Next, suffering far off from the Holy Place, with His Fathers face hidden, and all the fire of wrath in His soul and on His body, Jesus further fulfilled this type in regard to the entire satisfaction demanded by the law. And, inasmuch as He suffered at Jerusalem, where the ashes of the sacrifices were poured out, He may be said to have fulfilled the type of the clean place. For we see Him over these remnants of typical sacrifice, offering up the one true and perfect offering. But it was Calvary that was specially a place of ashes, inasmuch as there the demands of justice were wont to be satisfied, and the bones of victims to human law cast out. Josephs new tomb, hewn out of the very rock of Calvary, is the exact counterpart to the clean place, at the very spot where the ashes of so many dead men were to be found all around.
What view of hell does the suffering Saviour give! The face-covering between Him and His Fatherthe criminals veil hung over Him for three hours, the three hours of darknessaway from the Holy Placedriven from the mercy seat, beyond the bounds of the holy cityan outcast, a forsaken soul, a spectacle to all that passed bywrath to the uttermost within, and His person, even to the eye of man, more marred than any man, while His cry, My God! my God! why hast thou forsaken me? ascended up as the smoke of the sacrifice, to heaven, shewing the heat of the unutterable agony, and testifying the unswerving exactness of the holy law. What a contrast to His coming again without sin, and entering Jerusalem again with the voice of the archangel, in all His glory, bringing with Him those whom He redeemed by that death on Calvary!
In one respect His people are to imitate the view of Him shewn in this type. As He went forth to witness for Gods holy lawwent forth without the gate, a spectacle to all the earth; so they, redeemed by Him, are to go forth to witness of that death and redemption which He has accomplished (Heb. 13:12). We are to go forth unto Him; we are to be constantly, as it were, viewing that spectacle of united love and justice, looking to His cross; though in so doing we make ourselves objects of amazement and contempt to the world, who condemn those whom they see going forth to stand by the side of the Crucified One.
FACT QUESTIONS 4:112
69.
Is the sin offering for sins of omission? Explain.
70.
The provisions for this offering teaches us two wonderful lessons. What are they?
71.
What are the sweet savor offerings? How does this offering compare?
72.
List the four grades or applications for the sin offering.
73.
All these grades involve three areas. Name them.
74.
Show how the blood answers the needs of each area.
75.
Describe the similarity between a true high priest and our High Priest as they each intercede before God.
76.
What is the cry from both within and without the Holy Place?
77.
What indicates that there is no trifling with the law of God?
78.
How does the offering of the fat upon the altar link this offering with the peace offering?
79.
How is the deep and lively sense of guilt kept alive?
80.
What lesson is found in burning the skin and flesh of the bullock?
81.
Why take the remains of the animal at such a distance from the altar?
82.
Show how Heb. 13:12 applies to Lev. 4:12-13 of Lev. 4:1-35.
83.
How does Josephs new tomb fit the type?
84.
How precious is the death of our Lord in our place. How wonderful that he should taste of death (the second death) for every man (Heb. 2:9). Show how this truth is pictured here.
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
ORDINARY SINS OF INADVERTENCE, Lev 4:1-2.
2. If a soul shall sin It is a noteworthy fact that throughout this entire description of sacrifices Jehovah makes provision not for bodies, nor for men, but for souls. He would thus early direct the attention of the Hebrews away from the visible form to the immaterial and spiritual person which it enshrines.
Through ignorance The Hebrew word b’shaggah in error occurs here for the first time in the Bible. In the Authorized Version it is translated by the word ignorance twelve times, by unawares four times, once by unwittingly, and twice by error. It occurs only in Leviticus, Numbers, Joshua, and Ecclesiastes. Furst prefers to render it by the adverb inadvertently. Up to this time Jehovah had overlooked the sins of his people which arose from lack of knowledge and imperfection of judgment. But that every mouth may be stopped and all may be guilty before him, he pronounces sentence of condemnation upon them for their unconscious deviations from his law. There can be no high attainments in holiness until the cry is extorted, Who can understand his inadvertencies? Cleanse thou me from unknown errors. Psa 19:12. He who is satisfied so long as his conscience does not condemn him, needs to be taught that the decisions of an approving conscience, involving, as they may, erroneous intellectual judgments, are not a safe ground of justification to him who has access to the written revelation of God’s will. Hence says St. Paul, (1Co 4:4,) as rendered by Alford, “For I am conscious to myself of no delinquency, but I am not hereby justified.” Compare Heb 5:2-3; Heb 9:7.
Against any commandments The Hebrew is not against but from in deviation from. As the law is made up of prohibitions and precepts, it may be broken by doing a forbidden act, which is a sin of commission, and by failing to perform a required deed, which is called a sin of omission. In other words the law may be transgressed, or stepped over, and it may be swerved from. The sin of in-advertence is most frequently committed in the latter way, though there are also involuntary sins of commission. Such are distinctly referred to in the latter part of the verse.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘And Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying,’
This is, as ever, the indication of the introduction of a new section, possibly communicated at a different time from the earlier one. But it confirms that the purification for sin offering was communicated by God to Moses on its own at a particular point in time, although then being brought within the general pattern of offerings. These were to be seen as the words of Yahweh (see Num 7:89). This section goes on to Lev 5:13.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
For a Priest
v. 1. And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, v. 2. Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, if a soul shall sin through ignorance v. 3. if the priest that is anointed do sin according to the sin of the people, v. 4. And he shall bring the bullock unto the door of the Tabernacle of the Congregation, v. 5. And the priest that is anointed, v. 6. and the priest shall dip his finger in the blood, and sprinkle of the blood seven times before the Lord, before the veil of the Sanctuary, v. 7. And the priest shall put some of the blood up on the horns of the altar of sweet incense before the Lord, which is in the Tabernacle of the Congregation, v. 8. And he shall take off from it all the fat of the bullock for the sin-offering; the fat that covereth the inwards, v. 9. and the two kidneys, and the fat that is up on them, which is by the flanks, v. 10. as it was taken off from the bullock of the sacrifice of peace-offerings, v. 11. And the skin of the bullock, and all his flesh, with his head, and with his legs, and his inwards, and his dung, v. 12. even the whole bullock shall he carry forth without the camp unto a clean place, where the ashes are poured out
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
EXPOSITION
THE SIN OFFERING (Lev 4:1-35, Lev 5:1-13). At the time of the Mosaic legislation, burnt offerings and meat offerings were already in existence, and had existed from the time of the Fall. A beginning, therefore, is made with them, and the regulations of the peace offerings naturally follow, because these sacrifices succeed in order to the burnt and meat offerings, and because sacrifices in some respects of the same nature as peace offerings had previously existed under a different name (cf. Exo 10:25 with Exo 24:5, and see above notes on Exo 3:1-22). The sin and trespass offerings, therefore, are left to the last, though, owing to their meaning, they were always offered first of all, when sacrifices of all three kinds were made together. They are the means of ceremonially propitiating God when alienated from his people, or from any individual member of it, by sin, which they legally atone for. The need of expiation is implied and suggested by the offering of the blood, both in the burnt sacrifice and the peace offering (cf. Job 1:5). But this was not sufficient; there must be a special sacrifice to teach this great truth as its primary lesson. The sin offering typifies the sacrifice of our Lord JESUS CHRIST upon the cross, as the great Sin Offering for mankind, whereby the wrath of God was propitiated, and an expiation for the sins of man was wrought, bringing about reconciliation between God and man.
Lev 4:2
If a soul shall sin. The conditions to be fulfilled in presenting a sin offering differed according to the position held by the offerer in the state. If it were the high priest, he had
(1) to offer a young bull in the court of the tabernacle;
(2) to place his hand upon it;
(3) to kill it;
(4) to take the blood into the holy place of the tabernacle, and there sprinkle some of it seven times in the direction of the vail that divided off the holy of holies within which the ark was placed, and to smear some of it on the horns of the golden altar of incense;
(5) to pour out the rest of the blood at the foot of the altar of burnt offering in the court of the tabernacle;
(6) to burn all the internal fat upon the altar of burnt offering;
(7) to carry the whole of the remainder of the animal outside the camp, and there to burn it. If it were the congregation that made the offering, the same conditions had to be fulfilled, except that the elders of the congregation had to lay their hands on the animal. If it were a ruler, the animal offered was to be a male kid, and the priest, instead of taking the blood into the sanctuary, was to smear it on the horns of the altar of burnt sacrifice in the court. If it were an ordinary member of the congregation, the animal was to be a female kid, or ewe lamb, which was to be dealt with in the same manner; or in some cases two turtledoves or two young pigeons, one for a sin offering (whose blood was all sprinkled round the inner side of the altar), the other for a burnt offering (which was to be treated according to the ritual of the burnt offering), or even the tenth part of an ephah of flour (without oil or frankincense), a handful of which was to be burnt, and the remainder delivered to the priest for his consumption. The moral lesson taught to the Jew by the sin offering was of the terrible nature of sin, and of the necessity for an expiation for it in addition to penitence. Mystically he might see that, as the blood of bulls and goats could not of its own virtue take away sin, there must be an offering, foreshadowed by the sacrifice of the animals, which should be effectual as these were symbolical The type is fulfilled by the atonement wrought by Christ’s blood shed on the cross (see Heb 10:1-21). Further, the ceremonial cleansing of the sinful Israelite by the sin offering in the old dispensation foreshadows the effect of baptism in the new dispensation, for, as Calvin has noted in his Commentary, “As sins are now sacramentally washed away by baptism, so under the Law also sacrifices were expiations, although in a different way.”
If a soul shall sin through ignorance. The expression, “through ignorance” (bishgagah), is intended to cover all sins except those committed “with a high hand,” or defiantly, whether the agent was ignorant that they were sins or was led into them by inconsiderateness or infirmity (cf. Psa 19:12, Psa 19:13, “Who can understand his errors? Cleanse thou me from secret faults. Keep back thy servant also from presumptuous sins”). A better translation of bishgagah would be by want of consideration, or by inadvertence. Our Lord could say, even of those who crucified him, “Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do;” and therefore even for them a sin offering might be made and be accepted. But for deliberate and determined sin the Law has no atonement, no remedy. The words, shall do against any of them, i.e; against the commandments, would be better rendered shall do any of them, i.e; the things which ought not to be done. There is no exact apodosis to this verse; it is a general heading to the chapter.
Lev 4:3-12
The case of the high priest. He is designated the priest that is anointed, in respect to which title, see notes on Lev 8:1-36. In case he sins in his representative character, his sin is such as to bring guilt on the people (this is the meaning of the words translated according to the sin of the people), and a special sin offering must therefore be made. He is to take of the blood of the animal sacrificed, and bring it to the tabernacle of the congregation: and sprinkle of the blood seven times before the Lord, before the vail of the sanctuary. And put some of the blood on the horns of the altar of sweet incense. This was a more solemn method of presenting the blood to the Lord than that used in the burnt offering; the offering of the blood, which was the vehicle of life, being the chief feature in the sin offering, as the consumption of the whole animal by the altar fire was in the burnt offering. In the burnt offerings and peace offerings the blood was thrown once on the altar of burnt sacrifice (see Lev 1:5); now it is sprinkled, in a smaller quantity each time, but as often as seven times (the number seven symbolically representing completeness), before the vail which shrouded the ark. The altar of sweet incense is the golden altar, which stood within the tabernacle, in front of the vail. Perhaps the reason why the horns of the altar are specially appointed to have the blood placed on them is that they were regarded as the most sacred part of the altar, because they were its highest points, in which its elevation towards heaven culminated. The remainder of the victim’s blood is to be poured at the bottom of the altar of the burnt offering, in the court of the tabernacle, to sink into the ground, because no more of it was wanted for ceremonial use. The internal fat is to be burnt upon the altar of the burnt offering, but not actually upon the smoldering burnt sacrifice, as in the case of the peace offerings; the sin offering preceding the burnt offering in order of time, while the peace offering followed it. The remainder of the animal is to be carried without the camp and be burnt, because its flesh was at once accursed and most holy. It was accursed, as having been symbolically the vehicle of the sins laid upon it by the offerer; therefore it must not be consumed upon the altar of God, but be destroyed with fire outside the camp, typifying the removal from God’s kingdom, and the final destruction of all that is sinful. But yet it was most holy, as its blood had been taken into the tabernacle, and had served as a propitiation; therefore, if it had to be burnt, it yet had to be burnt solemnly, reverently, and as a ceremonial act, in a place appointed for the purpose. The writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews notices that one of the points in which our Lord was the antitype of the sin offering was that he “suffered without the gate,” “that he might sanctify the people with his own blood” (Heb 13:12), which was thus indicated to have been carried within the sanctuary, that is, into heaven.
Lev 4:13-21
The case of the whole congregation. A nation may become guilty of national sin in different ways, according to its political constitution: most directly, by the action of a popular Legislature passing a decree such as that of the Athenian assembly, condemning the whole of the Mitylenean people to death (Thucyd; 3.36), or by approving an act of sacrilege (Mal 3:9); indirectly, by any complicity in or condoning of a sin done in its name by its rulers. The ritual of the sin offering is the same as in the case of the high priest. The elders of the congregation (according to the Targum of Jonathan, twelve in number), acting for the nation, lay their hands on the victim’s head, and the high priest, as before, presents the blood, by sprinkling it seven times before the Lord, even before the vail; and putting some of the blood upon the horns of the altar which is before the Lord, that is in the tabernacle of the congregation. It is added that he shall thus make an atonement, or covering of sin, for them, and it shall be forgiven them.
Lev 4:22-26
The case of a ruler or nobleman. The clause, Or if his sin come to his knowledge, should be rather translated, If perhaps his sin come to his knowledge. He is to offer a kid of the goats, or rather a he-goat. The blood is not to be carried into the tabernacle, as in the two previous cases, but put upon the horns of the altar of burnt offering, which stood outside in the court, and, as a consequence of the blood not having been taken into the tabernacle, the flesh is not to be burnt outside the camp, but to be eaten by the priests in the court of the tabernacle (see Le Lev 6:26).
Lev 4:27-35
The case of a common man. He is to offer a kid of the goats, or rather a she-goat. The ritual is to be the same as in the previous case.
HOMILETICS
Lev 4:1-35
The sin offering
signifies and ceremonially effects propitiation and expiation. Its characteristic feature, therefore, is the presentation of the blood of the victim, which in this sacrifice alone (when it was offered for the high priest or the whole congregation) was carried into the tabernacle and solemnly sprinkled before the vail which covered God’s presence.
I. WHEN IT WAS TO BE OFFERED. On certain solemn public occasions, and whenever the conscience of an individual was awakened to being out of communion with God. The contraction of certain defilements and the commission of certain sins excluded the delinquent from God’s people, and when this had occurred, he might not be readmitted until he had brought a sin offering to be offered in his behalf.
II. HOW IT WAS EFFECTIVE. The fact of God’s appointing it for a certain end made it effective for that end; but we are allowed to see why God appointed it, and this was because it was a shadow of the Great Atonement to be wrought for all mankind by the Christian Sin Offering of the cross. For the result of original sin and the consequent growth and spread of wickedness upon the earth had separated between God and man. How were they to be reconciled? Christ became the representative of sinful man, and the substitute for him, and in this capacity he bore the penalty of sins,
(1) in the Garden of Gethsemane,
(2) on the crossthus restoring man to communion with God.
III. THINGS TO BE NOTED
1. The wrath of God against sin.
2. The love of God towards sinners.
3. The justice of God.
4. The love of Christ in his incarnation.
5. The obedience of Christ in his death.
6. The blessed result to man, namely, union and communion with God, through Christ the Peace-maker.
IV. THE OFFERING MADE ONCE FOR ALL. The Jewish offerings could be brought again and again; the Christian Sin Offering could be made but once. There can be no repetition of it, no continuation of it; but its effects are always continuing, and applicable to all Christ’s people. Its benefits are to be grasped and appropriated, each time that they are needed, by faith. As the Israelite laid his hand on the sin offering, so we lean by faith on Christ, and may constantly plead the merits of the offering which cannot be renewed. In case we have fallen into sin, we may not, like the Israelite, bring our bullock for sacrifice; we cannot renew the Great Sacrifice typified by the bullock’s sacrifice; but, by repentance and by faith in the atonement wrought by the sacrifice of Christ’s death, we can be restored.
V. FEELINGS AWAKENED
Thankfulness for God’s mercy in finding a way of escape;
Thankfulness for Christ’s love in working out man’s salvation;
A blessed sense of peace resulting from the consciousness that the Great Atoning Sacrifice has been offered.
HOMILIES BY R.M. EDGAR
Lev 4:1-35
Atonement for the penitent, as illustrated in the sin offering.
Le Lev 5:1-13; cf. Psa 19:12; Gal 6:1; 1Ti 1:13, etc. The offerings already considered, viz. the burnt offering, the meat offering, and the peace offering, have respectively emphasized the ideas of personal consecration, consecrated life-work, and fellowship. Moreover, they are to be regarded as voluntary offerings, depending upon the impulse of the heart for their celebration. Special experience might impel an Israelite to express his consecration or his fellowship, and he would then bring the appointed sacrifice.
But here we come across an offering which is imperative. The moment an Israelite became convinced of sin, then he was bound to bring the offering prescribed. Besides, the sin offering is Mosaic in its origin; it had no existence, as such, before the promulgation of the covenant at Sinai; and consequently it is to be taken as the rule for penitents, whose consciences have been educated in a more thorough detection of sin through the Law. “By the law is the knowledge of sin.” We have at this stage, confrequently, a perceptible elevation of the moral standard.
I. THE FIRST LESSON OF THE SIN OFFERING IS THAT SIN IS A NATURE. The superficial treatment of sin deals with outward and conscious acts, such as trespasses; what God declares by his Law is that, behind all conscious acts of the will, there are natural movements of which we are not conscious, and for which, nevertheless, we are responsible. This important principle is affirmed by all these minute regulations about sins of ignorance. The thoughtful Israelite would see from this that sin is a much wider and deeper thing than he at first suspected; that the motions of his personal being are more numerous and varied than he supposed; that deliberation, in fact, is not essential to every sin, and does not cover responsibility. In other words, he would look within and realize that sin is a nature, working on, sometimes consciously and sometimes unconsciously, and that for all its workings he will be held accountable.
No more important principle lies in the field of self-examination. Without it there can be no thorough treatment of sin. With it we stand abashed and humbled under a sense of the unknown sin as well as of the known. We cry with David, “Who can understand his errors? cleanse thou me from secret faults. Keep back thy servant also from presumptuous sins; let them not have dominion over me: then shall I be upright, and I shall be innocent from the great transgression” (Psa 19:12, Psa 19:13; cf. also Shedd’s ‘Discourses and Essays,’ No. VI.).
II. SIN VARIES IS ITS HEINOUSNESS. The Israelite not only recognized this whole category of sins of ignorance marshaled in the Law before him; he also saw a difference of treatment in the cases under review. A sin of ignorance on the part of the high priest was made more emphatic than one on the part of a prince or a private person. The high priest’s representative position and character modified the whole case. His sin of omission or neglect became much more serious than a private individual’s could be. He was consequently directed to bring a bullock, the same offering as for a sin on the part of the collective people; for his representative character made him, so to speak, a moral equivalent to them. While, therefore, it is well to recognize sin as a nature, we must also remember that God does not treat sin in the mass, but discriminates between the more or less guilty. In his morality there are the most delicate appreciations and adjustments. Penitence must likewise be discriminating as well as profound. Self-examination may be a most humiliating and disappointing process, but we should weigh the relations of our faults and sins when we discover them and deal faithfully with ourselves.
III. YET ALL SINNERS ARE PLACED WITHIN REACH OF AN APPROPRIATE ATONEMENT. The high priest and the collective people, the prince and one of the common people, each and all had their prescribed offering and guaranteed atonement. And when people proved so poor that they could not offer turtle-doves or young pigeons, they were directed to bring an ephah of fine flour, with which the priest would make atonement. And as for this atonement, it is in all cases secured by the surrender of life. Even the ephah of flour conveyed this idea, for the germ is hopelessly sacrificed in its manufacture. The one idea binding the various sacrifices together is the surrender of life. That this idea is to be attributed to substances in the vegetable kingdom as well as the animal, is evident from Joh 12:24, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit.”
And it need scarcely be added that the atonement of which these sin offerings were types is that of the Lord Jesus, who “was once offered to bear the sins of many” (Heb 9:28; also Heb 9:11-14). In the proclamation of the gospel, this most appropriate atonement is put within the reach of all. No sinner is excluded from the possibility of atonement except through his own self-will.
IV. THE RECONCILIATION WITH the PENITENT, WHICH ATONEMENT SECURES, IS A MATTER OF DEEP DELIGHT TO GOD. For not only is the blood of the sacrifice accepted at the appropriate spot, whether vail and altar of incense, or the brazen altar only, according to the status of the penitent; but there is besides an acceptance of the best portions of the animal upon the altar, indicating that God is delighted with the accomplished atonement. It was, so far as God was concerned, as much a feast as the peace offering. It expressed, consequently, that God was delighted beyond all our conception with the reconciliation.
It is well to make this idea always emphatic. Our blinded souls are ready to imagine that we are more anxious for reconciliation, and would be more delighted with it when it came, than God can be. The truth, however, is all the other way. The reconciliation begins with God, the atonement is due to his wisdom and mercy, and over the actual consummation he rejoices with “joy unspeakable and full of glory.”
V. THE RECONCILIATION IS ALSO MEANT TO BE A FEAST OF DELIGHT TO ALL GOD‘S SERVANTS WHO ARE INSTRUMENTAL IN BRINGING IT ABOUT. For we must notice that, in the cases where the priests are not penitents themselves, but mediators, they are allowed to make a feast of what is left after the best portions are dedicated to God. Of course, when they are penitents, as in the case of a personal or a congregational sin, the carcass is to be considered too holy for the priests to partake of it; hence it is disposed of in its entirety in a clean place beyond the camp. This was the solemn way of disposing of the whole carcass. But in the other cases the priests were directed to feast upon the remainder of the offering, as those bearing atonement. So far they enjoyed what was their lot in the peace offering. As a feast, and not a lugubrious fast, it surely was intended to indicate their personal joy and satisfaction in the reconciliation they were instrumental in bringing about.
Luk 15:1-32 presents the joy of the Godhead and of the angels over returning penitents. It is this spirit we should cultivate. It will require, of course, much personal dealing with souls, but it is worth all the trouble to be instrumental in leading them to peace with God, and to the joy that results therefrom.R.M.E.
HOMILIES BY S.R. ALDRIDGE
Lev 4:1, Lev 4:9
Unintentional transgression.
God is the source of authority and law. From him instructions emanate. His words are to be communicated to the people. Like unto Moses, ministers and teachers receive truth not to secrete it in their own breasts, but to impart it for the guidance of those under their charge. “The Lord spake, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel.” May we listen carefully, lest the utterances of the “still small voice” should be misheard, and the counsels intended for comfort and direction prove a false light, speeding the unconscious traveler to the very pitfalls he was to avoid.
I. THE UNIVERSALITY OF TRANSGRESSION. Provision is announced for cases of sin, and the possibility of its commission by all classes is thus shown.
1. The ordinary citizen may err; one of “the people of the land” (see Lev 4:27). Poverty and obscurity are not safeguards against unrighteous acts.
2. The man of rank, the “ruler” (Lev 4:22) or prince, is liable to sin. Honour and responsibility do not guarantee or produce immunity from transgression.
3. The whole congregation (Lev 4:13) is not exempt, for collective wisdom and might are not effectual barriers against the encroachments of unlawful desire and action. In the multitude of counselors safety is often thought to lie, but the “people” may do wickedly as well as an individual. This was exemplified at Mount Sinai and Baal-peor, and modern instances abound. Even
4. The man specially consecrated to holy service, the “anointed priest” (Lev 4:3), may incur guilt and bring punishment upon the people. How cautious we should be! What searching of ourselves with the candle of the Lord; what prayer for knowledge and strength should distinguish us all!
II. THE POSSIBILITY OF UNINTENTIONAL TRANSGRESSION. A distinction is intimated between sin that arises from mistake (“ignorance,” Lev 4:2), that is at first “hid” from perception and afterwards becomes known (Lev 4:13,Lev 4:14), awaking penitence and a desire to undo the wrong perpetrated, and sin that is willful, committed with a high hand, with an attitude of defiance, a sin against light and knowledge. Inadvertent sinning is possible through
(1) carelessness of behaviour, heedless conduct, acting without previous deliberation; or
(2) a misunderstanding of the Law, failure in correct interpretation, or in remembering the precise precept at the moment; or
(3) a sudden outburst of passion, blinding the judgment and hurrying the will to words and deeds afterwards repented of.
III. THE GUILT OF SUCH TRANSGRESSION. This is assumed by the atonement necessary to shield the doer from penalty, and by the expressions employed in Lev 4:13, Lev 4:22, and Lev 4:27. “Guilty” refers to the consequences of sinning, the state of wrath into which the sinner enters, and the moral devastation to which he is liable, and from which preservation is possible only through an offering. Learn, then, that ignorance does not of itself excuse violation of God’s commands, but it permits resort to such an atonement as will procure God’s forgiveness. Paul said, “I obtained mercy because I did it ignorantly and in unbelief.” Whereas if we sin willfully, there is no more sacrifice for sins. The soul that doeth presumptuously shall be cut off from among the people.S.R.A.
Lev 4:3
Let him bring for his sin, which he hath sinned.
The atonement for involuntary transgression. The Book of Leviticus well repays careful perusal in days when there are many attempts made to lessen men’s sense of the enormity of sin and of the necessity of a propitiatory offering. Its teachings are impressive, its pictures vivid.
I. SIN INFLICTS AN INJURY UPON THE HOLINESS OF GOD, AND EXPOSES MAN TO PENAL CONSEQUENCES. The words used to denote sin imply a turning aside from the path marked out, a deviation from rectitude. Man misses his way, goes astray like a lost sheep. He does what he ought not to do (verse 2), and thereby the precepts of God are slighted and God’s honour is wounded. This cannot be permitted with impunity. The wrath of God, not a base but holy passion, is aroused, and vengeance or holy indignation threatens to visit the transgressor. We think wrongly of our sinful acts if we minimize their awful importance, or pay regard simply to the injury done to ourselves. This is the least part. The Supreme Being is concerned, and it is his displeasure we have to fear. Sin cuts at the root of government, assails the foundations of the eternal throne.
II. EVERY TRANSGRESSION IS RECOGNIZED AS SINFUL, whether arising from ignorance or willfulness, whether an act of omission or commission. An atonement is insisted on even for what we deem the least flagrant derelictions. Man is so ready to extenuate his crimes, that God strips off the veil, and exposes sin in all its guiltiness, a thing to be loathed and shunned wherever met, requiring purification on our part, however accidentally we may have come in contact with it. That without intention we trod upon a venomous serpent, does not protect us from its fangs. We shall need the remedy, however the poison may have been injected.
III. PENITENCE AND CONFESSION ARE INSUFFICIENT TO OBLITERATE THE MEMORY OF THE SIN. To regret the act and to express sorrow and to determine not to offend again, are good as far as they go, but, to wipe out the stain, blood must be shed. This only con whiten the defiled robes. Sinner, behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world! To have the sin brought to your knowledge, so that you take a more adequate view of its sinfulness, to pour forth agonizing cries and floods of tears, will not obtain forgiveness, unless accompanied with the presentation to the Father of the righteousness of his Son.
IV. SIN BECOMES MORE CONSPICUOUS AND FAR–REACHING WHEN COMMITTED BY THE OCCUPANTS OF A FORTY POSITION. The high priest was the representative of the nation, and hence his offering must equal in value that presented by the whole congregation. So likewise the sin of a ruler was more visible than that of a subject, and wronged God the more, and whilst a she-goat sufficed for one of the people, for him only a he-goat was allowed. Not without reason did the apostle exhort that intercession be made “for kings, and all that are in authority.” Iniquity in high places in the Church and in society causes the greatest scandal, becomes most hurtful in its effects, and is most offensive to God. Both the animal offered and the ritual observed testified to the relative enormity of transgressions by different classes. Between the sins of each order in themselves no distinction was made.
V. BY THE APPOINTED VICTIM RECONCILIATION IS POSSIBLE TO ALL INADVERTENT OFFENDERS. We reserve this to the last, in order that the cheeriest aspect may be uppermost. Divest honour of its consequent responsibility we cannot, but we point to the ample provision for forgiveness afforded to comfort the prince and the peasant, the priest and the layman, the individual and the nation. Our Redeemer, Jesus Christ, has given his life a ransom for the many. He satisfies all claims, reconciles us unto God, so that our trespasses are not imputed unto us.S.R.A.
Lev 4:3-12
Rites essential to an atonement.
Who could stand in the tabernacle court without having imprinted on his mind the view God takes of the guilt of sin, and the necessity for the sinner’s deliverance from its results? The victims brought for sacrifice, the priests devoted to the sacrificial work, the altars of burnt offering and incense, the vail that separated the holy from the holiest placeall these were eminently calculated to deepen the Israelites’ conviction of the holiness of the Almighty, and the awfulness of violating his injunctions. Neglecting the distinctions enumerated in this chapter according to the rank occupied by the transgressor, let us take a general survey of the conditions enforced in a proper offering for sin.
I. THE DEATH OF AN APPOINTED VICTIM. The hand of the offerer is placed on the animal’s head, and the animal’s life is surrendered to the will of God. “Without shedding of blood is no remission.” This tragic spectacle attests forcibly the rigour of God’s requirements. Christ died as our representative, so that in him we all died (2Co 5:1-21), and those who rejoice in the thought of his salvation place their hands by faith upon him, believing that he was “made a curse” for them. Holiness demands an unblemished victim in each case. Hence the impossibility of man becoming his own atonement. Sin cannot expiate sin.
II. THE SPRINKLING OF THE BLOOD BY THE HIGH PRIEST UPON THE HORNS OF the ALTAR. “The blood is the life,” and is in this manner brought into the immediate presence of God, symbolized by the altar of burnt offering in the court or incense in the sanctuary. The horns represent the might of the altar, so that to smear them with blood was to carry the offering to the place where the acceptance by God of offerings or praise culminated. Sin dishonours God, and therefore the significance of the offering for sin depends chiefly upon its presentation where God was pleased to vouchsafe his favour to man. Where sin was most dishonouring, as in the event of transgression by the anointed priest, the blood had to be sprinkled before the vail that covered the Shechinah. By his death Christ entered into heaven, presenting his own precious blood to the Father, and now makes intercession as the appointed Mediator.
III. THE POURING OUT OF THE BLOOD AT THE FOOT OF THE ALTAR OF BURNT OFFERING. It is said that, at the building of the temple, conduits were constructed to drain the blood into the valley of Kedron; in the wilderness it sufficed to lot it flow into the earth. The life of the animal was thus completely surrendered to God. Jesus gave himself up to do the will of God. His self-sacrifice is the basis of ours. We must live, not to ourselves, but to him. He considered not his time, words, works, as his own, and we must regard ourselves as devoted to the Father.
IV. THE BURNING OF THE FAT. Thus God would be glorified by the choicest portions, analogous to the ceremony enacted in connection with peace offerings. This resemblance seems designed to teach:
1. That by this sin offering agreement was re-established between God and man.
2. And that God’s portion of the victim might be treated in the usual way, the transgression not being on God’s side, but on that of man, who therefore is not permitted, as in the peace offering, to eat his part in the enjoyment of a feast. There is thus:
3. A reminder that but for sin man too might have shared in the sacrificial meal with God, but transgression had interrupted the communion, and deprived him of his former privilege. By the obedience unto death of Jesus Christ, God was glorified, and Christ became the “propitiation for our sins.”
V. THE CONSUMPTION OF THE CARCASE BY FIRE OUTSIDE THE CAMP. No part of the animal was food for man, but the remainder was to be carried to a clean place, and there burnt. Every detail of the ceremony speaks of God’s hatred of sin, and the blessings which man thereby loses, and the need for entire devotion of the victim that is to atone for sin. Nothing must be left, lest it should defile. The Epistle to the Hebrews alludes to the fact that Christ suffered without the gates of the holy city; to such a death of shame was he exposed in order to bear our sins.
CONCLUSION. Beware of transgression! Behold the sternness of God in dealing with it. Admire his grace in furnishing an expiation, and with grateful love avail yourselves of the sacrifice of the Saviour.S.R.A.
HOMILIES BY W. CLARKSON
Lev 4:2
The mind of God respecting the sin of man.
“If a soul shall sin.” This chapter which treats of this sin offering, and more especially these words of the second verse, may remind us
I. THAT ALL MEN HAVE SINNED, AND ARE GUILTY BEFORE GOD. The stern facts of the case make the words, “If a soul shall sin,” equivalent to “When a soul sins.” The succeeding chapters provide for all possible cases, as if it were only too certain that men in every station and in every position would sin. So in John we have, “If any man sin,” accompanied by the plain utterance, “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves,” etc. (1Jn 1:8; 1Jn 2:1). It is a significant fact that, in providing for the people of God, the Divine Legislator had to contemplate the moral certainty that all, even those standing in his immediate presence and engaged in his worship, would fall into sin and condemnation. This significant provision is only too well confirmed by:
1. The record of Hebrew history.
2. Other statements of Scripture (Psa 14:2, Psa 14:3; Rom 3:10, Rom 3:23; Gal 3:22; 1Jn 1:10).
3. Our observation and knowledge of mankind.
4. Our own conscience: every soul does sin in thought, in word, in deed; doing those “things which ought not to be done” (verse 2), and leaving undone (not thought, not spoken, not fulfilled) those things God righteously requires. “The God in whose hand our breath is, and whose are all our ways, have we not glorified” (Dan 5:23).
III. THAT SIN WAS DIVIDED INTO THE PARDONABLE AND UNPARDONABLE. The words, “If a soul shall sin,” are preparatory to the announcement of Divine provision for pardon. But there is a line drawn between sin and sin. Reference is frequently made to sinning “through ignorance” (verses 2, 13, 22, 27). This is distinguished from “presumptuous sin” (Num 15:30, Num 15:31; Deu 17:12). For the one there was pardon; for the other, instant execution. The word “ignorance” was not confined to mere inadvertence; it extended to sins of unpremeditated folly and passion; probably to all sins but deliberate, high-handed rebellion against God and his Law (Lev 16:21; comp. Act 3:17; 1Ti 1:13). Pardon was provided, but there was a limit to the Divine mercy; there was iniquity for which no sacrifice availed (1Sa 3:14). Under the gospel there is one “unpardonable sin,” the sin “against the Holy Ghost” (Mat 12:31, Mat 12:32). In the time of our Lord, this sin took the special form of blasphemy against the Spirit of God. In our time it resolves itself into a persistent and obdurate resistance of his Divine influence. This necessarily ends in final impenitence and ultimate condemnation. This one sin excepted, the mercy of God in Christ Jesus extends
(1) to the blackest crimes;
(2) to the longest career in wrong-doing;
(3) to the guiltiest disregard of privilege and opportunity.
III. THAT GOD HAS PROVIDED FOR THE PARDON OF SIN BY SACRIFICE. It is a striking fact that the same word in Hebrew which signifies sin is also used for “sin offering.” So closely, so intimately in the will of God, and hence in the mind of man, were the two things connectedsin and sacrifice. All unpresumptuous sins might be forgiven, but not without shedding of blood. Sin, in God’s thought, means death, and the sinner must be made to feel that, as such, he is worthy of death. Hence he must bring the animal from his herd or flock, and it must be slain, the guilt of the offerer having been solemnly confessed over, and (by imputation) formally conveyed to the victim’s head. The life of the one for the life of the other. Doubtless it sufficed for the time and for the purpose, but it was not the redemption which a guilty race needed, and which a God of boundless peace was intending and was thus preparing to supply. The sin offering was prophetic, symbolical. The blood of bulls could not take away the sin of the world; only the slain Lamb of God would avail for that (Heb 10:4; Joh 1:29). But “the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin;” “If any man sin, he is the propitiation for our sins for the sins of the whole world” (1Jn 1:7; 1Jn 2:1, 1Jn 2:2). “He hath made him to be sin (a sin offering) for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made,” etc. (2Co 5:21). We learn from the foregoing:
1. The one great and deep want of the world. We have bodies that need to be clothed, fed, etc; but this is nothing to the fact that we are souls that have sinned, needing to be forgiven and accepted of God.
2. The inestimable advantages we now enjoy. If the Jew had great advantages over the Gentile, we are far more privileged than he. There has been offered for us “one sacrifice for sins for ever” (Heb 10:12), available for all souls, under the heaviest condemnation, for all time.
3. Our proportionate guilt if we are negligent (Heb 10:29).C.
Lev 4:3, Lev 4:13, Lev 4:22, Lev 4:27
Gradations in guilt.
In Israel, as we have seen, sin was divided into the pardonable and the unpardonableinto “sins through ignorance” and sins of presumption. But this was not the only distinction. Of those which might be forgiven there were some more serious than others, demanding variety in expiation. Special regulations were given as to the sin of the “priest that is anointed” (Lev 4:3), the “whole congregation of Israel” (Lev 4:13), the ruler (Lev 4:22), etc. These distinctions teach us
I. THAT SPECIAL PRIVILEGE CARRIES WITH IT PECULIAR RESPONSIBILITY. The high priest, if he sinned, was to bring a bullock without blemish (Lev 4:3), and every detail of the sin offering was to be carefully observed in his case (Lev 4:4, Lev 4:5, etc.). His transgression was accounted one of greater guilt, needing a more considerable sacrifice. His nearer access to God, his larger share of sacred privilege, made his accountability and his guilt the greater. The children of privilege are the heirs of responsibility; the more we have from God, the closer we are admitted to his presence, the clearer vision we have of his truth and will,the more he expects from us, and the more heinous will be our guilt in his sight if we depart from his ways.
II. THAT THE PROFESSION OF PIETY CARRIES WITH IT INCREASE OF OBLIGATION. The high priest’s enlarged accountability was partly due to the fact that, as high priest, he professed to stand in very close relation to God; he was, in public estimation, the first minister of Jehovah; he was regarded as the holiest man in the whole congregation. Special obligation, therefore, rested on him, and any slight irregularity on his part was most serious. Profession of godliness is a good and desirable thing.
1. It is the right thing: it places us in the position in which we ought to stand; it is being true to ourselves.
2. It is the will of Christ as revealed in his Word (Mat 10:32).
3. It adds to our influence on behalf of righteousness and wisdom.
4. It is an additional security against the power of temptation. But it enhances responsibility; it increases obligation. For if, professing to love and honour Christ, we do that which he has expressly forbidden, we bring his sacred cause into contempt, and “make the enemy to blaspheme.” Rise to the full height of duty, influence, privilege, but remember that on that height are some special dangers, and that a fall therefrom is to be dreaded with holy fear, to be shunned with devoutest vigilance.
III. THAT INFLUENCE CONFERS ADDED RESPONSIBILITY ON THOSE WHO WIELD IT. Special provision is made for the sin of the ruler, “When a ruler hath sinned,” etc. (Lev 4:22, Lev 4:23, etc.). A ruler enjoys a position of prominence and power; his influence is felt afar. What he does will decide, to some considerable extent, what others will do. He has the peculiar joy of power; let him remember that power and responsibility are inseparably united. Let all those who hold positions of influence, all whose judgment and behaviour are importantly affecting the convictions and character of their fellows, realize that if they sin, and thus encourage others in error and transgression, they are specially guilty in the sight of God.
IV. THAT COMMUNITIES OF MEN, AS SUCH, MAY FALL INTO SERIOUS CONDEMNATION. “The whole congregation of Israel” might “sin through ignorance;” it might be led, unwittingly, into practices that were forbidden. In that case, though men have great confidence when they err in large companies, it would be guilty before God; and though it might be inadvertently betrayed into folly, it would be condemned of him, and must bring its oblation to his altar (see Homily on “Collective,” etc; infra).
V. THAT NO MEASURE OR OBSCURITY WILL CLOAK SIN FROM THE SIGHT OF GOD. “If any one of the common people sin through ignorance,” etc. (Lev 4:27, etc.), he must bring his kid (Lev 4:28) or his lamb (Lev 4:32), and the atoning blood must be shod. We shall not escape in the throng. In the hundreds of millions of fellow-travelers along the path of life, God singles each of us out, and marks our course, and searches our soul. He esteems every human child, however disregarded of men, to be worthy of his watchful glance; is displeased with each sinful deed or word, but is ready to forgive when the penitent seeks mercy in the appointed way (Lev 4:31, Lev 4:35).C.
Lev 4:13, Lev 4:14
Collective guilt unconsciously incurred.
We learn from the special provision made for the “sin in ignorance” of “the whole congregation of Israel “
I. THAT, THOUGH GOD DEALS PRIMARILY WITH INDIVIDUAL SOULS, HE HAS DIRECT RELATIONS WITH COMMUNITIES. Ordinarily, constantly, God comes to the individual soul, and says, “Thou shalt” or “Thou shalt not;” “My Son,” do this and live, etc. But he has his Divine dealings with societies, with secular and sacred communities also; with
(1) nations,
(2) Churches,
(3) families.
II. THAT COMMUNITIES, AS SUCH, MAY INCUR HIS CONDEMNATION. A “whole congregation,” an entire people, may sin (Lev 4:13).
1. The nation: witness the Jewish people, again and again denounced and punished.
2. The Church: witness the Churches of Galatia (Epistle to Galatians), the Churches of Asia Minor (Rev 2:3).
3. The family.
III. THAT THIS GUILT MAY BE CONTRACTED UNCONSCIOUSLY. “The thing be hid from the eyes of the assembly” (Lev 4:13).
1. The Jewish nation, “through ignorance, killed the Prince of Life” (Act 3:15, Act 3:17). Under some of the better and worthier emperors as well as under the viler, Rome martyred the Christians, thinking them injurious to that human race which they were regenerating.
2. The Church of Christ has unconsciously fallen, at different times and places into
(1) error,
(2) laxity of conduct,
(3) un-spirituality in worship and life,
(4) inactivity.
3. Families fall into
(1) undevoutness of habit;
(2) unneighbourliness and inconsiderateness;
(3) ungraciousness of tone, and unkindness of behaviour in the home circle.
IV. THAT RECOGNITION OF WRONG MUST BE IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWED BY PENITENCE AND FAITH. When “the sin was known,” the congregation was to “offer a young bullock,” etc. (Lev 4:14). Let every nation, Church, society, family:
1. Remember that it is fallible, and may fall unconsciously into sin.
2. Readily, and with open mind, receive expostulation and warning from others.
3. Upon conviction of wrong, resort in penitence and faith to the all-sufficient Sacrifice of which the sin offering was the type.C.
Lev 4:11, Lev 4:12
Full acceptance with God.
The carrying away of all the offered animal (save that part which had been presented to God in sacrifice) and the burning of it in “a clean place” (Lev 4:12), was probably meant to represent the full and perfect acceptance of the offerer by the Holy One of Israel. When the victim had been slain and its blood outpoured on the altar and its richest part accepted in sacrifice, there might seem to have been sufficient indication of Divine mercy. But one sign more was added: the animal which represented the worshipper having shed its blood, and that shed blood having been received as an expiation, it became holy; when, therefore, its flesh was not eaten by the priest (Lev 6:26) in token of its sanctity, every part of the animal was solemnly and reverently consumed, in “a clean place” Nothing, pertaining to that which had become holy through the shed blood should be treated as an unholy thing. Looked at in this light, we gain the valuable thought that when sin has been forgiven through faith in the shed blood of the Redeemer, the sinner is regarded as holy in the sight of God. As everything was thus done by pictorial representation to express the thought of the fullness of Divine forgiveness, so everything was stated in explicit language through the psalmists and prophets to the same effect (Exo 34:6, Exo 34:7; Psa 86:5, Psa 86:15; Psa 103:8; Psa 145:8; Isa 1:18; Isa 55:7). So, also, our Lord, in the “prince of parables,” included everything that could be introducedthe robe, the ring, the shoes, the fatted calfto present in the strongest colouring the precious truth that God does not grudgingly or imperfectly forgive, but that he “abundantly pardons.” The subject demands our consideration of two things
I. THE FULNESS OF GOD‘S ACCEPTANCE. God’s mercy in Christ Jesus embraces:
1. The entire forgiveness of all past sins, so that all our numerous transgressions of his Law, both the more heinous and the less guilty, are “blotted out” of his “book of remembrance,” and no more regarded by him; and so that all our more numerous shortcomings, our failure to be and to do that which the heavenly Father looked for from his children, are entirely forgiven.
2. The overlooking of our present unworthiness; so that the scantiness of our knowledge, the imperfection of our penitence, the feebleness of our faith, the poverty of our resolutions, and our general unworthiness do not stand in the way of his “benign regard.”
3. The bestowment of his Divine complacency; so that he not only “receives us graciously,” but “loves us freely” (Hos 14:2, Hos 14:4). He feels toward us the love and the delight which a father feels toward the children of his heart and his home. But to gain this inestimable blessing, let us be sure that we have fulfilled
II. THE CONDITIONS ON WHICH IT IS BESTOWED. These are twofold. Paul has expressed them thus:
(1) repentance toward God; and
(2) faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ (Act 20:21).
He who inspired Paul has taught us the same truth in his own words (Luk 24:47; Act 26:18). There must be the turning of the heart, in shame and sorrow, from sin unto God, and the cordial acceptance of the Lord Jesus Christ as the Divine Teacher, the all-sufficient Saviour, the rightful Lord of heart and life, which he claims to be.C.
Lev 4:3, Lev 4:13, Lev 4:22, Lev 4:27
Access for all: comparison and contrast.
In the statutes of the Law given in this chapter we are reminded, by comparison and by contrast, of two of the main features of the gospel of Christ. We are reminded by comparison of
I. THE ACCESS THAT WAS PERMITTED TO EVERY ISRAELITE, AND IS NOW GRANTED TO US. No single individual in the whole congregation of Israel could feel that he was forbidden to go with his offering “before the Lord,” to seek forgiveness of his sin. The priest could not think his office stood in his way (Lev 4:3); nor the ruler his function (Lev 4:22); nor could any humble son of Abraham suppose himself too obscure to find attention at the door of the tabernacle (Lev 4:27). Special and explicit legislation provided for each case, and there could not have been one Hebrew family which did not know that the tabernacle of the Lord was open to all, and that on the altar of sacrifice every offender might have his offering presented and come “down to his house justified.” Thus broad, and indeed broader still, is the permission to approach which is granted in the gospel. For not only is the Christian sanctuary open to prince and people, to minister and member, to every class and rank, but in Christ Jesus there is neither circumcision nor uncircumcision, neither Greek nor Jew, neither male nor female; every distinction of every kind has disappeared, and is utterly unknown. We are reminded by contrast of
II. THAT ACCESS WHICH WAS DENIED TO THEM, BUT WHICH IS OFFERED TO US. The ordinary Jew, one of the “common people,” could go no further than the “door of the tabernacle:” there his entrance was barred. At that point he had to leave everything to the officiating priest; it was not permitted to him to enter the holy place, to sprinkle the blood upon the altar, to present any part of the victim in sacrifice;another must do that in his stead. But in Christ Jesus we have:
1. Access to God our Father in every place (Eph 2:18; Eph 3:12; Heb 13:15).
2. Right to plead, ourselves, the one Great Propitiation for sin.
3. Right to present ourselves and our gifts on his altar to God and his service (Rom 12:1; Heb 13:16).
4. Access to the table of the Lord (1Co 11:28). Let us try to realize
(1) the height of our Christian privilege, and
(2) the corresponding weight of the responsibility we bear.
From us to whom such full and close access is given will much fruit be required to the glory of his Name, in the growth of our own souls and the salvation of others.C.
HOMILIES BY J.A. MACDONALD
Lev 4:1-3
The sin offering for the priest.
The revelations contained in the preceding chapters, and commencing with the words, “And the Lord called unto Moses,” etc; appear to have been given at one diet, and now we are introduced to a new series by similar words, “And the Lord spake unto Moses,” etc. The offerings described in the earlier series, viz. the burnt offering, the meat offering, and the peace offering, were similar to those offered by the patriarchs; but these now to be described seem to be characteristic of the Levitical dispensation. In the verses more immediately before us we have to contemplate
I. THE PRIEST AS A SINNER.
1. May he be viewed in this character as a type of Christ?
(1) He is distinguished as “the priest that is anointed.” Some suppose this determines him to be the high priest. That the high priest was a remarkable type of Christ there can be no question (Heb 3:1).
(2) But Christ wan sinless. By the miracle in his birth he avoided original sin (Luk 1:35). In his life he “fulfilled all righteousness” (Mat 3:15; Heb 4:15; Heb 7:26).
(3) Yet so was our sin laid to his account that he vicariously stood forth as the universal sinner. “The Lord made to meet upon him the iniquity of us all”.
2. He may be viewed as a type of the Christian
(1) He was not necessarily the high priest because “anointed” Aaron’s sons were consecrated with Aaron (Lev 8:2). This expression may, therefore, simply import that he was a priest who had come to official years, and therefore had received consecration (see Le Lev 7:6, where minors and females are reputed to be “among the priests”).
(2) The priests in general were representatives of the nation of Israel, who were, in consequence, viewed as a “kingdom of priests “(Exo 19:6).
(3) And they typified the Christians (1Pe 2:9). We do not exercise our priesthood by proxy, but ourselves “draw nigh unto God.” This supplies a good reason for their being “anointed,” for “Christians,” as their name imports, are anointed ones (see 2Co 1:21; Heb 1:9; 1Jn 2:20, 1Jn 2:27).
II. THE PRIEST AS NEEDING A SIN OFFERING.
1. His sin is that of ignorance.
(1) The case of Eli could not be brought within this statute (see 1Sa 3:14). For obstinate sin there is no mercy (see Num 15:30, Num 15:31; Heb 10:26-29). True Christians do not willfully sin (see Mat 13:38; Joh 8:44; 1Jn 3:6-10). Not all who profess the Christian name have a right to the title.
(2) There are sins that are not willful: sins of surprise; sins of inattention; sins of neglect in consequence (Gal 6:1; Jas 5:19, Jas 5:20). But these are sins.
(3) The sin offering is the only remedy for these. Though ignorance may be pleaded in extenuation, it cannot be pleaded in exculpation (see 1Jn 1:7-9).
2. The priest must bring a bullock.
(1) The common people may bring a kid (Lev 4:28). Even a ruler may bring a kid (Lev 4:23). But the priest must bring the larger animal. He has to bring the same which is offered for the whole congregation.
(2) Much is expected of professors of religion; and more especially so of office-bearers and ministers. They should have more perfect knowledge in that which is the principal business of their life. They may, from their position, more easily misguide the people. The words in the text rendered “If the priest that is anointed do sin according to the sin of the people,” some construe “If the anointed priest shall lead the people to sin.” It is a fearful thing to be a “blind leader of the blind” (see Rom 2:21).
(3) Conspicuous men should consider this. Churchwardens in Episcopal Churches; deacons in Congregationalist Churches; leaders in Methodist Churches; ministers in all; they should watch; they should pray; they should seek the prayers of their Churches (Eph 6:19; Col 4:3; 1Th 5:25; 2Th 3:1).J.A.M.
Lev 4:1-12
The sin offering viewed as typical of the Sacrifice of Calvary.
This subject wilt be best considered by citing sonic of the more notable references to it contained in the Scriptures of the New Testament.
I. IT IS ENVINCED FROM Rom 8:3 : “For what the Law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin,” i.e; by a sin offering (the Greek term here used is that by which the LXX. commonly translate the Hebrew for “sin offering”),” condemned sin in the flesh,” etc. The “flesh” that was “weak” here, we take to be:
1. Not our fallen nature.
(1) The word “flesh” is used for this. It is so used in the connection of this very passage (Rom 8:4-8; see also Gal 5:16, Gal 5:17). This circumstance has led expositors to accept the term here in that sense.
(2) But as a matter of fact, is the Law of God weak through our fallen nature? Certainly not. The Law answers all God ever intended it to answer. His purposes cannot be frustrated.
2. But the flesh of the sin offerings.
(1) These were constitutionally weak for the purpose of condemning sin. The flesh of bulls and goats is not “sinful flesh.” Therefore sin could not be condemned in it.
(2) This weakness was no frustration of God’s purposes, for he never intended that sin should be condemned in such flesh as theirs (Psa 69:30, Psa 69:31; Psa 51:16; Heb 10:4). He intended these to foreshadow something better, viz.:
3. The Sin Offering of Calvary.
(1) This was made in a human body. Being in the “likeness of sinful flesh;” there was no constitutional weakness here (Heb 10:5-10).
(2) The glorious Person who assumed the “likeness of sinful flesh” was God’s “own Son.” Thus by virtue of his Divinity not only has he condemned sin in the flesh, but he enables us to fulfill the righteousness of the Law in the spirit of the gospel.
II. IT IS EVINCED IN 2Co 5:21 : “He was made sin,” i.e; a sin offering, “for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.”
1. His righteousness is the righteousness of God.
(1) Because he is God himself. The Father was in him. Whoever failed to discern the Father in him did not comprehend him, did not know him (Joh 14:7-11).
(2) He was approved of God (Mat 3:17; Mat 17:5). His resurrection placed this beyond question (Act 2:22-24).
2. This we receive, by imputation, in exchange for our sin.
(1) The transfer of the sin was set forth in the laying on of the hand of the offerer upon the bullock at the altar, while it was yet alive. The Jews give us these as the words uttered by the offerer, “I have sinned; I have done perversely; I have rebelled, and done (here specifying mentally or audibly the cause of his offering). But I return by repentance before thee, and let this be my expiation.”
(2) The substitute is then condemned while the offerer is justified. Not only is he released from the obligation to die, but is taken into fellowship with God, and feasts with him upon the meat and drink offerings accompanying (Num 15:24).
III. IT IS EVINCED IS Heb 9:28 : “Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin,” i.e; without a sin offering, “unto salvation.” The allusions here are to the sin offering of the Law. The teaching is that, whereas at his first advent he appeared in the similitude of sinful flesh for the purposes foreshadowed in the sin offering, when he comes the second time it will be in the glorious similitude of humanity, in innocence and holiness, to effect in us all the glories destined to follow upon his former meritorious sufferings (1Pe 1:11).
IV. IT IS EVINCED IN Heb 13:10-13 : “We have an altar, whereof they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle. For the bodies of those beasts, whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high priest for sin, are burned without the camp. Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate. Let us go forth, therefore, unto him without the camp, bearing his reproach.”
1. This passage, like those already cited, asserts generally the fact that the sin offering was a type of the sacrifice of Christ.
2. But it also points out the typical import of the burning of the body in the place of ashes without the camp. What is this place of ashes but Calvary, Golgotha, the place of a skull, which was outside the gate of Jerusalem?
3. It furthermore proves that the consumption of the body of the beasts in the fire, viz. after they had been bled at the side of the altar, foreshadowed the” suffering” of Christ. “He suffered without the camp.” This suffering then being distinguished from that represented by the bleeding, it must refer to that agony of soul which Jesus suffered from the fire of God’s wrath against sin.
4. Since the altar which supplies our Eucharistic feast is that of Calvary; and since the priests under the Law did not eat of the bodies of those beasts which were burnt without the camp, which were types of Christ, those who serve the tabernacle have no right to eat of our altar. Therefore those who embrace Christ and rejoice in his fellowship must, in the first place, renounce the ceremonial law of Moses (Gal 2:19-21; Gal 3:1-3).J.A.M.
Lev 4:13-21
Sin offering for the congregation.
The congregation of Israel sustained a twofold character, viz. a political and an ecclesiastical; for it was at once a Nation and a Church. Here we have
I. THE SIN OF A NATION. Lev 4:13.
1. The commandments of the Lord concern nations.
(1) Nations are constituted under the control of his providence. We see this in the account of their origin at Babel (Gen 11:6-8). In the teaching of prophecy (Gen 9:25-27; Gen 17:4, Gen 17:6, Gen 17:16). In the inspired review of their history (Act 17:26).
(2) God has ever held nations responsible to him (Job 12:18; Jer 27:6; Dan 2:21; Dan 4:32).
(3) The Hebrew nation more especially so. He raised them up in pursuance of his promise to their fathers. He preserved them in Egypt. He brought them forth with an outstretched arm. He gave them a code of laws at Sinai. He gave them possession of the land of Canaan. In visible symbol he guided their government. (Psa 147:19, Psa 147:20; Rom 9:4, Rom 9:5).
2. Therefore nations may sin against him.
(1) Where a law is there may be transgression (1Jn 3:4). God has not left himself without witness (Act 14:17).
(2) The Gentile nations sinned in throwing off their allegiance to the true God and joining themselves to idols. They have in consequence sunk into the most abominable immoralities (Rom 1:21-32).
(3) The Hebrews followed the bad example of their neighbours.
(a) In asking a king to be like them (1Sa 8:7, 1Sa 8:8).
(b) In their idolatries (1Ki 12:26-30; 2Ki 21:11).
They became demoralized by licentiousness and violence (Isa 1:4).
II. THE SIN OF A CHURCH.
1. The commandments of the Lord concern Churches.
(1) The Church of God in the noblest sense is a grand unity existing throughout the universe and throughout the ages. This is the corporation against which the gates of hell cannot prevail (Mat 16:18).
(2) This invisible Church has visible representatives on this earth. The congregation of Israel was such a representative (Act 7:38; collate Psa 22:22 with Heb 2:12). Now under the gospel these representatives are many. There is a Church where two or three are met together in the name of Jesus.
2. These Churches are responsible to God.
(1) They have to maintain the purity of faith (Tit 3:10; 2Jn 1:10; Jud 2Jn 1:3; Rev 2:13).
(2) They have to maintain purity of discipline, viz. by persuasion, by admonition, and by expulsion of incorrigible offenders. Excision in the Jewish Church was accompanied by the infliction of death; for the laws of the nation and those of the Church were one (Exo 31:14; Num 15:34, Num 15:35). Now it means withdrawment from the companionship of the offender (Mat 18:17; Rom 16:17; 1Co 5:1-13; 2Th 3:6, 2Th 3:14; 2Ti 3:5).
III. THE OFFERING FOR SIN.
1. Communities are punished in this world.
(1) This is evident from the nature of the case. There is no future resurrection of communities. Disintegration to a community is its utter extinction.
(2) Nations meet their punishment in adversities which are ordered by Providence. These are the sword (1Sa 12:9-15); the pestilence (Deu 28:21); the consequence is famine, and wasting, possibly, unto extinction. God stirs up one nation against another to punish its pride (Isa 41:2, Isa 41:25; Isa 45:1-4; Isa 46:10; Jer 1:1-19 :21-32).
(3) Churches have their punishment in this world. It may come in the form of spiritual leanness. In abandonment to apostasy (Isa 66:3, Isa 66:4; 2Th 2:11). The candlestick may be taken out of its place (Mat 21:41-43; Rev 2:5).
2. Punishment may be averted by sacrifice.
(1) Sacrifices of the Law were concerned with communities. The text furnishes an example. The community may be civil. It may be ecclesiastical. When sacrifice is accepted, no punishment is inflicted. This is the import of the assurance, “It shall be forgiven them.”
(2) The sacrifice of Calvary is no less concerned with communities. Churches feel it as well as individuals. Nations feel it as well as Churches. Churches and nations also should plead it far more than they do.
3. There is no mercy for willful sin.
(1) To avail ourselves of the benefits of atonement, there must be repentance. This was expressed when the elders of the congregation, on behalf of their constituents, laid their hands upon the bullock (see Lev 4:15). The gospel of this is obvious.
(2) There must also be faith. The faith expressed in the laying on of hands was carried further in the sprinkling of blood (see Lev 4:16, Lev 4:18). The vail was a type of Christ, who is our “Way” to God, the “Door” to us into the temple of the Divine Presence (Heb 10:19, Heb 10:20). The blood sprinkled upon the vail set forth the laying of our sin upon him who thereby consecrates for us the way. He also is our altar of incense upon whom the blood of our guilt is laid, and by whose intercession we are rendered acceptable to God (1Pe 2:5).
(3) Judgment is reserved for the obstinate. When a Church becomes apostate and will not repent, it must be destroyed. Such was the case with Judaism, which was removed amidst the slaughter of the destruction of Jerusalem. Such will be the doom of the Babylonish harlot (Rev 18:4-8). And what hope is there for nations when they become infidel? If sins of ignorance cannot be forgiven without a sin offering, what must be the fate of communities guilty of presumptuous sins!J.A.M.
Lev 4:22-35
The sin offering of the rider and of any of the people.
As in the preceding paragraph we have lessons from the relation of sin offering to communities, here we are reminded
I. THAT INDIVIDUALS ARE RESPONSIBLE TO GOD. We have:
1. The responsibility of the ruler.
(1) Rulers stand related to subjects. Their influence is extensive in proportion to the elevation of their rank. The Jews construe this law to relate to the king; but the term for ruler (, nasi) is not so restricted in Scripture (see Num 10:4). This law was in force 400 years before there existed a king in Israel.
(2) As rulers of subjects they stand related to God (Pro 8:15, Pro 8:16; 2Sa 23:3). Note: here only, the commandment transgressed is said to be the “commandment of the Lord his God” (Lev 4:22). This is to remind him that if he rules others, God rules him, and will call him to account for the manner in which he uses his authority.
(3) The individual is not sunk in the office. Men are too apt to forget this, particularly so when they sit in conclave. So far from neutralizing, it makes individuality more conspicuous, and should render it more intense.
2. The responsibility of the private person.
(1) Subjects stand related to rulers. They have relative as well as personal duties. They have public as well as private interests and obligations.
(2) They stand as subjects to rulers in relation to God. This is recognized in his laws. They are to respect and sustain authority in righteousness (1Ti 6:1). To pray for those in authority (1Ti 2:1, 1Ti 2:2).
(3) The individual is not sunk in the subject. None are too obscure to be noticed by God; too insignificant to escape his inquisition.
II. THAT SIN OFFERING IS PROVIDED FOR INDIVIDUALS.
1. It is appointed for the ruler (Lev 4:22-26).
(1) He has to bring a “kid of the goats,” not a bullock, which was required from the priest and from the congregation. The blood of the kid was to be sprinkled simply upon the horns of the altar of burnt offering, whereas the blood of the bullock was also sprinkled upon the altar of incense and the vail. A further difference was that whereas the bodies of the beasts offered for the priest and for the congregation were burnt without the camp, the kid of the ruler was treated as the peace offering.
(2) These differences show that the sin of the ruler, though so heinous as not to be forgiven without sacrifice, was yet not so heinous as that of the priest. More is expected from men of religious profession. Nor was the sin of the ruler regarded as so heinous as that of the congregation. “It is bad when great men give ill examples, but worse when all men follow them” (Matthew Henry).
2. It is appointed for the common person (Lev 4:27-35).
(1) Whereas the offering of the ruler is defined to be “a kid of the goats,” that of the private individual may be either a kid or a lamb. As he has more liberty in his sacrifice, so has he in his conduct. Freedom is limited in the ratio of elevation. The humble should not be envious of the great.
(2) The offering of the private person was to be a female, which was proper to one having no authority; whereas, and for the opposite reason, the ruler had to bring a male.
(3) These differences go to show that the sin of a ruler is more serious than that of a common person. If his privileges are greater, so are his responsibilities. If his position is elevated, his influence, for good or evil, is proportionately great.
III. THAT SIN OFFERING IS DISCRIMINATIVE.
1. As to the nature of the sin.
(1) It is for sin against God. It seems to have nothing to do immediately with sins against our fellows or against society. These, of course, may be constructively viewed as offenses also against God. If this were more considered, men would be more respectful to their fellows, who are “made after the image of God” (see Jas 3:9).
(2) It is for sin against his negative commandments. This is the teaching of Lev 4:2, Lev 4:15, Lev 4:22, Lev 4:27.
(3) It is for sin ignorantly committed against them (see Joh 16:2, Joh 16:3; Act 3:17; 1Co 2:8). Ignorance is no plea for mercy without sacrifice. It is a plea for mercy with a sacrifice (see Luk 23:34; 1Ti 1:13).
2. As to the time of the offering.
(1) “And is guilty,” viz. before the punishment of his sin has come upon him. If he discover his sin in time and bring his sin offering, it may avert that punishment. Men should never try to hide their sins from their own souls. On the contrary, they should diligently seek to discover them. We should plead the sin sacrifice for those we have not discovered (see Psa 19:12; Psa 139:23, Psa 139:24; 1Jn 1:7).
(2) “Or if his sin, wherein he hath sinned, come to his knowledge,” viz. by the punishment of it overtaking him (see 2 Samuel 31:1). When calamity comes we must not too readily relegate it to the category of mere physical sequence, but confess the hand of God. Timely sacrifice may stay a plague (see 2Sa 24:25).
3. For obstinate infidelity there is no mercy.
(1) This is what Paul, alluding to the sin offering, calls willful sin (Heb 10:26). His argument goes to show that the Great Sacrifice of Calvary is the anti-type of that offering.
(2) The Law had no provision of mercy for presumptuous sins, whether the precept outraged were negative or positive (see Num 15:27-31). An awful instance of the severity of the Law is described in Num 15:32-36. This instance is referred to by Paul, who goes on to state that the gospel has its corresponding law of extremity, but with a “much sorer punishment” (Heb 10:28, Heb 10:29). If the extreme penalty of the Mosaic Law was the infliction of death upon the body, what punishment can be “much sorer” but the “destruction of both body and soul in hell” (Mat 10:28)?J.A.M.
HOMILIES BY R.A. REDFORD
Lev 4:1, Lev 4:2
The sin offering.
The main points in this offering were these:
I. The Law of God is made the standard of righteousness.
II. Sin is offense against the Law.
III. Offenses of ignorance or error involve guilt; that is, require that the Law shall be honoured in view of them.
IV. There is forgiveness with God for all sin.
V. Those who are in the most responsible position are the most called to offer sacrifice for their sin.
VI. The forgiveness of sin is only through expiation, in recognition of an atonement. These points embrace much of the teaching of the Mosaic economy. Consider
I. THE LAW OF GOD THE STANDARD OF RIGHTEOUSNESS. The sin which has to be expiated is “sin against any of the commandments of the Lord.” While distinction was plainly made from the first between the fundamental moral law, as in the ten commandments, and the ceremonial lawstill all that was “commanded of the Lord” was law to Israelwas to be strictly observed, involved the covenant relation between God and man, to violate which was to be estranged from the peace of God. The ceremonial law, taken in connection with the Decalogue and the whole of the Mosaic appointments, set forth this great truth, that the existence of man in all its extent was subject to the will of God, and that that will as declared was law, which must be obeyed at peril of Divine displeasure. So there is still the same subjection of man to law, which is:
1. The law of the heart or of the inward man.
2. The taw of ethics, of man’s relations to his fellow-man.
3. The law of the religious life, of man’s worship of God.
The standard of righteousness must be applied in each of these spheres of Law, which our Lord shows by his Sermon on the Mount, when he proclaims the wilt of God to be holiness in all these respectspoverty and purity of heart, love to neighbours, sincerity and devotion in the worship of God. Against the Law any offense is sin. Therefore, as the gospel was a new proclamation of the Law, so was it a new revelation of sin; for Christ, by the Spirit, came to “convince the world of sin,” by revealing the law of righteousness.
II. SIN IS OFFENSE AGAINST THE LAW. The fundamental conception of the Mosaic economy was the fellowship of God and manthe true blessedness of human existence. The Law was a setting out of the boundaries of that ground of fellowship where alone God and man could meet together. Whether it was civil law, or moral law, or ceremonial law, the same twofold reference was in each to the will of God as Creator, King, Redeemer, to the trustful subjection of man to Divine authority. An offense against Law in this wide sense of the word. must include not only a deliberate setting up of the will of the creature against the Creator as in immorality or intentional disobedience of any kind, but anything in the conduct which hinders the fulfillment of the Divine purposes, anything which opposes the Law as an active principle. We recognize the same universality of sanction to law in that inevitableness which we attach to the laws of nature, whether physical or social. They work out their results both in the individual and in society, apart from all respect of persons. The good man violating a law of nature must suffer the consequences. Not because he is punished by the God of providence, but because he has put himself in the way of the great chariot of the world’s onward progress, and has become so far an offense and a stumbling-block, which must be treated as such. It was a grand advance in revelation that all human life was regarded as based upon law, and all law was declared to be God’s Law. Therefore, all rightness, all happiness, both positive and negative, must be from God, the fruit of a living fellowship between the creature and the Creator.
III. EXTENSION OF GUILT TO OFFENSES OF IGNORANCE AND ERROR. The word rendered ignorance signifies wandering from the way. Therefore the idea of the offense is not that of absolute ignorance of the Law itself, which would exclude the idea of guilt altogether, but rather that of inadvertence, through carelessness, through human infirmity of any kind, or through the connexion of our own life with the life of others. “There are many things which man’s conscience would pass over, many things which might escape man’s cognizance, many things which his heart might deem all right, which God could not tolerate; and which, as a consequence, would interfere with man’s approach to, his worship of, and his relationship with God” (Macintosh). Hence the need of a Divine atonementfor as David prays we must all pray, “Cleanse thou me from secret faults” (Psa 19:12). Now, the sin offering pointed to the fact that such secret faults, unintentional violations of the Law, involved guilt, inasmuch as they were occasions demanding that the Law should be vindicated and honoured as truly as the greatest offenses. This has been universally recognized in the law of nations as a natural principle of justice, The overt act is alone before the eye of the law, not the secret intention except as it changes the character of the overt act. The offense of manslaughter embraces a large number of cases where ignorance and error might be pleaded, but are not sufficient to remove the liability of the offender. Guilt is not merely conscious or subjective liability to punishment, but objective liability as well. Thus is the conscience of man enlightened and its power enlarged by the revelation of God. As Adam knew his sin much more clearly when God had called him into colloquy, so the Law of Moses was an appeal to the conscience, a quickening of it, a setting up of the Divine mirror before man, that he might know himself. See this whole doctrine of guilt treated by St. Paul in Rom 7:1-25, “Sin by the commandment became exceeding sinful.” “I was alive without the Law once, but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.”
IV. THE OFFERING FOR SIN IS THE PLEDGE OF DIVINE FORGIVENESS. The sin of ignorance represented God’s view of sin as contrasted with man’s view. Therefore, as it was an atoning offering, it proclaimed both the righteousness of God as condemning all sin, and the covenant mercy of God as forgiving all sin. Man would naturally take account only of known sins, but the true peace is that which proceeds from the assurance of entire and infinite atonement. How different is such a revelation of mercy from any of the heathen satisfactions which were mere attempts to appease the Divine wrath as a recognized danger! But dangers are not only seen, but unseen. In the case of natural laws, how often we find that we have broken them when we knew not! The true safety is that which we know is not only partial and probable, but absolutely secured against all possible contingencies. God’s thoughts are not as our thoughts. He invites us to hide under the shadow of his wings.
V. RESPONSIBILITY IN PROPORTION TO PRIVILEGE. The priest represented the people. The congregation was the nation in its collective capacity, therefore it represented not only the individuals as sinners, but the special relation of the community to Jehovah as the body to the head. The official position of the high priest was one of peculiar dignity and solemnity, therefore the sin of the individual in his case was more than his own sinit was the violation of that larger relation in which the people as a whole stood to their God. All superior knowledge, all elevation of office and vocation, all representation, carries with it special responsibility. Those who are ministers of God must feel their sins as heavier burdens, requiring to be put away by special acknowledgment, by extraordinary effort. There are sins which none but the high priest and the congregation could commit. So there are sins of official life and sins of Church life, which we are apt to overlook because they are less upon the individual conscience than our own personal sins; but God shows us by the regulations of his Law, that we must hate them and avoid them and seek their forgiveness, even as though they were deliberate and individual offenses. How often men have done, in the name of their religious system or in their official capacity, what, if it had been ascribed to themselves in their private life, they would have immediately condemned! The purity of Church officers and of Church life in general has much to do with the growth of Christianity. The history of ecclesiastical errors is a very sad one. It was the absolute purity of Christ which so severely condemned the religious leaders of his time. They suffered their consciences to be blinded by the corruption of the system under which they lived. They did evil, thinking often that they did God service. Yet the Church and its rulers will be judged, not by the standard of its own degeneracy, but by the Law of God. Judgment begins at the house of God. There are the most responsible men, there are the greatest offenses, and there must be the most exemplary manifestation of Divine righteousness. The clearing away of sin from the Church is the preparation for the pure worship of God, for the re-established relation between the covenant king and his people, for the outpoured blessings of the throne of grace.
VI. THE FORGIVENESS OF SIN, ONLY BY EXPIATION, THROUGH ATONEMENT. This is especially set forth by the sin offering, for it represented the Divine demand of expiation in cases where human ignorance or error might be pleaded in excuse on man’s side. What we require is not mere proclamation of pardon, but a peace which is settled on eternal foundations. So long as there remains in the mind of the sinner the thought that God is not satisfied, there must be a barrier to fellowship. The setting forth of the sin offering was a provision of Divine righteousness as the condition of peace. God does not overlook sin as that which has excuse made for it; he puts it away as that which is atoned for. All the details of the ceremony, especially the connection of the blood of the sin offering with the two altarsthat of incense and that of burnt offeringpointed to the completeness of the atonement which God provided. In the antitype, the great sacrifice offered by our Lord Jesus Christ, whose soul was made an offering for sin, we must lay great stress on the Divine perfection of the Victim offered, his coming forth from God, his representation in himself of Divine righteousness; for Christ is not a Saviour merely from individual transgressions, but from sin itself as an evil principle at work in the nature of man. Unless we hold firmly to this atoning perfection of Christ, we cannot proclaim the regenerating gift of the Holy Spirit, for the new life must be founded in a perfect justification; the same faith which admits us into the forgiveness of sins through the blood of Christ, also admits us into that, fellowship and vital union with the living Redeemer, which is the commencement of a new life in the Spirit. The Apostle Peter (1Pe 1:2) puts the sanctification of the Spirit and the sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ in juxtaposition. They are included in the one Sacrifice of Calvary, whereby atonement is made, and the power of an endless life is revealed in him who, having offered himself through the Spirit without spot, rose again from the dead to become the Captain of salvation, the Firstborn among many brethren, the second Adam, the man who is made, by his Divine work, a quickening spirit. “Christ is God’s,” and “ye are Christ’s.”R.
Lev 4:3-12
The high priest’s burnt offering.
The difference between the high priest’s offering and that for the whole congregation on the one hand, and the offering for an offending ruler or any of the common people on the other, lay in the sprinkling of the blood of the victim seven times before the Lord, before the vail of the sanctuary. This betokened the purifying by this sacrifice of the public worship of the people as distinguished from their private and individual life. The different modes of sprinkling the blood marked successive degrees of consecration, from the altar of burnt offering without to the vail in the sanctuary, which especially represented Jehovah’s presence. The high priest was an embodiment of the people’s sanctity as a worshipping people. The great truth taught is the necessity of connecting together worship with the revelation of Divine righteousness and grace. The only true religion is that which rests on the twofold basisGod’s provided atonement for sin; man’s faith and obedience towards God.
SHOW THAT THERE IS “INIQUITY IN OUR HOLY THINGS.” This was recognized by the Apostle Paul at Athens. “Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.” The want of true knowledge renders the worship unacceptable. But not ignorance only; indifference, heedlessness, the superstition which proceeds from a corrupt heart, the falsehood which has grown up from the root of sin in human nature and which the individual man may adopt from tradition without perceiving its falsity. The religious leaders of a people may be especially guilty of defiling the popular worship. The priest, by his false theology, or his corrupt ritual, or his lack of spirituality, may involve the congregation in sin. In the house of God itself there may be sinful defect of reverence, sinful disorder, sinful coldness and dullness, sinful pride and worldliness, sinful wanderings of thought and self-assertion. Our worship needs to be sprinkled with the blood of our Great Sacrifice before it can be accepted. It is especially incumbent on the religious teachers and ministers of the sanctuary that they be prominent in confessing sin, in urging the necessity of more sanctification, in exalting the merit of Christ that worship be presented through him.R.
Lev 4:13-21
The whole congregation sinners through ignorance.
The sacrifice is very similar to the high priest’s. The ruling thought in both cases is that of sin attaching to those who represent the covenant of God. The people, whether as a nation or assembly, or as a house of God, a worshipping congregation, whether in its ciders or rulers, or in its high priest, were in a covenant relation to Jehovah; therefore might offend against that relation, and required atonement to be made. Take up the subject of national sins.
I. A NATION MAY BE GUILTY.
1. Negatively, violating the commandments of God. Political unwisdom, producing national disorder, ignorance, division of classes from one another; decay of commerce, and distress. International confusion and war.
2. Positively irreligious. Growth of vices till they become national. Combinations of great masses of people to uphold wrong and protect interests which impede the advance of morality. Sins of rulers in dishonest legislation. State interference with religious liberty. Spread of superstition, for which the nation as a whole is accountable. Indifference of the more privileged classes to the moral and religious condition of the multitudes. Guilty leaders followed.
II. NATIONAL SINS SHOULD BE NATIONALLY CONFESSED AND PUT AWAY. While there are prominent members of the nation who should set an example of penitence and sacrifice, the whole people should be summoned to a united acknowledgment of their position before God. The national fast, if rightly conducted, and emanating from a widespread sense of sin, and not from a mere royal command, must be pleasing to God. At such times the chief stress should be laid not upon the performance of external rites, but upon the facts of the moral state of the people and the gospel call to repentance and faith.
III. THERE IS A FORGIVENESS OF NATIONS AS WELL AS OF INDIVIDUALS. “And the priest shall make art atonement for them, and it shall be forgiven them.” We cannot doubt that God, as a Moral Governor, punishes nations. History proves that there is not a mere natural rise and fall of great powers by the working of ordinary physical, social, and economical laws; but there is an ordering of events, so as to visit national sins upon nations. Great illustrations: in France; in United States for slavery; in our own history, Spanish Armada”Affiavit Deus, et dissipantur.” Many instances of change for the better in affairs of nations: France, Italy, America, England at the Commonwealth. Preservation from impending evils. Special help in internal troubles and international relations. We must watch the will of Providence over long periods, and adapt facts and principles to one another. Testimony in the Old. Testament, and especially in the Psalms, to the government of God in nations.R.
Lev 4:22-26
A ruler can sin through ignorance, and requires atonement.
I. OFFICIAL POSITION IS MORAL RESPONSIBILITY. Whether the office be inherited or appointed, the ruler is in a special relation to God and to the people. He must jealously guard his office, and the mere exalted he is, the more he should preserve a conscience void of offense towards God and towards man.
II. THE RULER SHOULD SET THE EXAMPLE of respecting the requirements of God’s Law. If the people see their natural leaders and official superiors confessing sin and seeking atonement, religious reverence and obedience will spread through all classes. Fearful curse of wicked rulers. Those in high positions should search their lives and hearts, lest, by their neglect, or ignorance, or sin of any kind, they bring Divine displeasure on the people.
III. The sacrifice is not the same for the ruler as for the man. An OFFICIAL POSITION IS NOT TO HIDE AN INDIVIDUAL AND PERSONAL ACCOUNTABILITY. Too often sins are committed in office, of which men would be ashamed if their own names were connected with them. We may distinguish the official from the personal, but we must remember that God requires both to be pure and holy.R.
Lev 4:27-35
The sins of the common people.
The idea of the distinction is that those who, by their distance from the sanctuary and their lack of education, are more exposed to the possibility of offense, are less guilty, and therefore require a somewhat lower sacrifice. A female kid or a lamb would suffice; but the same ceremonies were indispensablethe laying on of hands, the touching of the horns of the altar of burnt offering with blood, the pouring out of the blood at the bottom of the altar, the fire offering of sweet savour to the Lord. Thus the least sins, the sins of the least responsible people, the sins of ignorance and mere ceremonial uncleanness, were connected with the greatest, and the people were reminded that all sin, as transgression of the Law, must be atoned for, and without atonement there is no forgiveness. SubjectSins of the common people.
I. We are taught to DEAL WITH THEM PITIFULLY, with consideration of circumstances, with remembrance of their comparative lesser guilt. Mere denunciations, unqualified condemnation, injurious. We should teach people the Law that they may see the sinfulness of sin, but in the spirit of love, lest they be blinded and hardened by a bewildering confusion of conscience and despondency. The traditional condemnation attached to those sins to which the masses are especially tempted might mislead, if not modified by the respect to antecedents.
II. We must hold fast to the Scripture representationALL SIN IS GUILT. The attempt to uplift the lower classes, without the power of atonement, by means of mere moral or intellectual appliances or social influences, must be a failure in the long run. Those who make it injure themselves, Nothing delivers them from sin but the power of Christ. Nor will it avail to imitate the folly which “makes light of sin.” Cf. the Saviour’s instructions in Sermon on the Mount (Mat 7:1-29). While we avoid censoriousness and uncharitable judgment, we must cultivate a wise caution, lest we cast our pearls before swine. The Spirit of Christ is our only guide and strength.
III. The prescriptions of the Law varied according to the opportunity of the offender. We must SMOOTH THE WAY FOR RETURN TO GOD. By adapting the commandments to the capacity and opportunity of men. By teaching them the spirituality of the gospel method, which lays the chief stress on motive and affection, not on mere external value in the gift. By sympathy and cooperation helping them to find the way, holding them up in it for a time, surrounding them with cheerful companionship and encouraging words.
IV. The common people being thus marked out, reminds us that there is a special urgency upon the Christian Church in THE MISSION OF THE GOSPEL TO THOSE THAT ARE AFAR OFF. We are apt to think it enough to care for those in and about the temple. The common people heard Jesus gladly. To the poor his gospel is especially preached. If all the sacrifices typify the Great Sacrifice of Calvary, and the sin offering more particularly, the adaptation or’ the doctrine of Christ to the masses is thus set forth; we must present the sin offering, if we would redeem society from its teeming miseries.
Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary
D.SIN OFFERINGS
Lev 4:1 to Lev 5:13
1And the Lord, spake unto Moses, saying, 2Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a soul shall sin through ignorance [inadvertence1] against any of the commandments of the Lord concerning things which ought not to be done, and shall do [omit against2] any of them:
3If the priest that is anointed do sin according to the sin of the people [to the guilt of the people3]; then let him bring for his sin, which he hath sinned, a young bullock without blemish unto the Lord for a sin offering. 4And he shall bring the bullock unto the door of the tabernacle of the [omit the] congregation before the Lord; and shall lay his hand upon the bullocks head, and kill the bullock before the Lord. 5And the priest that is anointed4 shall take of the bullocks blood, and bring it to the tabernacle of the [omit the] congregation: 6and the priest shall dip his finger in the blood, and sprinkle of the blood seven times before the Lord, before the vail of the sanctuary. 7And the priest shall put some of the blood5 upon the horns of the altar of sweet incense before the Lord, which is in the tabernacle of the [omit the] congregation; and shall pour all the [other] blood of the bullock at the bottom of the altar of the burnt offering, which is at the door of the tabernacle of the [omit the] congregation. 8And he shall take off from it all the fat of the bullock for the sin offering; the fat that covereth the6 inwards, and all the fat that is upon the inwards, 9and the two kidneys, and the fat that is upon them, which is by the flanks, and the caul above the liver, with [on7] the kidneys, it shall hetake away, 10as it was taken off from the bullock of the sacrifice of peace offerings; and the priest shall burn them upon the altar of the burnt offering. 11And the skin of the bullock, and all his flesh, with his head, and with his legs, and his inwards, and his dung, 12even the whole bullock shall Hebrews 8 carry forth without the camp unto a clean place, where the ashes are poured out, and burn him on the wood with fire: where the ashes are poured out shall he be burnt.
13And if the whole congregation9 of Israel sin [err10] through ignorance [inadvertence1], and the thing be hid11 from the eyes of the assembly,8 and they have done somewhat against any of the commandments of the Lord concerning things which should not be done, and are guilty; 14when the sin, which they have sinned against it, is known, then the congregation shall offer a young bullock12 for the sin [a sin offering13] and bring him before the14 tabernacle of the [omit the] congregation. 15And the elders of the congregation shall lay their hands upon the head of the bullock before the Lord: and the bullock shall be killed [one shall kill the bullock15] before the Lord. 16And the priest that is anointed shall bring of the bullocks blood to the tabernacle of the [omit the] congregation: 17and the priest shall dip his finger in some of the blood, and sprinkle it16 seven times before the Lord even before the vail. 18And he shall put some of the blood upon the horns of the altar17 which is before the Lord, that is in the tabernacle of the [omit the] congregation, and shall pour out all the [other] blood at the bottom of the altar of the burnt offering, which is at the door of the tabernacle of the [omit the] congregation. 19And he shall take all his fat from him, and burn it upon the altar. 20And he shall do with the bullock as he did with the bullock for a [the18] sin offering, so shall he do with this: and the priest shall make an atonement for them, and it shall be forgiven them. 21And he shall carry forth the bullock without the camp, and burn him as he burned the first bullock: it19 is a sin offering for the congregation.
22When a ruler [prince20] hath sinned, and done somewhat through ignorance [inadvertence21] against any of the commandments of the Lord his God concerning 23 things which should not be done, and is guilty; or if [if perhaps22] his sin, wherein he hath sinned, come to his knowledge; he shall bring his offering, a kid [a buck23] of the goats, a male without blemish: 24and he shall lay his hand upon the head of the goat, and kill24 it in the place where they kill the burnt offering before the Lord: it is a sin-offering. 25And the priest shall take of the blood of the sin offering with his finger, and put it upon the horns of the altar of burnt offering, and shall pour out25 his blood at the bottom of the altar of burnt offering. 26And he shall burn all his fat upon the altar, as the fat of the sacrifice of peace offerings: and the priest shall make an atonement for him as concerning his sin, and it shall be forgiven him.
27And if any one of the common people [any soul of the people of the land26] sin through ignorance [inadvertence1] while he doeth somewhat against any of the commandments 28of the Lord concerning things which ought not to be done, and be guilty; or if [if perhaps20] his sin, which he hath sinned, come to his knowledge: then he shall bring his offering, a kid of the goats [a she-goat27] a female without blemish, for his sin which he hath sinned. 29And he shall lay his hand upon the head of the sin offering, and slay the sin offering in the place of the burnt offering. 30And the priest shall take of the blood thereof with his finger, and put it upon the horns of the altar of burnt offering, and shall pour out all the [other] blood thereof at the bottom of the altar.28 31And he shall take away all the fat thereof, as the fat is taken away from off the sacrifice of peace offerings; and the priest shall burn it upon the altar for a sweet savour unto the Lord; and the priest shall make an atonement for him, and it shall be forgiven him.
32And if he bring a lamb [a sheep29] for a sin offering, he shall bring it a female without blemish. 33And he shall lay his hand upon the head of the sin-offering, and slay it for a sin offering in the place where they kill the burnt offering. 34And the priest shall take of the blood of the sin offering with his finger, and put it upon the horns of the altar of burnt offering, and shall pour out all the [other] blood thereof at the bottom of the altar: 35and he shall take away all the fat thereof, as the fat of the lamb [sheep30] is taken away from the sacrifice of the peace offerings; and the priest shall burn them upon the altar, according to [upon28] the offerings made by fire unto the Lord: and the priest shall make an atonement for his sin that he hath committed, and it shall be forgiven him.
Gen 5:1. And if a soul sin, and hear [in that he hear31] the voice of swearing [adjuration32], and is a witness, whether he hath seen or known of it; if he do not 2utter it, then he shall bear his iniquity. Or if33 a soul touch any unclean thing, whether it be a carcase of an unclean beast,34 or a carcase of unclean cattle, or the carcase of unclean creeping things, and if it be hidden from him; he also shall be unclean, and guilty. 3Or if he touch the uncleanness of man, whatsoever uncleanness it be that a man shall be defiled withal, and it be hid from him; when he knoweth of it, then he shall be guilty. 4Or if a soul swear, pronouncing [speaking idly35] with his lips to do evil, or to do good, whatsoever it be that a man shall pronounce [speak idly32] with an oath, and it be hid from him; when he knoweth of it, then he shall be guilty in one of these. 5And it shall be, when he shall be guilty36 in one of these things, that he shall confess that he hath sinned in that thing: 6and he shall bring his trespass offering [bring for his trespass37] unto the Lord, for his sin which he hath sinned, a female from the flock, a lamb or a kid of the goats [a sheep27or a she-goat38], for a sin offering; and the priest shall make an atonement for him concerning his sin.
7And if he be not able39 to bring a lamb [sheep27], then he shall bring for his trespass, which he hath committed, two turtledoves, or two young pigeons, unto the Lord; one for a sin offering, and the other for a burnt offering. 8And he shall bring them unto the priest, who shall offer that which is for the sin offering first, and wring [pinch] off his head from his neck, but shall not divide it asunder: 9and he shall sprinkle of the blood of the sin offering upon the side of the altar; and the rest of the blood shall be wrung [pressed40] out at the bottom of the altar: it is a sin offering.41 10And he shall offer the second for a burnt offering, according to the manner [ordinance]: and the priest shall make an atonement for him for his sin which he hath sinned, and it shall be forgiven him.
11But if he be not able to bring two turtledoves, or two young pigeons, then he that sinned shall bring for his offering the tenth part of an ephah of fine flour for a sin offering: he shall put no oil upon it, neither shall he put any frankincense thereon: for it is a sin offering.37 12Then shall he bring it to the priest, and the priest shall take his handful of it, even a memorial thereof, and burn it on the altar, according to [upon42] the offerings made by fire unto the Lord: it is a sin offering.37 13And the priest shall make an atonement for him as touching his sin that he hath sinned in one of these, and it shall be forgiven him: and the remnant shall be the priests, as a meat offering [an oblation43].
TEXTUAL AND GRAMMATICAL
Lev 4:2. from = = = to totter to and fro, to wander, to go wrong. It includes not only sinning unawares, through ignorance (Lev 4:13; Lev 4:22; Lev 4:27; Lev 5:17), or carelessness, and want of consideration (Lev 5:1; Lev 5:4); but also unintentional sins (like that of manslaughter without malice, Num 35:11; Num 35:15; Num 35:22), and therefore sins arising from human infirmity in contradistinction to intentional and defiant sinssins with a high handfor which no sacrifice was allowable (Num 15:27-31). The LXX. , the Targ. Onk. (also Ben Uz. and Jerus.) = through error, so also the Syr. The old Italic has imprudenter. Aquila reads , and it was perhaps by a literal translation of this that the Vulg. came to read per ignorantiam, which has been perpetuated in the A. V.; but in Hellenistic Greek and . (Heb 9:7) bear rather the sense given above. See Schleus. Lex. in LXX. Through going astray might better express the meaning, except that it does not sufficiently bring out the distinction as in the animus of the sinner.
Lev 4:2. . The A. V. has supplied against, as in the former clause, where the construction is the same; but there it is required, and here worse than useless to the sense. It should be omitted as in nearly all the ancient versions. The in both clauses is to be taken partitively.
Lev 4:3. Prop. inf. const. Kal., and there used as a noun = to bring guilt upon. So most of the ancient versions and the modern expositors generally.
Lev 4:5. To anointed the LXX. and Sam. Vers. add whose hand is consecrated. The Sam. text has a similar addition.
Lev 4:7. The Sam. and 8 MSS. prefix the article to , while the Sam., 3 MSS., and Vulg., omit the bullock.
Lev 4:8. . This is translated in the A. V. and in the ancient versions as if it were as in Lev 3:14. So it must be translated, and such is actually the reading in the Sam. and many MSS.
Lev 4:12. The Sam. and LXX. here have the plural. Of course the high-priest did not do this with his own hands, but is said to do that which he caused to be done, according to common usage of all languages.
Lev 4:9. On. See Lev 3:4, Textual Note 3.
Lev 4:13. (congregation) (assembly) the two words used here, and Num 16:2 and freq. have no difference in signification which can be recognized in translation. They are used in apposition.
Lev 4:13. . In the A. V. sin always in Lev. is the translation of . This being the only exception, should be changed.
Lev 4:13. has dagesh in the here and in Lev 5:2; Lev 5:4. According to Delitzsch it is an old rule of pointing that every consonant which followed a syllable terminating with a guttural should be pointed with dagesh, if the guttural was to be read with a quiescent sheva and not with chateph. Comp. Gen 46:29; Exo 14:6, (according to some copies) Psa 10:1.
Lev 4:14. The Sam. and LXX. here add the without blemish so frequently expressed, and always to be understood.
Lev 4:14. . The word is used in both sensesa sin, and a sin-offering. The context requires the latter here. It has no article.
Lev 4:14. The LXX. and Vulg. add the door of, which is implied.
Lev 4:2. from = = = to totter to and fro, to wander, to go wrong. It includes not only sinning unawares, through ignorance (Lev 4:13; Lev 4:22; Lev 4:27; Lev 5:17), or carelessness, and want of consideration (Lev 5:1; Lev 5:4); but also unintentional sins (like that of manslaughter without malice, Num 35:11; Num 35:15; Num 35:22), and therefore sins arising from human infirmity in contradistinction to intentional and defiant sinssins with a high handfor which no sacrifice was allowable (Num 15:27-31). The LXX. , the Targ. Onk. (also Ben Uz. and Jerus.) = through error, so also the Syr. The old Italic has imprudenter. Aquila reads , and it was perhaps by a literal translation of this that the Vulg. came to read per ignorantiam, which has been perpetuated in the A. V.; but in Hellenistic Greek and . (Heb 9:7) bear rather the sense given above. See Schleus. Lex. in LXX. Through going astray might better express the meaning, except that it does not sufficiently bring out the distinction as in the animus of the sinner.
Lev 4:15. The subject of is one of the elders.
Lev 4:17. The ellipsis supplied by it in the A. V. is filled out in the Sam., in one MS., and in the Syr., by of the blood, comp. Lev 4:6. Several other words are filled out in the same version in the following verses from the preceding paragraph.
Lev 4:18. The Sam. and LXX. unnecessarily specify altar of incense.
Lev 4:20. The article of the original should be retained as the reference is to the sin-offering of the high-priest.
Lev 4:21. The Sam. and many MSS. have here again the later feminine form .
Lev 4:22. . This word variously rendered in the A. V. captain, chief, governor, prince, and ruler, occurs in Lev. only here, but very frequently in Num., where it is translated captain in Leviticus 2 (12 times), chief in chs. 3, 4 (5 times), once ruler, Lev 13:2, and prince throughout the rest of the book (42 times) as well as throughout Gen. and Josh. In Ex. it occurs four times uniformly translated ruler. In nearly all these places it refers to persons of substantially the same rank, and it would be better therefore that its translation should be uniform. It means literally, an exalted person, and is applied to the head of a tribe, or other large division of the people, whether of Israel or of other nations. Lange interprets it of the tribe chieftain, referring to Num 3:24. As prince is on the whole the most common rendering of the A. V., and expresses very well the sense, it is retained here.
Lev 4:23. The conjunction should be rendered if perhaps, Fuerst, Gesenius. The Syr. renders by if, the LXX. , Vulg. et postea.
Lev 4:23. = a he-goat, generally understood of one older than the or young he-goat used in the burnt and peace-offerings (Fuerst, Knobel). It is often rendered kid in the A. V. It is also rendered devil Lev 17:7; 2Ch 11:15, where the reference is to the idolatrous worship of the goat, (or goat-like deity) and twice satyr in Isa. (Lev 13:21; Leviticus 34:14). It is the kind of goat used in the sin-offering generally. Bochart supposes it to mean a goat of a peculiar breed; so Keil.
Lev 4:24. The Sam. puts the verb in the plural; so also in Lev 4:33.
Lev 4:25. The LXX. and 4 MSS. have all his blood, as in the other places.
Lev 4:27. There seems no occasion here to deviate from the literal translation which is retained so far as people of the land is concerned, in Lev 20:2; Lev 20:4; 2Ki 11:18-19; 2Ki 16:15. It was the common name of the whole people as distinguished from the priests (in this case probably from the high-priest) and the rulers.
Lev 4:28. is simply the feminine of the word discussed under Lev 4:23.
Lev 4:28. is simply the feminine of the word discussed under Lev 4:23.
Lev 4:30. Two MSS., the Sam., and the Syr., unnecessarily add of burnt-offering. The Sam. and the LXX. make the same addition at the end of Lev 4:34.
Lev 4:32. = a sheep, see Text. note 5 under Lev 3:7.
Lev 4:35. . The sense is here as in Lev 3:5 upon. These being special offerings, the daily burnt-offering would always have been upon the altar before them, and even if that were already wholly consumed, the expression upon it could still be naturally used.
Lev 5:1. Particula ante hic usurpatur , estque vertenda quia, eo quod, ut Gen 26:12; Deu 17:16. Rosenmueller.
Lev 5:1. . Commentators are generally agreed that this should be translated adjuration. The verb in the Hiph. is translated adjure in 1Sa 14:24. See Exeg. Com. The Heb. has no word for adjuration as distinct from swearing. It is expressed in the LXX. by .
Lev 5:2. The full form would be ; accordingly the Sam. and some MSS. prefix here and add in Lev 5:4
Lev 5:2. See note1 on Lev 11:2.
Lev 5:4. ,, speak idly, or ill-advisedly. Comp. , Mat 6:7.
Lev 5:5. For the Sam. and 20 MSS. here substitute .
Lev 5:6. , like , is used in the sense both of trespass and trespass-offering. The ancient versions leave the question between them open. The Vulg. has simply agat, penitentiam, LXX. , while the Semitic versions leave the same doubt as the Hebrew. Modern commentators are divided, but the weight of opinion accords with the Exeg. Com. At the end of the verse the Sam. and the LXX. have the fuller form, and the priest shall make an atonement for him, for his sin which he hath sinned, and it shall be forgiven him.
Lev 5:7. lit. If his hand cannot acquire. The sense is well expressed by the A. V.
Lev 5:9. the translation of the A. V. wrung might answer here, but as the same word must be translated pressed in Lev 1:15, it seems better to preserve uniformity.
Lev 5:9; Lev 5:11-12. The Sam. and many MSS. have the later feminine form of the pronoun .
Lev 5:12. = upon, as Lev 3:5; Lev 4:35.
Lev 5:13. Oblation. Comp. Lev 2:1, Textual Note 2, and Exeg. at beginning of Leviticus 2.
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
The formula by which this chapter is introducedAnd the LORD spake unto Mosesanswering to Lev 1:1-2; Lev 5:14; Lev 6:1; Lev 6:8, etc., marks this passage as a distinct portion of the law. The offerings of chaps. 13, when brought by individuals, were all voluntary, and are recognized as already familiar; but in chaps, 4, 5. sacrifices are appointed (no longer voluntary) for certain offences, and these sacrifices now for the first time receive names from the purposes for which they were commandedSin and Trespass offerings. These specialized sacrifices were a creation of the Mosaic law, and are therefore naturally placed after the more general sacrifices of chaps 13. Lange says also: The former class of sacrifices refer to innate sinfulness, and in so far forth to the general participation in guilt of the offerer (on which account throughout a , a covering of the offerer, takes place); but does not have reference to peculiar personal transgressions to be atoned for by the sin and trespass offerings. In the present section we have to do only with the sin offering (Lev 4:1 to Lev 5:13); yet this and the trespass offering are closely related, and are distinguished only as the sin or the trespass comes into the foreground, so that the line of separation is not always strongly marked, and in particular cases might even be difficult to trace. Sin is the transgression of the law, and may involve no further harm, and requires expiation only for its own guilt; while trespass is wrong done to another (whether God or man), and involves not only sacrifice for its sin, but also amends for its harm. With neither were oblations or drink-offerings allowed; and when, in case of extreme poverty, flour was permitted as a sin-offering, it must be without oil or frankincense (Lev 5:11).
Lange takes a somewhat different view of the relation of these two offerings, and consequently of the proper analysis of this whole passage, Lev 4:1 to Lev 6:7. The substance of his views may be gathered from the headings of his several subdivisions as follows: The Sin offering and the Trespass offering (46:7). (a) The Sin-offering and the little Sin and Trespass offering (45:13). 1. The Sin offering (Lev 4:1-21). 2. The little Sin offering (Lev 4:22-35). (b) The Trespass offering. 1. The little Sin and Trespass offering, or the uncleanness of the common people (Lev 5:1-13). 2. The great Trespass offering, or guilt offering (Lev 5:14 to Lev 6:7). Accordingly he says: The following considerations may serve somewhat to disentangle the question how the sections of the sin offering and the trespass offering are to be separated from one another, and whether Lev 5:1-13 treats of the sin offering or of the trespass offering. There is, certainly, no question that all sin is at the same time guilt, a deed which has made itself into an actual state of things which must be atoned for, or has become liable to punishment. And there is also no question that guilt in general is also sin, although as participation in guilt, it may be widely separated from the centre of sinfulness, as far as the disappearing minimum, even until it is said of the guiltless Messiah in Isaiah 53. that He would give his life as a trespass offeringAsham; and from this arises also the possibility that two classes may be formed in which the one emphasizes sin as such, while the other emphasizes more the state of guilt. The state of guilt may be very trifling, as being accessory to a guilty principal, or very evil as an original offence; in all cases it requires a proportionate penance (not expiation) or satisfaction. From the indeterminate character of the antithesis, it also comes that there may be a transitional form between the sin and the trespass offeringsa form of sin offerings which, at the same time, becomes elevated as a trespass offering. There are forms of the predominating participation in guilt, and one such we find in the section Lev 5:1-13. On the other hand, in the strict trespass offerings which follow further on, we shall take up all cases in which the offence against the holy places and rights of Jehovah, or in regard to the property of a neighbor, amount to an offence that is a violation of right, which must be atoned for by restitution, punishment and sacrifice.
In Lev 4:3 the sin of the High Priest brings guilt on the peoplethat is, the guilt of participation in guilt. Luther translates that he scandalizes the peoplea conception not very different from our ownviz.: that he brings upon them liability of penalty and punishment. So it is also with the congregation of Israel: it becomes guilty through its sin (Lev 4:13). So also with the noble (Lev 4:22). So too, at last, with the common Israelite (Lev 4:27). Ought now the section Lev 5:1-13 to be (as Knobel) only an example to illustrate the foregoing transaction in the case of the sin offering of the common Israelite? Lev 5:6 says: And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the lord for his sin. [This is probably the key to the whole view of Lange. If, however, be here considered as standing not for trespass offering, but for trespass (see Text. note 34 on verse 6), the view before given seems preferable.] It is true that both Lev 5:11-12 repeat the statement that his offering is a sin offering. But according to the context, the meaning of this is that this sacrifice must be treated entirely after the analogy of the sin offering. No incense nor oil are to be added to this sacrifice. The same rule is applied to the great trespass offerings that follow, Lev 5:14 sq. The first instance, Lev 5:1, has peculiarly the character of participation in guilt. The properly guilty person in this case is the blasphemer; the participation in guilt comes from a soul hearing the curse and not cleansing itself from defilement by giving information. The view of the Heidelberg Catechism, that by silence and looking on one may become a participant in such fearful sins, appears here. So the touching a corpse is set with the unclean states of men by its natural connection, and the rash swearing, by traditional and common custom. That which is spoken of in the special greater crimes, as they are raised into a class by themselves by the introduction in Lev 5:14, is the gross violation of the law. Here, then, rightly appear the actions in which a man is guilty against Jehovah, i.e., against His holy things or His law. The fraud of which the sinner has at last become conscious must be atoned for in most cases by a restitution which was increased by one-fifth of the whole amount. But legal restitution alone was not enough; it must be preceded (without mentioning the trespass offering elsewhere prescribed) by a costly sacrifice of a ram worth two shekels. As religious atonement was of little value alone, when social restitution was directed, so also restitution, as a supplementary payment, was of little worth without religious atonement.
Now, on the one hand, we must not mistake the fact that the section Lev 5:14 sq. draws a distinction between those faults which at the same time have become debts or relate to customs (mostly legal transgressions of right, as violations of the rights of property), and the purely religious faults in which throughout (with the exception of the case in Lev 5:17-19) the sinner has only to deal with God. and so far the newer division must be considered right, as in Knobel and Keil (and so also in Kurtz and others). But, on the other hand, it must not be overlooked that the subject has already been about the offering of the Asham in the section v. 1 sq. [?], and this is in favor of the older opinion which may be found in the headings of Stiers translation. There is also no question that to reduce the whole guilt-idea to legal transgressions will obscure very much the guilt-idea in the present case, as when Knobel wishes to leave out of consideration the passage Isa 53:10, when he says can be no actual trespass offering. According to Knobel, the Asham arises from the rights of neighbors. But here evidently it arises from the rights of Jehovah, which Keil also emphasizes, and Knobel states indirectly. But we should rather say that it arises from the absolute right which is considered to be under Jehovahs protection, in heaven and earth, and which has been completely confused with the guilt-idea itself in the theology of the day, in which justice in its many forms is travestied by Good disposition (the substantive and the adjective are allowed to evaporate into the adverb). It would have been better to have found the key to the conception of guilt in Isaiah 53. For just as the guilt of a sinner can extend over a community, so also the exculpation wrought by the Redeemer. The expresses that man has become guilty, liable to punishment, towards Jehovah or towards his fellow-man; and the emphasis lies so strongly on the liability to punishment that the same word denotes at the same time satisfaction; and conversely, the Hiphil means not merely to give satisfaction, but also to bring over others the ban of guilt as a penalty. As concerns the varying distinction between the respective sections, we must especially notice that one must proceed from the distinction between the universal guilt idea and the conception of a legal fault, falling into the theocratic judicial sphere. If this difference be held to, we can certainly establish the newer division; for in the ritual of sacrifice the distinction between the sin and trespass offerings is not to be mistaken. Knobel has stated this difference accurately, p. 394 sq. It is properly made prominent that the trespass-offeringas a religious offence makes the forgiveness of God necessarymay also be a sin-offering, so that it is frequently cited as a sin-offering The trespass-offering, it may then be said, was always available only for the single Israelite, and was the same for all; while the sin-offering served also for the whole people, and varied according to the standing of the sinner in the Theocracy; the trespass-offering consisted always of sheep, while in the sin-offering all sacrificial animals were allowed; the trespass-offering must be worth a definite price, and was not modified, in the case of those who were unable to offer it, to a pair of doves or a meat-offering, as was the sin-offering; in the trespass-offering, as in the burnt-offering and thank-offering, the blood was sprinkled on the side of the altar of burnt offering (Lev 7:2); in the sin-offering, on the other hand, departing from the custom in all other sacrifices, it was brought before God (Lev 4:5); the flesh in the trespass-offering always belonged to the priest (Lev 7:6), while in the more especial sin-offerings it was burned. Then the distinction of the occasions may be expressed as follows: 1) Dishonesty against the revenues of the priests, as against the holy things of Jehovah. 2) Dishonesty in the due fidelity towards a neighbor (in a trust, in a deposit, in property found). 3) Dishonestuse of authority over a maid betrothed to another man (Lev 19:20). 4) Defrauding in regard to the preference of the daughters of Israel over heathen women (Ezr 10:19). Besides these, the Violation of the Ark of the Covenant by the Philistines (1Sa 6:3); imperilling the congregation by the contagious leprosy (Lev 14:12); Defilement of the Nazarite, as weakening the inviolability of his vow (Num 6:12). According to these examples the trespass-offering is distinguished from the sin-offering in the following manner: it arises from the right of a neighbor, and rests upon a violation of this right. But Jehovah too claims satisfaction, since He has fixed the rights of those pertaining to Him. Or also the right simply claims satisfaction: a particular instance is the case of a guilty person who has gone astray, through oversight or heedlessness, in a way that is known to no one but himself; who afterwards has an uneasy conscience, and then feels himself burdened by his misdeed, and becomes conscious of his guilt (Lev 5:17-18). Otherwise indeed, he would be unable to atone, for instance, for his false oath. With the former division one could with propriety reverse the designations, and term the sin-offering the trespass-offering, and the trespass-offering for the most part the sin-offering, the offering for real and ideal transgressions of right. In this confusion of ideas the manifold differences are not too prominent as they are cited in Knobel, p. 396, Keil, p. (53) 316, Winer (Schuld und Sndopfer) and others. If we go back briefly to the ideal distinctions: sin, as sin, is indeed guilt, , the particular evil deed; guilt, as such on the contrary, is the entire effect of sin in its cosmic sphere from the bad conscience even to death, to Sheol, to Hell. Guilt, as such, falls within the circle of evil, although the axiom guilt is the greatest of evils refers to sin. The sinfulness in guilt is the temptation to further sinfulness; it has, however, also a natural influence, according to which it reacts upon sin. See the article Schuld in Herzogs Realencyclopdie. Guilt rests in the legal effect, there must be satisfaction for it; in the ethical effect, evil conscience, false position towards God, temptation to new sin; in the social effect, it lies as a burden upon the sphere of life that surrounds the sinner, whether he be high or low; in the generic effect, it is visited upon the children of the fathers, and becomes a universal might, a cosmic evil. Sin is solitary, guilt is common (forgive us our trespasses). It is obvious that sin in all cases is originally guilt; but guilt in distinction from sin is, in many cases, only participation in sinaccessoriness. Even in the section of the great trespass-offering, the force of participation in guilt may not be entirely wanting, for the severity of the Levitical relations, the temptations which adhered to the church goods and lands, to property, come into consideration. Under the law the ignorant man is touched on all sides, and is thus constituted in some measure a sinner, an accessory through greater sinners who made the law necessary. Sin is like a stone cast into a lake; guilt like the wave-circles which go out from it, the circumference of that evil centre. Sin, in its consequences, is ideally an infinitum, enmity against God; guilt, in itself considered, is a self-consuming finitum, so far as it is not changed into a curse by its constant reciprocity with sin. Sin can only be done away through the reconciliation of person to person; it requires repentance. Guilt is to be done away by means of atonement (voluntary penance, not expiation), personal or vicarious restitution; for, on the one hand, this of course is preliminary to the completed reconciliation, and, on the other hand, that breaks the way for expiation. See the history of Jacob: the vision of the heavenly ladder preceded the wrestling at the Jabbok. Keil says somewhat differently: As in the sin-offering the idea of expiation or atonement for sin, indicated in the sprinkling of blood, comes forward, so in the trespass-offering we find the idea of satisfaction for the purpose of restoring the violated rightful order.
In what follows, the views previously presented will be followed, since the rendering of by trespass rather than by trespass-offering in Lev 5:6 renders it unnecessary to enter upon much of the nice distinctions here drawn by Lange, and enables us clearly to separate the sections of the sin and the trespass-offering.
Lange continues: Lev 4:1. Sin, , as missing, is in Leviticus more particularly missing in regard to the holy fellowship with the holy God through transgression of His command or violation of the reverence due Him. It must, as debt, be paid for by punishment. It makes the sinner unclean, so that he cannot appear in Gods fellowship, and hence uncleanness is a symbolic representation of sin, and the unclean needs, when cleansed, a sin-offering for a token and sign of his cleanness. It is understood that the sin offering that was introduced into the law by Moses preceded the given law; and so it is easily to be supposed that voluntary sin-offerings from compulsion of conscience most probably must be as old as the sacrifice in general, as certainly in the Passover the force of the sin offering may be plainly recognized.[Lange must mean that the more general sacrifices of old often included within them the idea of the sin offering, as they did of every other sacrifice; but the specialized sin offering itself, as already pointed out, is not mentioned before Exo 29:14, nor is there any evidence that it was used or known at an earlier date.]On the extra-theocratic sin offering see Knobel, p. 386. But it is not correct to see with Knobel in the death of the sacrificial animal an actual satisfactio vicaria of the sinner, or to find in the death of the animal the expression that the offerer had already deserved death. In regard to the first point, the sacrificial animal furnishes only in the symbolical sense what the offerer ought to furnish personally, but cannot. And as to the second point, the death-punishment, in the peace-offering, it is self-evident, that the reference could not be to the punishment of death, and also in the sin-offering the difference between the Cherem [=a curse, a thing devoted to destruction] and the propitiation through the sacrifice must be considered. That the divine Justice should have punished an inadvertence, , with death is an overstraining of the confession (with which the sacrificer appeared before God), that by this oversight or going astray he had entered the paths of death,44 as this idea indeed belongs to pardonable sin. Otherwise an arbitrary distinction would have to be drawn between sin with uplifted hand, and sin from inadvertence, under which head must be understood not only sins of ignorance and precipitation, but also natural weakness and heedlessness. The turning point of these sins lay in contrition. But the sacrificer could in reality hardly satisfy the theocratic order by his sacrifice; on the religious side his sacrifice was thus a confession of his inability to satisfy, an appeal for mercy; and hence the sacrifice became a typical prophetic movement towards the future satisfaction.
The sins for which sin offerings were to be presented were offences against the Divine law much more in its moral than in its ceremonial aspect. Great offences against civil society, such as involuntary manslaughter (Num 35:10-15; Deu 19:1-10), did not come within the scope of these sacrifices; and minor breaches of the ceremonial law, such as uncleanness from contact with the dead bodies of animals (Lev 11:24; Lev 11:28) or men (Num 19:11; Num 19:19-20), were otherwise provided for. The sin offering had relation much more to the individual conscience than to the theocratic state or the peculiar Hebrew polity. In Num 15:29 its privileges are expressly extended to the stranger. But it was not allowed to be offered in cases where no true penitence could be supposed to exist, and it was therefore not permitted in the case of presumptuous or defiant sins (Num 15:30-31).
The idea of vicarious satisfaction necessarily appears more clearly in this specialized offering for sin than in other sacrifices which were either more general in their character, or specialized for other purposes. (The word occurs several times in Genesis in the sense of sin, but never in the sense of sin offering, before Exo 29:14). Hence, in view of the intrinsic insufficiency of animal victims to atone for moral offences, this sacrifice was emphatically typical of the true Sacrifice for sin to come. The object of all the divine dealings with man has been his restoration to communion with God by the restoration of his holiness; and the first step to this end was necessarily the putting away of his sin. Under the old dispensation, therefore, the typical sin offering was the culmination of its whole system, presented in the most emphatic form on the great day of atonement (chap. 16); just as under the new dispensation the culmination of Christs work for the redemption of His people was His atoning sacrifice of Himself upon the Cross of Calvary.
Unlike the preceding sacrifices, the victim in the sin offering varied according to the offenders rank in the theocracy. The ground of this is to be sought in the conspicuousness of the offence, not at all in its grossness. Here, as elsewhere, there was no correlation between the value of the victim and the magnitude of the sin. Every sin, great or small, of the same class of persons was expiated by the same means; a victim of higher value was only required in consequence of official responsibility and position, and the consequently greater strain which offences brought upon the theocracy. There was no such gradation in the Trespass offering, which was related more to the harm done than to the sin committed. Four grades are prescribed: for the sin(1) of the high-priest (Lev 4:3-12); (2) of the whole congregation (Lev 4:13-21); (3) of a prince (Lev 4:22-26); (4) of any of the people of the land (Lev 4:27-35). After this follows an enumeration of special sins for which confession should be made and sin offerings offered (Lev 5:1-6), with the allowance of inferior offerings in case of poverty (Lev 4:7-13).
Lev 4:1-2. The general condition of the sin offering.
Lev 4:2. Speak unto the children of Israel.It is always to be remembered that these laws are given to a people already in covenant relation to God, and the essential point of that covenant was the promise of the final victory over sin in the person of the seed of the woman. The laws given until He should come are therefore necessarily based upon His coming, and look forward to Him.
Any of the commandments. in a partitive sense. At the close of this verse must be understood some such clause as he shall bring an offering for his sin. The actual apodosis of the verse is the whole following chapter, and not Lev 4:3, which relates only to the high-priest.
Lev 4:3-12. The sin offering of the high-priest. Lange here says: It must be noticed that the high-priest could become the most guilty of all, which the haughtiness of the hierarchy never thought of enough; that the whole congregation was rated as one personality equal in rank to him; that the prince was only considered slightly greater than the common man (the difference is he goats, she goats, or an ewe); and that for the poor, in the section Lev 5:1-13, there were two more peculiar modifications.
Lev 4:3. The priest that is anointed.LXX.: , = high-priest, Targums. The high-priest is so called by reason of the peculiar authority by which he alone was consecrated to his office (Exo 29:7; Lev 8:12). The anointing of all the priests was indeed expressly commanded (Exo 28:41; Exo 40:15), and is recognized as having taken place Lev 7:36; Lev 10:7; Num 3:3; yet in the account of the consecration, chap, 8, no other anointing of the common priests is mentioned than that Moses sprinkled both them and Aaron with the anointing oil and the blood from the altar. According to the best Jewish authorities, however, the priests were anointed with the finger upon the forehead. Outram places the distinction in the fact that each successive high-priest was personally anointed, while the others were only anointed once for all in the persons of Aarons immediate sons. Whatever may be the truth in regard to these things, the high-priest is evidently regarded in a peculiar sense as anointed, and is generally designated in Lev. (Lev 4:5; Lev 4:16; Lev 6:22; Lev 16:32) as the anointed priest. He is also called the = great priest (Lev 21:10; Num 35:25; Num 35:28 bis:Jos 20:6), and in later times the head or chief priest (2Ki 25:18; 2Ch 19:11), or simply the priest, (1Ki 2:35, etc.).
Do sin.Origen (Horn. II. in Lev. 1) observes that inadvertence is not specified in the case of the high-priest. It must, of course, be supposed in view of the general principles on which sacrifices were allowed at all; but it probably was not written in the law that the infirmity of the high-priest might not be made too prominent.
To the guilt of the people, i.e., to bring upon the people the guilt of his own transgression. It is an undue restriction of the sense of these words to limit them to the sins committed by the high-priest in his official capacity. Such sins, of course, did bring guilt upon the people (Lev 10:17; Mal 2:7-8); but over and above this, nothing can be clearer in history, both under the old covenant and in the world at large, than that God had so constituted men with a federal as well as individual relation, that the sins of the head, whether of the nation, the community, or the family, entail suffering upon its members. The high-priest as the head of the theocracy could not sin, but that the whole body of Israel should feel its effects. The distinction may indeed be made between natural and moral consequences, between earthly and future punishments; still the two things are so intimately connected, a debasing of the moral sense of the community is so much the effect of the unfaithfulness of its head that the spiritual condition of the Israelites, following the general law, was largely affected by that of their high-priest, so that his sins did indeed bring guilt upon the people.
A young bullock without blemish.The high-priests sin offering was the same as that of the whole congregation (Lev 4:14), not merely because of the conspicuousness of his position and of the gravity of sin in one who should be the leader to all holiness; but especially (see Lev 4:3) because of his representative character and his federal headship mentioned above. According to Jewish tradition, if the bullock of the high-priest and the bullock of the congregation stood together ready for sin offerings, the former had the preference in every way. There was a careful gradation of the victims for the sin offering: the high priest and the whole congregation offered a malea young bullock; the prince offered also a male, but of the goats (Lev 4:23); the people offered a female of either the goats (Lev 4:28) or the sheep (Lev 4:32). There was also a corresponding gradation, but with fewer steps, in the ritual in regard to the blood, and also in the disposition of the flesh. See below.
Lev 4:4. The presentation, laying on of hands, and slaughtering, were the same (Lev 4:14-15; Lev 4:23-24), as in the case of other sacrifices (Lev 1:3-5).
Lev 4:5-7. And the priest that is anointed shall take.At the point of the treatment of the blood the difference between the ritual of the sin offerings and the other sacrifices begins, and this treatment differs somewhat in the several sin offerings themselves. In this case, the high-priest, who was himself the offerer, brought some of the blood to the tabernacle of the congregation; afterwards the person officiating is designated simply the priest. From this it has been argued that, as the high-priest was the one whose sin was to be atoned for, the service was here taken up on his behalf by another priest; but there is precisely the same change at the same point in the following offering for the whole congregation (Lev 4:16-17), and the high-priest certainly officiated throughout on the great day of atonement (chap. 16); moreover, the fact of his offering the sin offering for himself as well as for the people is established by Heb 5:3.
Lev 4:6. Sprinkle of the blood.The word is different from used for sprinkle in chaps. 1 and 3 in view of the much smaller quantity of blood used here. It is difficult to express this in English translation, though the difference is observed in the LXX. and Vulg.
Seven times.The seven-fold sprinkling of blood is frequently commanded (Lev 4:17; Lev 16:17; Lev 16:19; Num 19:4) always in connection with sin offering, or (Lev 14:7; Lev 14:27) with the purification of leprosy. In consecrations, too, there was a seven-fold sprinkling of oil (Lev 8:11; Lev 14:16), and frequently the number seven is designated for the victims in sacrifice (Lev 23:18; Num 23:1; Num 23:4; Num 23:14; Num 23:29; Num 28:11; Num 28:19; Num 28:27; Num 29:2; Num 29:8; Num 29:13; Num 29:36). The same number also appears in many other particulars connected with the divine service, and has always been considered as symbolical of completeness and perfection. The number is so frequent in the divine word, as well as in the ordering of nature, that it must be thought to have its foundation in some unfathomable heavenly relations. Its use in connection with the sin offering is plainly to give emphasis to the typical completeness of the propitiation.
Before the veil of the sanctuary.There is a variety of opinion as to precisely where the blood was sprinkled. The LXX: , and the Vulg.: contra velum, seem to have supposed it was upon the veil itself. It is more probable that the high-priest, dipping his finger in the blood at the entrance of the sanctuary, sprinkled it before him towards the veil as he advanced to the altar of incense. The object was plainly the presenting of the blood before Jehovah, the manifestation of whose presence was on the ark just within the veil. The objective point was not the veil, but the ark of the covenant. Lange.
Lev 4:7. Upon the horns of the altar of sweet incensethe golden altar which stood immediately before the veil. It was only in the case of the sin-offerings for the high-priest and for the whole people (Lev 4:18) that the blood was brought to this altardoubtless on account of the especial gravity of the sins to be atoned for; in case of the other sin offerings the blood was put on the horns of the altar of burnt-offering, (Lev 4:25; Lev 4:30; Lev 4:34) which stood in the court without. It was to be put in either case upon the horns of the altar because in these the significance of the altar culminated, and in the sin offering, as has already appeared, and will still more fully appear, the utmost emphasis was to be given to every part of the ritual of propitiation.
Shall pour all the blood.But very little of the blood had thus far been used; the remainderall the bloodwas to be poured out at the foot of the altar of burnt-offering, the place to which all blood of the sacrifices not otherwise required was to be brought; it had no sacrificial significance. During the life in the wilderness the blood of the comparatively small number of sacrifices was here absorbed by the earth; later, in the temple conduits were arranged by which it was carried off into the valley of the Kedron.
Lev 4:8-10. The fat of the sin offering was to be treated in the same way as that of the peace offering, only that it is not said that it shall be burned upon the burnt offering since when both were offered the sin offering came first (Lev 16:11; Lev 16:15; Lev 16:24); neither is the burning of the fat described as an offering made by fire, of a sweet savor unto the Lord.
Lev 4:11-12. The disposition of the rest of the victim, i.e., of the whole animal except the blood and the fat, was the same in the sin offering of the high-priest and of the whole congregation (Lev 4:20-21). The difference in the treatment of the flesh of these from that of other sin offerings is determined by the treatment of the blood (Lev 6:30). When the blood had been brought within the sanctuary, the flesh must be wholly burned; yet not burned as a sacrifice, the word being never used in that sense.
Without the camp.No flesh of a sin-offering might be burned upon the altar, because the nature of the offering was purely propitiatory, and it did not admit of being so used as to be called the food of the offering made by fire unto the Lord (see on Lev 3:11). It is described as most holy (Lev 6:25), and unlike the flesh of any other sacrifice, affected everything with which it came in contact (Lev 6:26-28); whatever it touched must either be destroyed or specially purified. This was the law for all sin-offerings, and a further law comes into play in regard to those sacrifices (that of the high-priest and that of the whole congregation) whose blood was brought within the sanctuary (Lev 6:30). Their flesh was strictly forbidden to be eaten; and it remained that it must be destroyed in some other way. Hence the command that it should be burned without the camp. Yet this was not a mere convenience, resorted to because there was nothing else to be done with it. The burning without the camp had a deep symbolical teaching of sufficient prominence to be referred to in Heb 13:11-12, and applied to Christ. The ground of the law seems to be that the flesh of all sin offerings was in a peculiar sense holydevoted, under the banbecause they were for the propitiation for sin; yet a gradation was to be observed between them in this as in other respects. Their blood had been offered before the Lord, but when the blood had been offered in a more peculiar and emphatic way by bringing it within the sanctuary itself; a corresponding emphasis must mark the treatment of the flesh by carrying it forth to burn without the camp. The red heifer, whose ashes were to be used for purification, (Numbers 19) was to be burned in the same way. The sinfulness of sin and the importance and sacredness of everything connected with its propitiation were thus set before the people in the strongest light.
Unto a clean placenot carelessly anywhere, lest it might happen to be to an unclean place (Lev 14:40); but where the ashes are poured out, which was not merely clean, but being used only in connection with sacred things, had itself acquired a certain sacred association. The word , as already noted, indicates that the burning itself was not sacrificial. The same word is used for the burning of the red heifer, Num 19:5. No especial sin offering is provided for the ordinary priest. It was the spirit of the law to have as little as possible of the caste relation about the priests, and in all matters in which they were not necessarily separated by their official functions, to treat them as ordinary citizens. Their sin-offering was doubtless the same with that of any one of the people of the land.
Lev 4:13-21. The sin-offering of the whole congregation.
If the whole congregation of Israel sin.Prominent among the ways in which a whole congregation might sin are these: The civil ruler might do that which involved the nation in sin, and brought down punishment upon it, as in Sauls slaughter of the Gibeonites, or Davids numbering of the people; a single individual by an act which caused a breach of the divine commands given to the whole people, might bring sin upon them all, as in the case of Achan, Jos 7:1; or the people generally might commit some special sin, as in 1Sa 14:32, or fall into some habitual neglect of the divine commands, as in regard to the Sabbatical year (2Ch 36:21), and the neglect of tithes and offerings for which they are so frequently reproved by the later prophets.
Through inadvertence.There were two kinds of such sin: first, inadvertence of conduct, where the sinfulness of the act would be acknowledged when attention was called to it; and secondly, inadvertence of the law, when the act would not be known to be sinful until the law had been explained. In either case there would be no consciousness or intention of sin, and the thing would be hid from the eyes of the assembly.
And are guilty.Every transgression of the divine law brought guilt, whether through a faulty heedlessness of conduct, or a criminal ignorance of the law which had been given. This principle is abundantly recognized in the New Testament.
Lev 4:14-21. The ritual of the sin offering for the whole congregation is the same as that for the high-priest. The victim prescribed here is a bullock; in Num 15:24 a kid in addition is required for sins of inadvertence of the congregation. Either the law was modified, which seems unlikely, or else the two requirements have reference to some distinction in the occasion or character of the sin, such as in one case sins of omission, in the other of commission. There was also another and very peculiar sin-offering for the congregation prescribed on the especial occasion of the great day of atonement (Lev 16:5). The high-priests sin offering is there unchanged; but that for the people is highly altered in view of the especial purpose of the day.
Lev 4:15. The elderssince the congregation could only perform the acts required of the offerer by means of their representatives.
Lev 4:20. And the priest shall make an atonement for them, and it shall be forgiven them.This naturally was not said in regard to the high-priests own sin offering, but is repeated in connection with those that follow (Lev 4:26; Lev 4:31; Lev 4:35; Lev 5:6; Lev 5:10; Lev 5:13), and elsewhere in the same connection (Num 15:25; Num 15:28); also in connection with the trespass offering (Lev 5:16; Lev 5:18; Lev 6:7; Lev 19:22). It is also used in connection with the purificatory offerings, the change being made from forgiveness to cleansing as the result of the atonement (Lev 12:7-8; Lev 14:20; Lev 14:53; Num 8:21). The use of the simpler form make atonement for him in connection with the burnt-offering has already been noticed. The priest in these cases unquestionably acted, and was understood by the people to act, in a mediatorial capacity. , as noticed under Lev 1:4, means literally, to cover, to put out of sight, to hide. What is promised here is of course not that God will cause to be undone the wrong that has been done; but that He will so put it out of His sight that the sinner may stand without fault in His presence. See the various expressions to this effect in the prophets, e. g., Psa 85:2; Psa 103:12; Psa 38:17; Psa 44:22; Jer 31:34; Eze 18:22; Eze 33:16; Mic 7:18-19, etc. This atonement was thus effectual in removing the guilt of all transgression (other than wilful) against the divine law. Hence the efficacy of the sin-offering could only have been derived from its typical relation to Him who was the Propitiation for the sins of the whole world. (1Jn 2:2).
Lev 4:22-26. The sin offering for a Prince.
The ritual in this case differs from that in the previous cases, first in the selection of the victim, which must now be a he-goat instead of a bullock; and secondly, in that the blood was not presented within the sanctuary, which involved consequently a difference in the disposition of the flesh.
Lev 4:24. In the place where they kill the burnt offeringi.e., the burnt-offering of the flock, on the north side of the altar, Lev 1:11.
Lev 4:25. The horns of the altar of burnt offering.In this and the following cases, as the sin was less extensive in its effects, so the ritual was far more simple. There was no sprinkling of blood before the veil, and the great altar in the court was substituted for the altar of incense within the sanctuary. The fat was burned as before; on the disposition of the flesh, see Lev 6:26-29.
Lev 4:27-35. The sin offering for one of the people.
In this case the victim is changed to a female, but the ritual remains the same in all respects as in the sin offering of the prince. An option was allowed as to the victim whether it should be of the goats, which seems to have been preferred (Lev 4:28-31), or of the sheep (Lev 4:32-35).
Lev 5:1-13. Certain specified sins and the sin-offering for them.
There is a difference of opinion among commentators as to whether this section should be connected with the sin-offerings which precede, or with the trespass offerings which follow. See Langes discussion under Lev 4:1. The chief argument for the latter is from the use of the word , Lev 5:6 (see below), which, however, rightly understood, does not bear out the inference. On the other hand, these verses are distinctly a part of the same divine communication begun Lev 4:1, while another begins at Lev 5:14; the word sin-offering is expressly used throughout (Lev 5:6-7; Lev 5:9; Lev 5:11); and the idea of compensation for the harm done, prominent in the trespass offering (especially Lev 5:16), only slightly appears (Lev 5:6) in these offerings. They are reckoned with the sin offerings by Knobel and Keil. They may perhaps be considered as somewhat intermediate between the ordinary sin offering and the trespass offering, yet belonging in the category of the former. The sins for which they were to be offered were of a less flagrant character than those of Leviticus 4.
Four particular cases of inadvertent sins are first mentioned, Lev 5:1-4 (for Lev 5:2-3 are clearly to be distinguished); and then confession (Lev 5:5) and an offering (Lev 5:6-13) is required for each. The normal offering is prescribed in Lev 5:6, a substitute allowed in case of poverty, Lev 5:7-10, and a further substitute in case of extreme poverty, Lev 5:11-13. Only in regard to these substitutes is the ritual given, that for the normal sin offering having been already described in Leviticus 4
Lev 5:1. The case here specified is that of a witness put upon oath who withholds testimony as to that which is within his own certain knowledge . It is the omission, according to our phraseology, to tell the whole truth. It may cover also the case of neglect to testify when a public demand for information has been made with an adjuration; St. Augustine (Quest. in Lev. I.) and Theodoret extend it also to the case of hearing testimony, known to be false, given under oath. The case of giving positive false witness is quite a different one, and is treated in Deu 19:16-19.
Adjuration.In the forms of Jewish trial, the witness did not himself utter the oath, or express his assent to it, but was adjured by the magistrate. Comp. Mat 26:63; 2Ch 18:15.
Whether he hath seen or known.This covers both the cases of eye-witness and of knowledge derived from any other source.
Bear his iniquity.Until purged in the way herein provided. The expression is a very common one in the law (Lev 7:18; Lev 17:16; Lev 19:8; Lev 20:17; Lev 24:15; Num 5:31; Num 9:13; Num 14:33-34, etc.), and means that he shall endure the punishment of the sin, whether in its natural consequences or in positive inflictions. It is used both with reference to capital sins and also to those which might be expiated by sacrifice. If the sacrifice were not offered, the sinner must bear the consequences of his sin. In this case confession (Lev 5:5) was a necessary condition of the sin-offering; therefore if he do not utter it, for without this there could be no desire to be again at one with God, and hence no place for the offering of sacrifice.
Lev 5:2. The second case is that of uncleanness from touching the carcase of any unclean animal, and was a sin of a ceremonial character.
It be hidden from him.For the uncleanness of this and the following verse simple and speedy forms of purification were provided in case immediate action were taken (Lev 11:24-25; Lev 11:28; Lev 11:39-40; Lev 15:5; Lev 15:8; Lev 15:21; Num 19:22); but if it were neglected or unobserved, the defilement still actually existed, and as the offender was in danger of communicating his own uncleanness to others, and also of constant violation of the precepts of the law, it must be expiated by sacrifice. On the connection between uncleanness and sin, see preliminary note to Leviticus 11.
Lev 5:3. Or if he touch the uncleanness of man.A special case is made of this in order, as everywhere in the law, to emphasize the distinction between man and the lower animals. Thus while observed impurity from contact with the carcase of an unclean animal was removed at even after washing the clothes (Lev 11:24, etc.), and neglected might be expiated by the sin-offering, the impurity from contact with the human dead body continued seven days, and required repeated purifications (Num 19:11-16); and neglected, the offender defiled the tabernacle, and must be cut off from Israel. The various kinds of uncleanness in man are detailed in Leviticus 11-15.
When he knoweth of it.This expression is to be taken in connection with the it be hidden from him of Lev 5:2. Of course while the defilement was hidden there could be no consciousness of guilt, nor of moral sin; yet the transgression of the law was an existing fact, and entailed its consequences. When it was brought to the offenders knowledge, then he was guilty in the further sense that he was bound to remove the already existing guilt by confession and sacrifice.
Lev 5:4. The fourth and last case specified is that of careless or forgotten oaths, not embracing the breach of the third commandment; but the neglect or forgetfulness to perform an oath (such as might be uttered in recklessness or passion).To do evil, or to do good.That is to do anything whatever. Comp. Num 24:13; Isa 41:23.
Lev 5:5. And it shall be, when.A form to introduce the apodosis to each of the previous verses.
He shall confess.This applies to the particular sins mentioned in the foregoing verses, not to the sin-offering in general. It is also required in the case of the trespass offering, Num 5:6-7. According to Jewish tradition a prayer and confession accompanied the laying on of the hand in all offerings. This is a distinct acknowledgment of the particular fault, apparently before presenting the victim.
Lev 5:6. Bring for his trespass.The Hebrew being exactly the same as in the following verse, it seems better to give the same translation. The A. V. has also the same translation in Lev 5:15, 25 (Lev 6:6). The phrase is thus parallel to, and in apposition with, for his sin which he hath sinned. The sacrifice for this is expressly called a sin offering in this verse and Lev 5:7; Lev 5:11-12. By this rendering the sin and the trespass offerings are kept distinct as they were certainly intended to be.
A female from the flock.The victim and the ritual are precisely the same as in the sin offering for one of the people of the land, and probably Lev 5:1-4 are intended to apply only to sins committed by them.
Lev 5:7-10. The alternative offering of the poor.
As in the case of the voluntary burnt offering (Lev 1:14-17), so in this of the required sin offering, the poor are allowed to bring pigeons or turtledoves.
One for a sin offering, and the other for a burnt offering.The two together evidently constitute the full sin-offering; but they are called by these names because the treatment of the two birds was different, and each after the analogy of the offering from which it is named. The bird being too small to admit of its parts being disposed of as a sin offering, two were required, one of which was undoubtedly (although this is not expressed) to be eaten by the priest, as is stated in the Mishna, after the fashion of the flesh of the sin offering (Lev 6:26; Lev 6:29; Lev 7:7); the other was to be burned on the altar like the fat of that sacrifice.
Lev 5:8. Pinch off the head.See under Lev 1:15. In this case the head was not to be entirely separated, but pinched off enough to allow the blood to flow and to kill the bird.
Lev 5:9. Sprinkle of the blood.This was not done in the case of the bird for the burnt-offering. It could easily be accomplished by swinging the bleeding bird against the side of the altar.
Pressed out at the bottom.Where the blood of the other sin offerings was poured. In the burnt offering this blood (Lev 1:15) was pressed out against the side of the altar.
Lev 5:10. The ritual of the second bird was to be the same as when birds were offered for a burnt offering (Lev 1:15-17). The two birds together constituted a complete sin offering. From the fact, however, that two were required, it is plain that the part of the offering not required to be consumed upon the altar was still essential to the sacrifice.
Lev 5:11-13. The second alternative for the extremely poor.
This was allowed, on account of the absolute necessity of the sin offering, in order to put it within the reach of all. Lange notes that the sins specified in this section are, for the most part, sins arising from the lowness and rudeness of the inferior people: the law seeks to refine them. Still it is to be remembered that this alternative offering was not only for the sins mentioned Lev 5:1-13, but for all sins reached by the sin offering. The fact that it was unbloody is not opposed to the general significance of the shedding of blood in connection with the remission of sin (Heb 9:22), since this alternative was altogether of an exceptional character and allowed only in case of necessity. It was also supplemented by the general sin offering on the great day of atonement.
The tenth part of an Ephah.The Ephah according to Josephus was about Lev 1:1-9 bushels; according to the Rabbins, rather less than half that amount. The tenth of an Ephah (called an Omer, Exo 16:36) was therefore, according to the lower and more probable estimate, very nearly three pints and a half.
He shall put no oil upon it.The sin-offering of flour was sharply distinguished from the oblation of the same (Lev 2:5) by the absence of the oil and frankincense, just as the other gin offerings were marked by the absence of the oblations. In both cases, the difference indicates that the offerer stood in a different relation toward God, not that of one in communion with Him, but of one seeking atonement for the sin which separated from Him.
Lev 5:12. On the handful and memorial see on Lev 2:2.
Lev 5:13. In one of these.As in Lev 5:5, one of the sins specified, Lev 5:1-4.
As an oblation,i.e. as most holy. Comp. under Lev 2:3. The character of the sin offering in its two parts is still preserved in this its humblest form.
DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL
I. One of the plainest teachings of the sin offering is that everything opposed to the revealed will of God is sin, whether done with the purpose of transgressing it or not. Butler has shown that this is in perfect accordance with the divine law in nature. St. Paul considered himself the chief of sinners, because he persecuted the Church of God; yet as he obtained mercy because he did it ignorantly in unbelief (1Ti 1:13-15), so the sin-offering was provided for those who put themselves in opposition to the divine will without intending to do so. It was on this principle that Jesus could pray for those who nailed Him to the cross: Father, forgive them for they know not what they do (Luk 23:34). The great mass of human sin is incurred not for the sake of sinning, but in heedlessness, or through wrong judgment, or under the impulse of passion. It comes under the head of sins of inadvertence; but, as of old, needs the intervention of the blood of the atonement before the sinner can be restored to communion with God.
II. In the law of the sin offering it appears clearly that under the old dispensation as well as the new the character of the sin was determined by the animus of the sinner. For high-handed and defiant sin no sacrifice was allowable; he who committed this put himself out of the pale of reconciliation. But he who committed sinswhich might in themselves be far worsethrough inadvertence might bring his offering and have an atonement made for him. An excellent historical illustration may be found in comparing the stories of the lives of Saul and of David; and the distinction between the two kinds of sin is expressed in the psalm of David (Lev 19:12).
III. In the sin offering the offerer must have already been in a state of mind which led him to desire the forgiveness of his sin, as is shown by his very act of bringing his victim to the priest; he was also ready to confess his sin; yet still the offering was required. By this was taught in outward symbol to the people of the old dispensation what is so clearly proclaimed in the Gospel, that for the forgiveness of sin there must be some propitiation outside and beyond the sinner himself; mere penitence, though an essential prerequisite, cannot alone avail to restore the disturbed relations to God of one who has transgressed His law.
IV. The inherent inefficacy of these sacrifices to atone for sin has been already repeatedly noticed; moreover, this inefficacy was constantly brought to the mind of the worshipper by the repetition of the sin offerings, as is especially noted in regard to the sacrifices of the day of atonement in the Ep. to the Heb. (Lev 9:6-8); still the sin offering is insisted upon in the law with an emphasis greater than belongs to any other sacrifice. Most clearly, therefore, does it point to the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world.
V. In the extension of the privileges of the sin-offering in Num 15:29 to the stranger one of those many intimations is given, scattered everywhere throughout the Old Test., which the Israelites were so slow to understand, that the blessings of forgiveness and of approach to God were intended for all people, and that the narrowness of restriction to the children of Abraham after the flesh was only a temporary provision because of transgressions until the promised Seed should come. But even while the restriction continued the stranger in Israel might present his sin offering, and Israels priests must make atonement for him.
VI. The sacramental value of the sin offering is happily expressed by Calvin in Lev 4:22. In truth they hold not the first rudiments of the faith who do not recognize that the legal ceremonies were sacraments. But in all sacraments, at least those which are regular in the church, there is a spiritual promise annexed. It follows therefore that forgiveness was truly promised to the Fathers who reconciled themselves to God by the victims offered; not that the slaughter of sheep could expiate sins, but because this was a symbol, certain and impossible to deceive, in which pious souls might rest so that they could dare to appear before God in calm confidence. In fine, as sins are now sacramentally washed away by baptism, so under the law also sacrifices were expiations, although in a different fashion; since baptism sets before us Christ immediately, who was only obscurely shadowed forth under the law. Improperly indeed is that transferred to the signs which belongs to Christ alone, in whom is set forth to us the truth of all spiritual good, and who finally did away sin by His single and perpetual sacrifice. But since the question is not what the sacrifices availed in themselves, let it suffice that they testified of the grace of God of which they were figures.
VII. The ritual of the sin offering was the most solemn of all the sacrifices, and the blood of this (except in case of the alternative doves) was always to be placed at least on the horns of the altar, while that of the greatest burnt or peace-offering was only sprinkled on its sides; thus the forgiveness of sin is shown to be the most fundamental and necessary part of the whole approach to God.
VIII. No sin offerings, although some of them were burned without the camp, were ever wholly burned upon the altar, and the common expression in regard to other sacrifices, the food of the Lord is never applied to these. Frankincense and oil were not allowed with the vegetable, nor an oblation with the animal sin offering. The whole ritual was stern and severe, until by the sacrifice itself propitiation had been made. By this symbolism is set forth the attitude of the Infinite in holiness towards sin; and thus is seen what must have been the consequences to the sinner, except for the Propitiation that is in Christ Jesus.
HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL
The exceeding sinfulness of sin is shown in every possible symbolical way by this offering. It has in it nothing of the oil of gladness, or the fragrance of frankincense; it has nothing of festive joy, or of communion between the worshipper and God. Yet dark as the shadow of sin is hereby shown to be, it appears on all occasions when man comes into the presence of God. The sin offering was presented for the people, on all the great festivals and days of solemn convocation, on Passover, the Feast of Weeks, and the Feast of Tabernacles, on the Day of Memorial, on the first day of the seventh month, and on the Day of Atonement (Kalisch) and on many other public occasions. Besides all these, it was offered continually by individuals as the sins of their own lives were brought to their consciousness. So must mans approach to God ever be with the plea, Have mercy upon me, a sinner. Coming in this temper, propitiation is provided for all. There was none so poor but that a sin offering was within his reach. And so the word of the great Propitiation is, Him that cometh to me, I will in no wise cast out. He is able to save unto the uttermost them that come unto God by Him.
Yet for high-handed and defiant sin, for sin that sets itself in opposition to the Divine way of salvation, there is no other way of forgiveness, there remains no more sacrifice. Comp. Heb 10:26.
For the sin of the high-priest a higher victim was commanded, and with a higher ritual, because he sinned to the guilt of the people. Only for the sin of the whole people collectively the same offering was required. So it must ever be with those in positions of influence and authority; when they sin, they drag others with them into guiltiness. There is ever a federal, as well as an individual relation between man and God, and though the latter may determine his final condition, yet his individual relation itself is largely affected by his federal.
Sins of omission are regarded as sins equally with those of commission.
No one is so humble that the means of propitiation is not provided for him. Under the law this could only be symbolized by alternative offerings of different degrees, showing forth the freeness under the Gospel of the offer of the waters of life to all that are athirst.
Footnotes:
[1]Lev 4:2. from = = = to totter to and fro, to wander, to go wrong. It includes not only sinning unawares, through ignorance (Lev 4:13; Lev 4:22; Lev 4:27; Lev 5:17), or carelessness, and want of consideration (Lev 5:1; Lev 5:4); but also unintentional sins (like that of manslaughter without malice, Num 35:11; Num 35:15; Num 35:22), and therefore sins arising from human infirmity in contradistinction to intentional and defiant sinssins with a high handfor which no sacrifice was allowable (Num 15:27-31). The LXX. , the Targ. Onk. (also Ben Uz. and Jerus.) = through error, so also the Syr. The old Italic has imprudenter. Aquila reads , and it was perhaps by a literal translation of this that the Vulg. came to read per ignorantiam, which has been perpetuated in the A. V.; but in Hellenistic Greek and . (Heb 9:7) bear rather the sense given above. See Schleus. Lex. in LXX. Through going astray might better express the meaning, except that it does not sufficiently bring out the distinction as in the animus of the sinner.
[2]Lev 4:2. . The A. V. has supplied against, as in the former clause, where the construction is the same; but there it is required, and here worse than useless to the sense. It should be omitted as in nearly all the ancient versions. The in both clauses is to be taken partitively.
[3]Lev 4:3. Prop. inf. const. Kal., and there used as a noun = to bring guilt upon. So most of the ancient versions and the modern expositors generally.
[4]Lev 4:5. To anointed the LXX. and Sam. Vers. add whose hand is consecrated. The Sam. text has a similar addition.
[5]Lev 4:7. The Sam. and 8 MSS. prefix the article to , while the Sam., 3 MSS., and Vulg., omit the bullock.
[6]Lev 4:8. . This is translated in the A. V. and in the ancient versions as if it were as in Lev 3:14. So it must be translated, and such is actually the reading in the Sam. and many MSS.
[7]Lev 4:9. On. See Lev 3:4, Textual Note 3.
[8]Lev 4:12. The Sam. and LXX. here have the plural. Of course the high-priest did not do this with his own hands, but is said to do that which he caused to be done, according to common usage of all languages.
[9]Lev 4:13. (congregation) (assembly) the two words used here, and Num 16:2 and freq. have no difference in signification which can be recognized in translation. They are used in apposition.
[10]Lev 4:13. . In the A. V. sin always in Lev. is the translation of . This being the only exception, should be changed.
[11]Lev 4:13. has dagesh in the here and in Lev 5:2; Lev 5:4. According to Delitzsch it is an old rule of pointing that every consonant which followed a syllable terminating with a guttural should be pointed with dagesh, if the guttural was to be read with a quiescent sheva and not with chateph. Comp. Gen 46:29; Exo 14:6, (according to some copies) Psa 10:1.
[12]Lev 4:14. The Sam. and LXX. here add the without blemish so frequently expressed, and always to be understood.
[13]Lev 4:14. . The word is used in both sensesa sin, and a sin-offering. The context requires the latter here. It has no article.
[14]Lev 4:14. The LXX. and Vulg. add the door of, which is implied.
[15]Lev 4:15. The subject of is one of the elders.
[16]Lev 4:17. The ellipsis supplied by it in the A. V. is filled out in the Sam., in one MS., and in the Syr., by of the blood, comp. Lev 4:6. Several other words are filled out in the same version in the following verses from the preceding paragraph.
[17]Lev 4:18. The Sam. and LXX. unnecessarily specify altar of incense.
[18]Lev 4:20. The article of the original should be retained as the reference is to the sin-offering of the high-priest.
[19]Lev 4:21. The Sam. and many MSS. have here again the later feminine form .
[20]Lev 4:22. . This word variously rendered in the A. V. captain, chief, governor, prince, and ruler, occurs in Lev. only here, but very frequently in Num., where it is translated captain in Leviticus 2 (12 times), chief in chs. 3, 4 (5 times), once ruler, Lev 13:2, and prince throughout the rest of the book (42 times) as well as throughout Gen. and Josh. In Ex. it occurs four times uniformly translated ruler. In nearly all these places it refers to persons of substantially the same rank, and it would be better therefore that its translation should be uniform. It means literally, an exalted person, and is applied to the head of a tribe, or other large division of the people, whether of Israel or of other nations. Lange interprets it of the tribe chieftain, referring to Num 3:24. As prince is on the whole the most common rendering of the A. V., and expresses very well the sense, it is retained here.
[21]Lev 4:2. from = = = to totter to and fro, to wander, to go wrong. It includes not only sinning unawares, through ignorance (Lev 4:13; Lev 4:22; Lev 4:27; Lev 5:17), or carelessness, and want of consideration (Lev 5:1; Lev 5:4); but also unintentional sins (like that of manslaughter without malice, Num 35:11; Num 35:15; Num 35:22), and therefore sins arising from human infirmity in contradistinction to intentional and defiant sinssins with a high handfor which no sacrifice was allowable (Num 15:27-31). The LXX. , the Targ. Onk. (also Ben Uz. and Jerus.) = through error, so also the Syr. The old Italic has imprudenter. Aquila reads , and it was perhaps by a literal translation of this that the Vulg. came to read per ignorantiam, which has been perpetuated in the A. V.; but in Hellenistic Greek and . (Heb 9:7) bear rather the sense given above. See Schleus. Lex. in LXX. Through going astray might better express the meaning, except that it does not sufficiently bring out the distinction as in the animus of the sinner.
[22]Lev 4:23. The conjunction should be rendered if perhaps, Fuerst, Gesenius. The Syr. renders by if, the LXX. , Vulg. et postea.
[23]Lev 4:23. = a he-goat, generally understood of one older than the or young he-goat used in the burnt and peace-offerings (Fuerst, Knobel). It is often rendered kid in the A. V. It is also rendered devil Lev 17:7; 2Ch 11:15, where the reference is to the idolatrous worship of the goat, (or goat-like deity) and twice satyr in Isa. (Isa 13:21; Isa 34:14). It is the kind of goat used in the sin-offering generally. Bochart supposes it to mean a goat of a peculiar breed; so Keil.
[24]Lev 4:24. The Sam. puts the verb in the plural; so also in Lev 4:33.
[25]Lev 4:25. The LXX. and 4 MSS. have all his blood, as in the other places.
[26]Lev 4:27. There seems no occasion here to deviate from the literal translation which is retained so far as people of the land is concerned, in Lev 20:2; Lev 20:4; 2Ki 11:18-19; 2Ki 16:15. It was the common name of the whole people as distinguished from the priests (in this case probably from the high-priest) and the rulers.
[27]Lev 4:28. is simply the feminine of the word discussed under Lev 4:23.
[28]Lev 4:30. Two MSS., the Sam., and the Syr., unnecessarily add of burnt-offering. The Sam. and the LXX. make the same addition at the end of Lev 4:34.
[29]Lev 4:32. = a sheep, see Text. note 5 under Lev 3:7.
[30]Lev 4:35. . The sense is here as in Lev 3:5 upon. These being special offerings, the daily burnt-offering would always have been upon the altar before them, and even if that were already wholly consumed, the expression upon it could still be naturally used. [31] Lev 5:1. Particula ante hic usurpatur , estque vertenda quia, eo quod, ut Gen 26:12; Deu 17:16. Rosenmueller.
[32]Lev 5:1. . Commentators are generally agreed that this should be translated adjuration. The verb in the Hiph. is translated adjure in 1Sa 14:24. See Exeg. Com. The Heb. has no word for adjuration as distinct from swearing. It is expressed in the LXX. by .
[33]Lev 5:2. The full form would be ; accordingly the Sam. and some MSS. prefix here and add in Lev 5:4
[34]Lev 5:2. See note1 on Lev 11:2.
[35]Lev 5:4. ,, speak idly, or ill-advisedly. Comp. , Mat 6:7.
[36]Lev 5:5. For the Sam. and 20 MSS. here substitute .
[37]Lev 5:6. , like , is used in the sense both of trespass and trespass-offering. The ancient versions leave the question between them open. The Vulg. has simply agat, penitentiam, LXX. , while the Semitic versions leave the same doubt as the Hebrew. Modern commentators are divided, but the weight of opinion accords with the Exeg. Com. At the end of the verse the Sam. and the LXX. have the fuller form, and the priest shall make an atonement for him, for his sin which he hath sinned, and it shall be forgiven him.
[38]Lev 5:27. is simply the feminine of the word discussed under Lev 5:23.
[39]Lev 5:7. lit. If his hand cannot acquire. The sense is well expressed by the A. V.
[40]Lev 5:9. the translation of the A. V. wrung might answer here, but as the same word must be translated pressed in Lev 1:15, it seems better to preserve uniformity.
[41]Lev 5:9; Lev 5:11-12. The Sam. and many MSS. have the later feminine form of the pronoun .
[42]Lev 5:12. = upon, as Lev 3:5; Lev 4:35.
[43]Lev 5:13. Oblation. Comp. Lev 2:1, Textual Note 2, and Exeg. at beginning of Leviticus 2.
[44]It is also a straining of the text to render the words: in the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die, as meaning thou shalt actually die the death. Religiomoral death realizes itself gradually. Indeed, the principle of death is the germ of death itself.
Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange
CONTENTS
The interesting subject of the law of ordinances, is continued through this Chapter. Here are instructions, concerning sins of ignorance; and the offering to be made in consequence thereof. Moses is taught, by the LORD himself to instruct the Children of Israel, how to prepare, and offer those sacrifices; and of the difference in the ordinance, when it concerns a ruler or private person.
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Observe the expression, If a soul shall sin; meaning no doubt that all sin is the sin of the soul. Mic 6:7 . And it is the soul that is hurt by it. Pro 8:36 . And it is the soul that is liable to death by it. Eze 18:4 .
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Possibilities of Guilt
Lev 4:3
But that is impossible! Yet how graciously the matter is suggested! What a wondrous providence is revealed in mitigations, remote, gracious suggestions and definitions. What wonderful ifs in the speech of God! as if his great heart were glad of some word that merely hinted at an impossible possibility, at something which might occur but could not; a voice such as was heard in Eden when the suggestion was made concerning a certain tree. It never could have entered into the divine thought that any accountable and loving creature would touch a tree that had been forbidden. But in this case we read of an officer a priest a priest anointed, so that there can be no mistake about his identity. The descriptive clause is perfect and complete in simplicity. Yet how wondrous a thing in all the wondrousness of love is this door that opens the verse, this great astounding If! How can a priest sin? The oil is upon him; the holy touch has left its holy impress upon him. Great names should be equal in moral arithmetic to great characters. Great offices are not empty forms, mere sounding words, titles to live upon. Great names are great offices, and great offices imply great character: for character alone is strength in the sanctuary, not brilliance, not genius, not power of amazing other intellects by lights that look like revelations; but solid, genuine, noble character, indiscretions may lie upon it a thousand thick, but right down in the core of it there is genuine sincerity, unuttered and unutterable desire for God. That is what character really is and always ought to be and must be. No man can do the Church so much harm as the priest, the professor, the minister, the person who is inside the Church. We sometimes talk about unbelievers. Where are they? How seldom we realise the fact that a man cannot be an un believer outside! The unbelievers are inside. Do you see that? Do you feel that? Only he can un believe who has professed to believe. There is a merely etymological sense in which a man who is outside may be an unbeliever; but in the deep, moral, tragical sense of the term the unbelievers are in the pulpit and in the pew. The unbelievers are not the men who to-day are lecturing against God and Christ and Revelation: the unbelievers are the anointed priests who have slipped out of the enthusiasm of their piety, who are uttering formal sentences without having a corresponding burning in the heart, who are living upon paper which is unsupported by the solid bullion. This is the truth now urging itself upon us every one, because it is so easy to deceive one’s self and talk about unbelievers, as if they were the persons who never went to church, who took no part in religious movements, and who rather turned a deaf ear to all religious appeals. They cannot unbelieve, we can; the priest that is anointed can; the Christian that is baptized in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost can. The man who sings religious hymns and folds his hands and closes his eyes in religious attitude can unbelieve. Judgment must begin at the house of God. Do not suppose that we are Christians because we are theologians, or that we know anything about divine pity because we are skilled in the controversy of words. Christianity is a state of the heart, a condition of the soul before God, a continual penitence, a continual faith, a continual service. Change your views, if you please, about persons who are called unbelievers. There is no greater unbeliever than the man who preaches a Gospel he does not feel; there is no greater unbeliever than the Church which having a form of godliness denies the power thereof. This thought would close many a ministry, would shut up many a mission to the outsiders called unbelievers; this would burn us, yet by the grace and mercy of God would make new men of us. The world will die and mock the efforts of the Church unless the Church itself shall take up its old faith and live in its rightful and natural force. Still there is some comfort in this subjunctive form and way of putting the case. “If the priest that is anointed do sin,” if professing men do fall below their profession; if Christian aspirants fall below the level of their own prayer, if venerable men should turn aside for one moment to dally with the foe, if if ; it is God’s if. It is the way of mercy. Search into every command of God, and you will find mercy at the heart of it.
Read on: “If the whole congregation of Israel sin.” Can a whole congregation sin? Yes. We must not individualise too much. Humanity is not a set of unrelated individuals: humanity is a larger term than the one word “individual,” or “man,” or “person.” It is easy for a whole congregation to sin and for each man in that congregation to declare that he is not responsible for the sin of the whole. But he is. If that man has not stood up in the middle of the church, and cried out in a tone of agony against the evil that is being done, he is guilty of every sin which the Almighty charges upon the congregation as a whole. Men may be cowards in congregations who are brave men in their own individuality. Nothing tries a man’s quality much more than making him a member of a crowd. Men will do things in crowds they would never dream of doing in their individual capacity and under their own sign-manual. Responsibility becomes diffused, the moral sense becomes scattered and distracted; and men, therefore, will do in committees, on boards, in congregations, in vestries, in churches what they would not do in their own simple, measurable personality. Wondrous is the insight into human nature in such an if as we have in the thirteenth verse. “If the whole congregation sin.” There is a corporate life as well as a personal existence. We live in many relations towards one another and towards God. We are individuals, we are also families, we are also citizens, we are also members of a congregation. We cannot tell where our relations cease, how they shrink into comparatively small dimensions and then broaden out into imperial magnitudes. Life is a mystery involved in great complexity, and revealing itself very startlingly to every careful student of its expression and action. We cannot come together as a congregation without having congregational relations to God; Could we teach this truth as it ought to be taught we should all be new men. When we are sitting at boards of direction, when we are dividing with others the responsibility of corporate decisions we should not play the coward by hiding behind some bigger man than ourselves. The safety of every corporation, congregation, imperial or ecclesiastical body, is in the development of the individual conscience. The nation will never be right until the individual is right How much mischief has been done by bodies of men! and yet not one member of the several bodies will accept the responsibility of the action or the issue. But every man in a congregation is responsible for the Church, for the treatment of all the institutions of the Church, for a response to every appeal of the Church. He cannot say “the congregation” has done this or that, except in so far as we fix the responsibility upon the individual members. And this tells on both sides. We hear of congregations doing wonderful things in the way of benevolence; but coming to analysis we find the whole has been done by some half-dozen men. The congregation has no right to assume in its sum total capacity the virtues and the sacrifices of half-a-dozen heroic souls.
Read again: “If any one of the common people sin.” How searching is the criticism of God! “Common people” may sin as certainly as priests and rulers. We have left the congregation in its corporate capacity for one moment, and we are now dealing with not the common people, but ” any one of the common people.” God will not have any man permitted to sin with impunity. He does not release a priest from the obligations which he imposes upon the common people, nor will he excuse the common people because they are not priests. We are all God’s little ones. Every man is of importance to God. “It is not the will of your Father which is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish.” The same rule applies to moral criticism or to spiritual investigation of conduct. We must not excuse ourselves on the ground that we belong to the commonalty, and therefore may do what we please. God’s judgment, like God’s commandment, is “exceeding broad.”
Thus we have, If a priest do sin, If a ruler sin, If the whole congregation sin, If any one of the common people sin. Is there any loophole in that circle? Perhaps there may be. You cannot anticipate Omniscience. We read in the very beginning of this chapter, “If a soul shall sin.” Now there is no loophole. The very first line of the next chapter reads: “And if a soul sin.” Now how will you escape? You are not “priest,” nor “ruler,” nor part of a “congregation,” nor “one of the common people”; but can you disclaim the next title, “soul”? “If a soul sin,” yes, it is the soul that sins. That is a doctrine full of graciousness, but full of mystery, and requires to be stated with such delicacy of expression, as perhaps but really few can follow, in all its solemnity and significance. We have been unkind to the body, we have been mean to the body; we knew we had it for only a few years just a handful of days and we have abused it as we would abuse an unvalued dog. We have charged the body with everything. It is mean, it is false; it is the soul that sins. The body can never, as the younger son, go far from the soul. We sin when we sin with the consent of our whole nature, when the soul likes the tree, when the soul loves the golden goblet full of poison, when the soul says, “Give me more! this is a hunger of immortality.” Poor body! what it has had to bear! The soul is a coward. There is no divinely-intended schism between the body and the soul, and we must not be permitted to ride off upon the miserable excuse that the flesh is weak. God leaves no ground upon which any man can stand, saying, “He has not mentioned me; I am no priest, nor do I belong to the congregation, nor am I one of the common people; I am something else: I have not been named; I may sin seven days a week and do as I list.” Hear the word of the Lord: “If a soul shall sin”; and again: “If a soul sin”; and yet again, in the following chapter: “If a soul sin.” There is no escape. Let us be just to ourselves. God has been coming to the soul all the time; but He must be so critical and, as it were, analytical as not to leave any man, woman or child with the appearance of an excuse.
Look at the whole of these Ifs and mark their pathos and overlook not their divine courtesy, as if by this time, in the world’s history, we had wrought ourselves up so high in moral culture and solidity of character, as to make it a bare possibility that we might sin. This is the divine generosity; this is the divine encouragement. There is a time when you change your tone towards your own child When your son is eighteen years of age you change your tone a little; you begin to assume his dignity, his moral pride and ambition. You would not suggest to him that he could now repeat his childish follies; and you wisely make what statements of a cautionary kind you have to make with moderated expression, with the cunning graduation of tone which only love can inspire and sustain. “By this time,” you say, “another tone will be needed,” and you adopt that tone, and if the young soul knew the meaning of it, he would see more of your real love in that changed tone than in the first commandment given with so frank a simplicity, and with so direct an emphasis.
Then after all those hypothetical cases we find God devising ways of escape. The Book of Leviticus is full of doors opening back upon the Father’s heart. “If the priest that is anointed do sin” tell him what to do, how he shall bring his “young bullock without blemish,” and how he shall bring it “unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation before the Lord, and shall lay his hand upon the bullock’s head, and kill the bullock before the Lord,” and “take of the bullock’s blood” and “dip his finger in the blood, and sprinkle the blood seven times before the Lord, before the rail of the sanctuary,” and “put some of the blood upon the horns of the altar of sweet incense before the Lord, which is in the tabernacle of the congregation; and shall pour all the blood of the bullock at the bottom of the altar of the burnt offering.” Tell him what to do. The record might have gone in the contrary direction: “If a priest that is anointed do sin, report it to me, and all the tabernacles of thunder shall be shaken, and not one bolt of lightning hidden in all the treasury of heavens shall be spared; the criminal shall be shot through and through with lightning and buried amid the indignation of angels!” No; the Book of Leviticus shows the very genius of Deity in finding ways whereby offences may be sponged out and offenders made as if they had not fallen. But there is no trifling with sin. Read all the provisions made after each if, and you will find that repentance is always costly; read the detail of the sacrifices, and you will find how exacting is God. A man cannot sin in an off-handed manner and God say, “Let bygones be bygones, and begin again to-morrow as if life had had no yesterday.” It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. If the priest has sinned, he is not regarded as a priest, but as a sinner. So with every member of the sinning tribe, repentance is costly, return is marked by exactions of the most minute and critical kind. You cannot get back to God but through the medium of sacrifice, blood, propitiation, atonement.
Now what says the New Testament about priest, ruler, congregation, common people, soul? “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” “The blood of Jesus Christ, God’s Son, cleanseth us from all sin.” It is still the way of blood. Do not vulgarise that term; do not narrow your conceptions of it and try to make it some vulgar excuse for not accepting the awful term. Blood means life, reality, divine agony, an outpouring of the soul. Sin has not changed its character, nor can the method of sin’s redemption be changed as to its highest expression and meaning. “Without shedding of blood is no remission.” It is so between ourselves. If we understood the compact aright, all forgiveness expresses blood-shedding, or we may return to our old alienation. So the great Christian Gospel is heard amongst us this day, saying so solemnly, so sweetly, with all the trumpets of heaven, “The blood of Jesus Christ, God’s Son, cleanseth us from all sin.” Come priest, ruler, congregation, common people, every soul, come, for there is yet room, “Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.”
Fuente: The People’s Bible by Joseph Parker
Sins of Ignorance
Lev 4
The expression, “If a soul shall sin through ignorance,” opens a very wide region of thought. One would wonder whether it is possible that sin can be committed in ignorance that is to say, whether the ignorance does not do away with the sinful character of the deed. Is not sin a wilful action? Is not its wilfulness the very essence of its guilt? So we would think; yet again and again in the ritual we find that ignorance is never made into a sufficient excuse for sin. The sense of mystery which we may feel in regard to this matter can only be relieved by looking for analogous instances in the field of nature. This I would lay down as an excellent law of Biblical interpretation. Thus, given instances of mystery which afflict the soul with a sense of burdensomeness, or even of injustice, to find out how far such circumstances are illuminated or explained by actions within the province of observation and reason take, for example, sins of ignorance in a strictly physical department of life. Suppose it to be possible for anyone not to know the nature of fire, and in that state of ignorance to expose himself to its action, would the fire cease to operate because the man is ignorant? would nature suspend her operations in pity, saying, This man does not understand the nature of heat, and therefore he shall not feel the effects of its excessive use or application? Nothing of the kind occurs in nature. Nature is full of healing and kindness and compassion, always seeking to comfort the wounded and to staunch the fountains of blood, and yet nature makes no note of the persons who misunderstand or misapply her laws. Suppose a man should exclude the living air from his habitation, will nature say that the man, not understanding the utility of the atmosphere, must be excused because of his ignorance? Nature, like her Lord, teaches through suffering. There is no law written on all the dominion of nature with a broader and clearer hand than that all sin is followed by penalty. Exclude the air, and you exclude vitality; shut out the light, and you impoverish the life; doom yourself to solitude, and you doom yourself by the same fiat to extinction. It is in vain to plead that we did not know the nature of air, or the utility of light, or the influence of high things upon things that are low; we must be taught the depth of our ignorance and its guilt by the intensity and continuance of our personal suffering. Leaving the region of nature and coming into the region of civilisation, we find that even in legal affairs violations of law are not excused on the ground of ignorance. The judge upon the bench does not hesitate to inform the trespasser that he ought to have known the law of which he pleaded ignorance. Again and again this has been known to be the case. That some modification may be allowed, or some concession, is perfectly possible; but it is distinctly made as a concession, and in no sense as a right. The law has been violated, by neglect, or through ignorance, or wantonly; and whether in the one way or the other, there it stands in an offended attitude, and nothing can cause it to consent to change its posture. It insists upon the amendment of recognition and the compensation of suffering on the part of the offender. Turning from purely legal criticism of this kind, we find the same law in operation in social affairs. A man is not excused from the consequences of ill-behaviour on the ground that he did not know the customs of society or the technicalities of etiquette. He may be pitied, he may be held in a kind of mild contempt, his name may be used to point a moral; but at the root of all this criticism lies the law that the man is a trespasser, and that ignorance cannot be pleaded as a complete excuse. This canon of judgment has a very wide bearing upon human affairs. Were it to be justly and completely applied, it would alter many arrangements and relations of life. There are many things which we ought to know, and which we ought to be; and instead of excusing ourselves by our ignorance, we should be stimulated by its effects to keener inquiry and more diligent culture. That sense of ignorance will possibly show us in what critical conditions our life is being spent. Life is not a broad surface which any eye can read, and which any capacity can comprehend. Life is a mystery, a complication, a series of causes and effects, a most complex organism which requires continual study and vigilance We know not upon what we may be launched by the very shortest journey we can take. He is living the life of a fool who imagines that life is a simple affair lying between four visible and measurable points. There is a superficial existence which can be measured as it were by the foot-rule, and weighed in common scales; but life, as inspired and directed by the Holy Ghost, is a sublime mystery. It admits of distinctions, and of classifications absolutely infinite in number. It is the part of Christianity so to operate upon human life as to show the greatness of that life to itself. As the Bible is a progressive revelation, so life is a progressive Apocalypse. To be told in plain and frank terms that man is made in the image and likeness of God is simply to startle the mind with a bold and possibly incredible proposition. That proposition does lie at the very base of Biblical revelation, but its full explanation is only to be realised as the centuries come and go, and after a breadth of education stretching through the experience of many generations. The first thing that a man was told is the last thing which man can understand. Thus we come to the beginning from the end, and only by doubling life back upon itself do we begin to take in the profoundest meanings of the very first statements which were addressed to the reason and the imagination. It is only in the Apocalypse that we begin to understand the Pentateuch. Yet even in such expressions as “If a soul sin through ignorance” we begin to see the meaning of the mystery of the divine nature of man. What watchfulness is imposed upon us by the fact that it is possible to sin through ignorance! If sin were a mere act of violence, we could easily become aware of it, and with comparatively little difficulty we might avoid its repetition. But it is more and other than this. It is committed when we little think of its commission; we inflict wounds when we think our hands are free of all weapons and instruments; we dishonour God when we suppose we are merely silent about him. The voice of nature and of experience, as well as of revelation, is “The place whereon thou standest is holy ground.” The sin may be in a look, in a far-off suggestion, in a tempting tone, in attitudes that have no names, and in breathings that are inarticulate. Neglect may be sin as well as violence. There is a negative criminality as well as a positive blasphemy. All this makes life most critical and most profoundly solemn. The commandment of God is exceeding broad. Being a divine commandment it comes of continual and minute exactions covering all life with the spirit and obligation of discipline. Not a moment is our own; not a single atom of all the stupendous universe comes within our proprietorship; to-day or to-morrow we may be translated into other spheres of existence; we cannot make a law of any kind that is not local and temporary a mere convenience for a moment; all the great laws were written before the universe was formed, and they will continue to exist through all changes and developments and processes of being; by their very nature they are eternal, and being eternal they cannot be affected by the conditions which are continually changing the attitude and complexion of our earthly life. Let us be just to the Biblical revelation in all such matters as these sins of ignorance; let us remind ourselves again that we recognise such sins in nature, in law, in social etiquette, in all the various relations of life, and that when we come upon them in the Bible we ought to approach them with a familiarity which itself amounts to an exposition and a vindication. There is nothing arbitrary in these enactments and demands. The God of Providence is the God of the Bible. Providence is the Bible in action, and the Bible is Providence in exposition and contemplation.
The mercy is shown that a special offering was provided for the sin of ignorance. It was recognised as a specialty, and provided for as such. Our business should never be to find the excuse, but rather to confess the sin. The great and gracious law applies here as elsewhere: “If we confess our sins, God is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” It is not our place to provide sacrifices. Even the Jews had no sacrifices to provide in the sense of inventing them. The part which the Jew had to act was simply a response to a divine enactment, and in reality that is exactly what we have to do. It is not our business to say how a way can be found out of this sin or that, or what argument can be set up in palliation of the crime which has been committed; the provision has been made, and that provision we must accept unless we are prepared to fall under a penalty which never fails to follow in the wake of evil-doing. The sin of ignorance never goes alone. Imagine a life so well lived that nothing can be charged upon it but sin due to ignorance! Such a life is an impossibility. It is also impossible for life to be marked only by what are called little or minor sins. There are no such sins, and in proportion as the mind leans to the thought that such sins are possible, is the mind the victim of a most mischievous, and may be fatal, sophism. Life cannot be reduced to a mere negation. We know not what the conditions of life may be in other worlds, but in the region which is described by time, life itself would seem to be steeped in sin, and sin may be regarded, in some sense, as a necessity of life; not a necessity as involving the sovereignty of God, but as revealing the mystery of human nature, under local and probationary conditions, to itself. If one righteous man could have been found upon the earth, the atonement of Christ would have been unnecessary. Atonement does not relate to numbers, or to individuals, or to exceptional instances, as if Christ should have said, “I will die for those who are tainted, for the few or the many who have apostatised”; in that case his death would have been the mere romance of philanthropy, or the fanaticism of perverted divinity; Jesus Christ found no righteous man, and therefore he tasted death for every man; he died for a world lying in the wicked one, and not for certain populations who had been less fortunate than other portions of mankind. Human nature is one. Human sin is one. Divine atonement is one. We disintegrate the universe and turn into trifling the sublime purpose of God when we individualise, and specialise, and make exceptions on behalf of the virtue of this class or that class. The solemn and appalling truth is that there is none righteous, no not one; and however the sin may be critically described, it is simply for the purpose of showing that the sacrifice provided is equal to the refinement and mystery of any new definition that may startle the imagination by its delicacy or unsuspected operation. Take this view of the sacrifices, and it will be shown that the divine mind has anticipated every possible form of human evil and offence. Happily, therefore, the mind can never be surprised into despair by having forced upon it the conviction that some new sin has been invented, or some new conditions have so surrounded a sin as to take the offence out of the catalogue of the crimes for which divine provision has been made. The specification of sins is not intended to show the keenness and breadth of the divine criticism, but to supply an answer to temptations that might assail the soul and drag it towards the darkness of despair. Let every soul, then, boldly say, as if in solemn monologue, Whatever my sin may be, it is provided for in the great Offering established as the way of access to the Father; I will invent no excuses; I will seek for no new methods of payment or compensation; I will bring no price in my hand, no excuse on my tongue, nor will I hide even in the depths of my consciousness any hope that I can vindicate my position before God; I will simply fall into the hands of the Living One, and look upon the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world. In that spirit I will go forward to judgment, and in that spirit I will encounter the mysteries of destiny.
Note
It was in the sprinkling of the blood, the proper sacrament of sacrifice, that the distinction between the guilt offering and the expiatory offering, in the narrow sense, came most clearly to the front; and it is easy to understand why it would reveal itself most plainly here. As it was right that the blood of an expiatory offering for public transgressions should be made far more conspicuous to eyes and sense, so it was sprinkled on an elevated place, or even on one which was extraordinarily sacred. The way, too, in which this was done was marked by three stages. If the atonement was made for an ordinary man, or for a prince, the priest sprinkled the blood against the high towering horns of the outer altar, and poured the remainder, as usual, out at its base; if it was made for the community, or for the high-priest, some of the blood was seven times sprinkled against the veil of the Holy of Holies, then some more against the horns of the inner altar, and only what was then left was poured out, as usual, at the base of the outer altar. The third, and highest stage of expiation was adopted on the yearly day of atonement. On the other hand, in the case of the guilt offering, no reason existed for adopting any unusual mode of sprinkling the blood. It was sprinkled, just as in other cases, round the sides and foot of the outer altar. As soon as this most sacred ceremony of the sprinkling was completed, then, according to the ancient belief, the impurity and guilt were already shaken off from the object to which they had clung.
Ewald.
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 4:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
Ver. 1. And the Lord spake. ] At another time belike.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Leviticus Chapter 4
THE OFFERINGS FOR SIN AND TRESPASS.
Now we come to a new and necessary class of offerings. Unlike those which have hitherto occupied us, they were not voluntary nor for a sweet savour. They were compulsory, to clear the conscience, to make reparation, and to vindicate God’s honour injured by wrongs in His people to God or man. Forgiveness was sought and secured thereby; and as it was needed by all from the highest to the lowest, so it was imperative on each guilty individual, and no less by the assembly as such when it had failed corporately.
The sacrificial character was preserved at least as carefully in these offerings for sin, etc., as in the Holocaust or in the Thank offering. The notable principle of transfer was ineffaceably maintained in both classes. It was the provision on God’s part for those hopelessly lost otherwise. Grace has given Christ for saints as well as sinners; the love of God goes out fully to both, if the form differ as it must. Alike they are typical of the atoning work of the Lord Jesus; alike they attest through faith in His death man’s acceptable approach to God, his guilt effaced. But the application of the transfer is as notably different; for in the sacrifices of sweet savour the transfer is from the acceptance of the offering to that of the offerer, in those for sin or guilt the offerer’s evil was transferred to the offering. For in very deed Christ’s own self bore our sins in His body upon the tree. Cf. also Eph 5:2 .
How does divine mercy shine in either case! Each is most admirable, both are requisite to present an adequate insight into the work of Christ. Yet are they but shadows, not the very image; and they leave much unexpressed which even Himself left among other things for the Holy Spirit to guide His disciples into, when His work of redemption accomplished on earth and His session in heavenly glory should prepare them to receive all the truth. But where is Christendom now? where are those who boast highly of themselves, and slight the inspired word of God?
“Safety” is all but universally the evangelical measure of the gospel; some add “certainly,” others “enjoyment” too. But the system of all in their respective way is utilitarian. They make man’s wants the horizon of their faith, and can dimly see “the salvation of God,” as scripture habitually presents His mind, because it is filled with His glory in His Christ. Salvation accordingly goes far beyond these human thoughts of safety. The once sinful woman, now penitent (whose faith drew her into the Pharisee’s house to stand weeping behind the Lord as He reclined at meat, lavishing on His blessed feet every mark of sorrow, love, and reverence), was as “safe” when she entered as when she left. But only before leaving she knew from Him that her sins, her many sins, were forgiven; and when unbelievers questioned His title to forgive, He added, “Thy faith hath saved thee: go in peace.” Is not this much more than safety? It is salvation. With this feet in Luke observe the Lord’s teaching in Luk 15 . The prodigal son in his rags was “safe” enough assuredly when the father ran and fell on his neck and kissed him. But it was salvation according to God’s gospel, when the best robe was put on him, and the slain fatted calf was eaten with glad hearts, yet to the joy far deeper in Him Who created it than in the prodigal with all who shared it. And the Son was just the One thus to make known the Father’s love. How miserably short of the truth fall the Creeds and Catechisms and Articles of man! and this because in them Christ is not all.
So in these offerings revelation begins, not (as man would) with that which his misery and guilt stand in need of, but with the witnesses, as far as could then be consistently imparted, of Christ’s perfectly acceptable work, and positive excellency, and sweet savour to God, made over fully and for ever and now to the believer. It is the more striking that Leviticus should open thus from God’s side; because, in point of fact, defiled and guilty man had to commence with his offering for sin or trespass.
Without the removal of the delinquency by the prescribed offering it would have been lack of conscience in man, and a wrong to God instead of honouring Him. Where all was thus cleared righteously, he was free and encouraged to let out his heart Godward by presenting the offerings of sweet savour. The reader of the N. T. may see in the opening verses of Eph 1 a characteristically high expression, yet analogous to this. For instead of rising as Rom 3 does from the remission of sins by the blood of Christ to the bright triumph of faith in constant grace, the hope of glory, and even boasting in God Himself, as Rom 5 shows, we have the God and Father of our Lord Jesus beginning with His eternal purpose, and blessing the Christian with every spiritual blessing in the heavenlies in Christ, and then descending to point out the possession of redemption in Him through His blood, the remission of offences.
There is another preliminary remark which it seems well to point out in the offerings for sin. In none is there more stringent requirement of holiness. Like the Minchah or Meal offering, those for sin might have been thought rather lower from representing, one, the concrete person of our Lord in His life, the other, His identification with the consequences of our sins in divine judgment. Both are called, and they only, “most holy.” See Lev 2:3 , and Lev 6:17 , compared with Lev 6:25 , Lev 6:29 , Lev 7:1 , Lev 7:6 . So, even when the body of the victim was carried forth without the camp and burnt with fire, all the inward fat was burnt on the brazen altar. How perfectly this separation to God at all cost was verified in Christ suffering for our sins, though all His life and services bore unswervingly the stamp of holiness! Therein indeed the Son of man was glorified, and God was glorified in Him in such a sort and to such a depth as He never was before, and could never be again, though the entire course here below was to the glory of His Father. No wonder that God thereon glorified Jesus in Himself, and this immediately, before He receives the kingdom and returns to introduce it visibly in power.
THE SIN OFFERING FOR THE HIGH PRIEST.
In this chapter four cases demanded a Sin offering. The first two had no limit in the consequence entailed. It was all over without that for the entire people of God; for in both cases the communion of the whole camp was interrupted: in the second because the whole assembly of Israel had sinned and were guilty; in the first, because the high priest had sinned, which had the same result for all as for himself. We shall see how grace provided against that which was in itself ruinous. In the last two cases of the chapter the ill result did not go beyond the individual concerned.
“And Jehovah spoke to Moses saying, Speak to the sons of Israel, saying, If a soul shall sin inadvertently against any of Jehovah’s commandments that ought not to be done, and do any of them; if the anointed priest sin to the trespass (or, guilt) of the people, let him offer, for his sin which he hath sinned, a young bullock without blemish to Jehovah for a sin offering. And he shall bring the bullock to the entrance of the tent of meeting before Jehovah; and he shall lay his hand upon the head of the bullock, and slaughter the bullock before Jehovah. And the anointed priest shall take of the blood of the bullock, and bring it into the tent of meeting. And the priest shall dip his finger in the blood and sprinkle of the blood seven times before Jehovah, before the veil of the sanctuary. And the priest shall put of the blood on the horns of the altar of sweet incense before Jehovah, which is in the tent of meeting; and he shall pour all the blood of the bullock at the bottom of the altar of burnt offering, which is at the entrance of the tent of meeting. And all the fat of the bullock of the sin offering he shall take off from it: the fat that covereth the inwards, and all the fat that is on the inwards, and the two kidneys and the fat that is upon them, which is by the flanks, and the net above the liver which he shall take away as far as the kidneys, as it is taken off from the ox of the sacrifice of peace offerings; and the priest shall burn them upon the altar of burnt offering. And the skin of the bullock, and all its flesh, with its head, and with its legs and its inwards and its dung, even the whole bullock shall he carry forth without the camp unto a clean place, where the ashes are poured out, and burn it on wood with fire: where the ashes are poured out shall it be burnt” (vers. 1-12).
As the law, we are told by divine authority (Heb 7:12 ), made nothing perfect, so it spoke of nothing perfect for the most guilty. It was exactly a ministry of death and condemnation. Grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. The law, being a system of human righteousness, could not be but partial. It was the test of fallen man, not the transcript of God, nor yet the rule of the new creation. It provided, as we see here, for no more than inadvertent or unwitting sin. If this were all that the gospel meets, who could be saved? No more is here contemplated (ver. 2).
Then comes from ver. 3 the particular case of the anointed or high priest. If he should sin to make the people guilty – this is the true force of the phrase, and the real effect of his sin in the ways of Jehovah. “According to the sin of the people” as it stands in the A.V. seems doubly defective, and scarcely in fact an intelligible proposition, unless one consider it to mean tantamount to the sin or rather guilt of the people as a whole; which, though true in itself, hardly appears to be intended here. The R. V. gives the meaning. If the anointed priest “sin so as to bring guilt on the people,” i.e. without their sinning.
As the high priest represented the people, so his acts brought, not only blessing on them, but also the guilt of his sin. How blessedly in contrast is the High Priest of our confession, a great High Priest, passed through the heavens as He is, Jesus the Son of God! For though tempted in all respects in like manner, it was apart from sin, not merely from sinning. Sin was absolutely excepted. In Him was no sin; on the contrary He was holy (and graciously so), harmless, undefiled, separated from sinners, and become higher than the heavens.
But if the anointed should sin, as indeed was not infrequently the case, “let him offer for his sin which he hath sinned, a young bullock without blemish to Jehovah for a sin offering.” It must be the largest offering. Option was not permissible. He must bring this victim, and no other. “And he shall bring the bullock to the entrance of the tent of meeting before Jehovah; and he shall lay his hand upon the head of the bullock, and kill the bullock before Jehovah” (ver. 4). As Jehovah’s command had been infringed, the high priest must bring the prescribed animal before Him to the appointed place, and there slay it before Him, with his hand laid on its head: the token of transferring the guilt to the victim – how precious for the sinner!
“And the anointed priest shall take of the blood of the bullock and bring it into the tent of meeting; and the priest shall dip his finger in the blood and sprinkle of the blood seven times before Jehovah, before the veil of the sanctuary. And the priest shall put of the blood on the horns of the altar of sweet incense before Jehovah, which is in the tent of meeting; and he shall pour all the blood of the bullock at the bottom of the altar of burnt offering which is at the entrance of the tent of meeting” (vers. 5-7). Without or within the sanctuary what is done is “before Jehovah.” He is the One Who has to be vindicated. Blood is brought not only “to” but “into” the tent of meeting, and sprinkled before the veil of the sanctuary. Only on the solemn and single day of atonement did the high priest go with incense within the holiest and sprinkle of the blood upon the mercy-seat and before it. Here it was only within the holy place, where he put of the blood upon the horns of the golden altar; and all the rest of the blood was poured out at the base of the brazen altar.
“And all the fat of the bullock of the sin offering he shall take off from it,” etc. Just as was done with the ox of the sacrifice of Peace offerings (8-10, compared with Lev 3:3-5 ), so the priest was to burn it on the brazen altar: a blessed witness, not only in the blood but in the fat, of the intrinsic acceptability of Christ sacrificed for us and our sins. These were shadows most instructive: His the one offering infinitely agreeable to God, everlastingly efficacious for us that believe on Him.
Still there is the witness not less plain that it was a Sin offering; and so we read in vers. 11, 12 what quite differs from the eating of the Peace offering. “And the skin of the bullock, and all its flesh, with its head and with its legs, and its inwards and its dung, even the whole bullock shall he carry forth without the camp unto a clean place, where the ashes are poured out, and burn it on wood with fire: where the ashes are poured out shall it be burnt.” There too does it differ from the Burnt offering which was burnt within the court on the brazen altar. The Sin offering must be burnt without the camp: holy, most holy, but thoroughly identified with the sin thereon confessed. How it was all more than verified – enhanced on every side to the highest degree – in Him Who suffered for our sins!
THE SIN OFFERING FOR THE CONGREGATION.
The first of these compulsory offerings attested the specially representative place of the anointed priest. His sin involved the whole congregation of Israel. Communion for all was at once interrupted. Now we learn in the second case of the Sin offering that the high priest was identified with the congregation in its collective defilement. It was not so ordinarily when an individual sinned, no matter how high his position, though this too had its effect as we shall see. But in the former cases there was a suspension of communion for all; and the requisite Sin offering must be to restore.
“And if the whole assembly of Israel err [or, sin inadvertently] and the thing be hid from the eyes of the congregation, and they have done any of all the commandments of Jehovah which should not be done, and are guilty; and the sin wherein they have sinned against it is become known; then the congregation shall present a young bullock for the sin offering, and bring it before the tent of meeting. And the elders of the congregation shall lay their hands upon the head of the bullock before Jehovah; and the bullock shall be slaughtered before Jehovah. And the anointed priest shall bring of the bullock’s blood into the tent of meeting; and the priest shall dip his finger in the blood, and sprinkle it seven times before Jehovah before the veil. And he shall put of the blood on the horns of the altar that is before Jehovah, which is in the tent of meeting; and he shall pour out all the blood at the bottom of the altar of burnt offering, which is at the door of the tent of meeting. And all its fat shall he take off from it and burn it on the altar. And he shall do with the bullock as he did with the bullock of the sin offering, so shall he do with this. And the priest shall make atonement for them; and it shall be forgiven them. And he shall carry forth the bullock without the camp, and burn it as he burned the first bullock: it is a sin offering of the congregation” (vers. 13-91).
Jehovah would have the sin judged in every case; but in every case He provides for its removal from before Him. There was, there could be, no respect of persons in His sight. Yet He makes a difference according to position, and especially in the anointed one who represented all. How blessed for us that He Who bore all our sins in His own body, before He entered into the holies for us, is there now not only to sustain us in our weakness and represent us in His perfectness, but as the Advocate for us with the Father if any one sin! It was He Who when here was tempted in all things in like manner, sin excepted. “Such a high priest became us” is the wonderful word of God, holy, guileless, undefiled, separated from sinners, and become higher than the heavens: no need ever had He as the high priests, His types, to offer up sacrifices for any sin of His. All the more was He alone competent to act efficaciously for those of others; and this He did once for all, having offered up Himself, a Son perfected for ever. But the assembly – ah! this is another matter. They indeed could sin, and sin as a whole. For this He made atonement, as we see here in the shadow, that it might be forgiven them. It may be noticed that in the counterpart of the great priest this assurance is omitted. That his sin when atoned for was forgiven him cannot of course be doubted; but the omission points to the only One Who had no sins to be forgiven, though He be the One Who made atonement for all.
But Jehovah would have His people exercised in conscience as to any sin of theirs when it became known; and so the congregation was to present a young bullock for the Sin offering and to bring it before the tent of meeting (ver. 14). As all could not lay their hands upon the victim’s head, the elders of the congregation were directed to lay their’s representatively (15). When it was killed before Jehovah (for sin ever refers to God), the anointed priest was called to act on behalf of the congregation as in his own case, not so in those that follow: any priest was competent ordinarily, here the high priest only. And he must bring of the bullock’s blood into the tent of meeting (16), dip his finger in it, and sprinkle it seven times before Jehovah before the veil, as for his sin (17). He must as then put of the blood on the horns of the golden altar that is before Jehovah; for the communion of all had to be restored. It is the more in striking distinction from the individual cases, because in all the others the blood of the sin offering that remained was all poured out at the bottom of the brazen altar (18). And there all the fat was burned, not outside but on the altar (19), and with the same particularity as in the Sin offering for the anointed priest (20). There was thus the fullest witness to the intrinsic holiness of the victim; while verse 21 carefully shows how thoroughly it was identified with the sin of the congregation, and burnt on a clean place outside the camp, where as a whole the carcase was carried. The word for burning even was carefully varied as before to suit the twofold truth.
What wondrous forethought such minute differences indicate! What jealousy for the honour of the Great Priest, so long before the time of His manifestation! and for that of the incomparable sacrifice of Himself, so acceptable to God, and efficacious for sinners! Not only is the book the authentic and the genuine writing of Moses, but it approves itself to be the work of God through him. Who but He Himself could have foreseen all?
THE: SIN OFFERING FOR THE RULER.
There is an important difference which presents itself here. The guilt attaches to the party concerned; others are not involved. The first case is that of a ruler, or principal man.
“When a ruler sinneth and through inadvertence doeth any of all the things which Jehovah his God hath commanded not to be done, and is guilty; if his sin wherein he hath sinned come to his knowledge, he shall bring his offering, a buck of the goats, a male without blemish. And he shall lay his hand on the head of the goat, and slaughter it at the place where they slaughter the burnt offering before Jehovah; it is a sin offering. And the priest shall take of the blood of the sin offering with his finger, and put it on the horns of the altar of burnt offering, and pour out its blood at the bottom of the altar of burnt offering. And he shall burn all its fat on the altar, as the fat from off the sacrifice of peace offerings; and the priest shall make an atonement for him from his sin; and it shall be forgiven him” (vers. 92-26).
Peculiar care is taken to impress a chief with his responsibility. In his case only do we hear of Jehovah “his God.” His position honourable and public renders his offence the more serious. For Israel were bound to own their God with them in the world, and making one to differ from another in a way that the nations never conceived (Eph 2:12 ). In his measure he was to rule as well as walk in the fear of God.
Nevertheless it was not of the same large consequence as when the high priest sinned or the whole congregation, which demanded a steer. For the ruler a buck of the goats was enough, but an unblemished male was requisite. No latitude was left in any respect or degree more than in the graver cases. As there was nothing to hinder his compliance, so his God would have the sin felt and judged, when it came to his knowledge.
The ruler brought his offering then, and laid his hand on its head, and killed it in the place where they killed the Holocaust before Jehovah. It was for sin; and death alone could expiate sin, the victim’s death for him who, by his hand laid on its head, transferred his guilt by God’s provision to the slain beast. Whatever the difference in the form, they every one agreed in this; and they all pointed to Him Who knew no sin, yet Whom God made sin for us, that we might become divine righteousness in Him.
But it will be noticed that the priest was to take of the blood with his finger, and put it on the horns of the brazen altar, as well as pour the rest of the blood at the bottom of the same. No more was needed than to meet the individual’s need, even though a prince, at the altar which is the means of the individual’s approach to Jehovah. Only his communion had been interrupted as it was now restored. Had it been either the high priest or the congregation as a whole, the golden altar would have been defiled, and the blood must have been sprinkled on its horns. Here the brazen altar being alone in question, the blood was put there accordingly, and the individual Israelite, even if a ruler, returned to the enjoyment of his privileges.
It is of all moment to appreciate the contrast the Epistle to the Hebrews establishes for the Christian by Christ’s work. It is done once and for ever. There is no repetition. Not only is the believer now sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all, but he is perfected by it in perpetuity, i.e. without a break. This is due exclusively to the absolute and everlasting efficacy of Christ’s sacrifice. Less than this would be His dishonour, which God would not tolerate. Would that believers now knew what a standing His blood has given them!
Hence it is that not in the Epistle to the Hebrews do we find provision for failure, but in the Gospel of John (13) and in 1Jn 2:1 . It is not fresh sprinkling of Christ’s blood, or repeated recourse to it; but according to the figure, washing the defiled feet in the water of the word, and according to the doctrine of the advocacy of Christ – Jesus Christ righteous as He is, and the propitiation for our sins. He pleads for us and works in us by the Spirit and word of God the self- judgment needed to restore the communion which one’s sin interrupted; as we may see practically in Simon Peter with all its detail, and at length rich comfort and blessing, through grace.
We need, as Christians, both these truths fully held, without sacrificing one to the other. If we do not rest on the one offering of Christ in all its everlasting and uninterrupted efficacy, we cannot know the perfect clearance before God which the Epistle to the Hebrews claims for faith. If we do not bow to the doctrine of 1Jn 2:1 in accordance with Joh 13 , how can we taste the grace that restores us to the enjoyment of the communion interrupted by a sin? Our God would have us enter into our portion as worshippers once purged; but as our Father He loves us too well to allow any thing in our walk unworthy of the grace wherein we stand. And here it is that the advocacy of the Saviour applies, to the cleansing of defilement by the way, while He abides as our righteousness and the propitiation too in all its value.
THE SIN OFFERING FOR ONE OF THE PEOPLE
It is full of interest to notice the care bestowed by Jehovah on the Sin offering for the ordinary Israelite. He marks the difference between him and a ruler or chief man, by demanding “a male without blemish” from the latter, “a female without blemish” from the former. They were to bring a kid of the goats; but there was this distinction; and Jehovah directed it. He provided in His goodness for both; but He did not leave it to man’s discretion; He directed each how to efface the sin.
“And if one (a soul) of the people of the land sin through inadvertence in doing any of the things which Jehovah hath commanded not to be done, and be guilty; if his sin which he hath sinned come to his knowledge, then he shall bring his offering a goat, a female without blemish, for his sin which he hath sinned. And he shall lay his hand on the head of the sin offering, and slaughter the sin offering at the place of the burnt offering. And the priest shall take of the blood thereof with his finger, and put [it] on the horns of the altar of burnt offering, and pour out all the blood thereof at the bottom of the altar. And all the fat thereof shall he take away, as the fat is taken away from off the sacrifice of peace offerings; and the priest shall burn it on the altar for a sweet odour to Jehovah; and the priest shall make atonement for him, and it shall be forgiven him” (vers. 27-31).
Jehovah would have the lowliest soul among His people feel that He entered into his concern about his sin, done unwittingly, and now troubling him when known. He therefore would impress it on his soul when he brought the unblemished female goat, by the stress even then laid on “for his sin which he sinned.” For the gracious effect of the offering is felt all the more if the sin be also. To the ruler it was but “the goat,” and “it” in ver. 24 though with “it is a sin offering” at the end. Here (ver. 29) it is “he shall lay his hand on the head of the sin offering, and slaughter the sin offering.” Yet more striking is the consolation given to the poor Israelite in ver. 31; where he alone is expressly assured, that the fat burnt by the priest on the altar should be “for a sweet odour to Jehovah.” “Before Jehovah” was said in the ruler’s instance about slaying the offering (as it was yet more emphatically where the whole assembly sinned), and about the use made of the blood. But He deigned to consider the lowly man by the special expression of the mark of communion in the burning of the fat for him when the offering for his sin was made.
Nor is this all. For the poor man alone was there an alternative offering. He might have a difficulty in providing a goat, and yet might find a sheep or lamb more readily. Hence for him alone this was permissible.
“And if he bring a lamb as his offering for a sin offering, he shall bring it a female without blemish. And he shall lay his hand on the head of the sin offering, and slaughter it for a sin offering in the place where they slaughter the burnt offering. “And the priest shall take of the blood of the sin offering with his finger, and put it-on the horns of the altar of burnt offering; and all the blood thereof shall he pour out at the bottom of the altar. And all the fat thereof shall he take away, as the fat of the lamb is taken away from the sacrifice of peace offerings; and the priest shall burn them on the altar with (or, upon) the fire offerings to Jehovah; and the priest shall make atonement for him concerning his sin which he sinned, and it shall be forgiven him” (vers. 32- 35).
Here again we should not overlook the kindness of Jehovah in giving consolation. The blood of the lamb was no less efficacious as a figure than that of a goat. There was no loss incurred by the alternative. But in the dealing with the fat there is indeed the peculiar mention of burning on the altar “upon the fire offerings to Jehovah,” as in Lev 3:5 ; although there it was a question of Peace offerings, here of an offering for sin. Gracious acceptance was implied, and not merely the removal of the sin or its forgiveness.
Fuente: William Kelly Major Works (New Testament)
spake. Introducing new class: non savour offerings. The sweet savour offerings introduced by the word “called”. See note on Lev 5:14.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Chapter 4
Now as we get into chapter four, we get in now to the sin offerings. First of all, God said, “if a soul should sin through ignorance against any of the commandments” ( Lev 4:2 )-It is interesting to note that sins of ignorance needed forgiveness. We hear so often ignorance of the law is no excuse. This actually comes from God because God made provision for those sins of ignorance. Quite often sin is related to ignorance. Transgression is never really related to ignorance. Sin is related to ignorance because there is a vast difference between sin and trespass, and thus, the difference between the sin offering and the trespass offering.
Sins were often due to ignorance, “I didn’t know.” The word sin has as its root word “missing the mark.” In Greek “hamartia,” “the missing of the mark.” Now I could be trying to hit the mark and still miss. That is still sin. There are a lot of people who are sinning who don’t want to sin. They are trying not to sin. They are doing their best not to sin, but they are still sinning. They are still missing the mark for the word “sin” means to miss the mark.
Trespass is not ignorance. It’s more than missing the mark, for it is missing the mark deliberately. I know what I am doing. I know that God doesn’t want me to do it. I do it anyhow. That’s a trespass. It’s a deliberate, willful act against God. So often when you are dealing with sin, you deal with ignorance. The person didn’t know, yet the sin needed taking care of. You remember Jesus when he was being nailed to the cross, prayed, “Father, forgive them. They know not what they do.” ( Luk 23:24 ) It was a sin of ignorance, and yet it needed the forgiveness of God. “Father, forgive them.” They needed that forgiveness, though the sin was being done by them in ignorance, not really knowing what they were doing.
And so, if a man sinned against the Lord-ignorance, he was to
bring a young bullock without blemish unto the Lord for a sin offering ( Lev 4:3 ),
And again the idea of putting on your hand upon its head, transferring the guilt, slaying it, the blood being taken in by the priest,
dipping his finger in the blood, sprinkling the blood seven times before the veil of the sanctuary. And the priest shall put some of the blood upon the horns of the altar… ; and shall pour out the blood of the bullock at the bottom of the altar… ( Lev 4:6-7 )
And then also they were to take a part of the bullock and to place it upon the altar and burn it on the fire, mainly the fat and the kidneys, and all.
And the skin of the bullock, and all his flesh, with his head, and his legs, and the inwards, and all, even the whole bullock shall he carry forth without the camp unto a clean place, where the ashes are poured out, and burn him on the wood with fire: where the ashes are poured out shall he be burnt ( Lev 4:11-12 ).
So the whole skin and everything was taken outside of the camp and there burnt with fire in this place where they would carry the ashes of the burnt offerings and all. There was a place outside of the camp they would carry them and lay them out, and at that place is where the skin and all. Now the skin of the-coming back to the first offering, the offering of consecration, those hides could be kept by the priest. And they would make them into coats and wear them and all. So the sheepskin coats and so forth would be worn by the priests, because they got the hides of those offerings. But with a sin offering, the priest couldn’t keep the hides. They were to be taken out and burnt completely with fire outside of the camp.
And the whole congregation of Israel sinned through ignorance, and the thing is hid from the eyes of the assembly, they’ve done somewhat against any of the commandments of the Lord concerning things which should not be done, and are guilty; when the sin, which they have sinned against it, is known, to the congregation, they shall offer a young bullock for the sin, and bring him before the tabernacle ( Lev 4:13-14 ).
And so forth, and thus the sin offering following the same routine. A sin offering for the congregation and then the sin offering for the rulers. In verse twenty-two, the same idea of ignorance, the rulers and so forth. And then they were to bring a kid of the goats, a male without blemish, and it was to be offered in the same manner as the bullock before the Lord.
And then, we get down to us in verse twenty-seven.
And if any of the commoners sin through ignorance [and so it comes down to every one of us], while he doeth somewhat against any of the commandments of the Lord concerning things which ought not to be done, and is guilty; if the sin, which he has sinned, comes to his knowledge: then he shall bring an offering, of the kid of the goats, a female without blemish, for his sin which he has sinned ( Lev 4:27-28 ).
Now the rulers brought the male kid of the goats and the commoners brought a female kid of the goats. And they would lay their hand upon the head of the sin offering, and the priest would go through the same routine of putting the blood upon the altar and sprinkling it before the Lord.
And if he bring a lamb for a sin offering, he shall bring it a female without blemish ( Lev 4:32 ).
And thus the sin offerings. And as I say, sin was related to ignorance. It was the missing of the mark. It comes to your attention; it wasn’t really a deliberate thing. But now what about those deliberate things.
“
Fuente: Through the Bible Commentary
We come now to the consideration of the sin offering. In the light of the divine holiness sin is seen, whether it be willful or not, and provisions must be made for its expiation. In the instructions, arrangements were made for the priest, the congregation as a whole, a ruler, and one of the common people. In each case a bullock was to be taken and a sevenfold ceremony followed It was surely impossible for any Hebrew to make the offering for sin without being brought into an overwhelming sense of its hatefulness to God, and, moreover, without having suggested to his mind the fact that God does make provision of grace whereby approach is made possible.
An order of responsibility is revealed in that provision is made first for the priest, then for the congregation, then for the ruler, and finally for the individual. While it is recognized that in the priest or the ruler sin is more pernicious on account of the influence each exerts, no man can excuse himself by transferring blame to others. It will be observed that through all these arrangements concerning the sin offering, responsibility is recognized with the knowledge of the sin. It is when a man’s sin was made known to him that he was expected to bring his offering. Let it not be thought, however, that sins of which a man is unconscious can be lightly excused. For these, sacrificial provision was also made in the offering on the great Day of Atonement, which will be considered in due course.
Fuente: An Exposition on the Whole Bible
Sin-Offerings for Priests and Congregation
Lev 4:1-21
The sweet savor offerings have now been considered. They are all concerned with consecration and communion. We now approach the sacrifices for sin; and first, for sins of ignorance. Here provision is made for the anointed priest, for the whole assembly, for the ruler and for one of the common people. Do we realize sufficiently the sinfulness of our sins of omission-i.e., of coming short of Gods glory? See how much they cost! The innocent victim had to suffer; as afterward our Lord suffered without the gate, that He might make an atonement and sanctify His people with His own blood. We learn what the Apostle meant when he described our Lord as being made sin for us.
After certain portions had been placed upon the altar of burned-offering, the remainder of the carcass was burned without the camp, as though it were an altogether polluted thing. Note that the sin of the priest was deemed to require a more costly offering than that of the ordinary man, because he had sinned against fuller light.
Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary
Lecture IV The Sin Offering
Read Leviticus, chaps. 4; 5:1-13; 6: 24-30; Psalm 22; 2Co 5:21.
We have already noticed that the bloody offerings are divided into two classes, sweet savor offerings and offerings for sin. The burnt offering and the peace offering are in the first class, the sin offering and the trespass offering in the second. The burnt offering was not brought because things had been going wrong; it was the expression of the offerers worship. He brought it to God as an evidence of the gratitude of his heart because of what God was to him and had done for him, and all went up to Jehovah as a sweet savor. As we have seen, it represented the Lord Jesus Christ offering Himself without spot unto God as a sacrifice of a sweet smelling savor on our behalf. When we come into the presence of God as worshipers with our hearts occupied with Christ, we come bringing the burnt offering. Our souls are taken up with Him, the worthy One, who gave Himself for us who were so unworthy. We think of Him not merely as the One who died for our sins, but as having glorified God in this scene where we had so dishonored Him, and we adore Him because of what He is, as well as for what He has done. A child loves its mother not merely because of what she does for it but because of what she is. It is her tender loving heart that draws the child to her. And so the Israelite expressed the worship of his soul in the burnt offering. It was the recognition of Gods goodness, and because He saw in it that which spoke of His Son all went up as a sweet savor to Him. As He beheld the smoke of the burnt offering ascend to heaven, He was looking on to Calvary; He could see beforehand all that blessed work of the Lord Jesus, and who can tell how much it meant to Him? In Gen 8:20, 21 we read how Noah offered a burnt offering upon the renewed earth, and we are told the Lord smelled a sweet savor, or, as the margin puts it, a savor of rest. It was something in which His heart found delight, not because of any intrinsic value of its own but because it was a type of Christ and His work.
Then in the peace offering we have another suggestion. In it the pious Israelite expressed his communion with God and with others who shared with him in partaking of it. A portion was burned upon the altar. It was called the food of the offering, and it spoke of Gods delight in the inward perfections of His Son. Then the wave-shoulder was given to Aaron and his house that they might feed upon it. The shoulder is the place of strength. The priestly house had its portion in that which spoke of the mighty power and unfailing strength of the Lord Jesus Christ. The officiating priest had the wave-breast.
The breast speaks, of course, of affection, of love, and so the priest was to feed upon that which set forth the tender love of the coming Saviour. Then the offerer himself invited his family and friends, and they all sat down together and consumed the rest of the peace offering. Every part of it spoke of Christ. Thus we see God, Aaron, and his house, the officiating priest, the offerer and his friends, all in happy communion, feasting together upon that which spoke of Christ! And so to-day all who have been saved by His death upon the cross are called to enjoy Christ together in hallowed fellowship with Himself, the One who made peace by the blood of His cross. But now we come to another view of things. Until the soul has seen in Him the One who took the sinners place and bore his judgment, Christ can never be enjoyed as the One who has made peace; so we have the sin offering. It is somewhat difficult to distinguish between the two aspects of the sin offering and the trespass offering; but the first one seems rather to have in view sin as the expression of the unclean, defiling condition of the very nature of the sinner; whereas the trespass offering rather emphasizes the fact that sin is to be regarded as a debt which man can never pay, a debt that must be paid by another if ever paid at all. I am not saying that the sin offering only has in view our evil nature, for that would be a mistake. It is plain, I should think, that actual transgressions are in view in chaps. 4 and 5-but what I do say is that these transgressions are the manifestation of the corrupt nature of the one who commits them. I am not a sinner because I sin; I sin because I am a sinner. I, myself, am an unclean thing in the sight of God; I am utterly unfit for His presence; my evil deeds only make this manifest; therefore the need of a sin offering. That this offering like the others speaks of Christ, we may be assured, for we are told very definitely in 2Co 5:21: That God hath made Him to be sin for us, who knew no sin, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him. The words for sin and sin offering are the same in the original in both Testaments, so we might render it, God hath made Him to be a sin offering for us. And in the Epistle to the Hebrews, chaps. 9, 10, the Holy Ghost clearly shows how the offering for sin of old typifies His one offering on Calvarys cross. In fact, in the quotation from Psalm 40 as found in Heb 10:5, 6, all of the offerings are indicated, and all are shown to have their fulfilment in Christs work. Sacrifice is the peace offering; offering is the meal offering; burnt offering speaks for itself, and the term sin offering takes in both sin and trespass offerings. The offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all in verse 10, and the one sacrifice for sin in verse 12, show that Christ fulfilled all these types.
Turn then to Lev 4:2. We read, If a soul shall sin through ignorance against any of the commandments of the Lord concerning things which ought not to be done, and shall do against any of them-then follow instructions as to how the sin is to be dealt with. Observe, there was no sin offering for wilful, deliberate sin under the law. It was only for sins of ignorance. But since the cross, God in infinite grace counts only one sin as wilful, and that is the final rejection of His beloved Son. All other sins are looked upon as sins of ignorance; they are the outcome of that evil heart of unbelief which is in all of us. Men sin because of the ignorance that is in them. You remember Peters words to guilty Israel as bringing home to them their dreadful sin in crucifying the Lord of Glory. He says, I wot, brethren, that it was through ignorance ye did it. And the apostle Paul, in speaking of Christs crucifixion and death, says, Which none of the princes of this world knew; for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. What wondrous grace is here displayed! The very worst sin that has ever been committed in the history of the world is classed by God as a sin of ignorance! And so the sin offering is available for any man who desires to be saved. Whatever your record may have been God looks down upon you in infinite pity and compassion, and opens a door of mercy to you as one who has ignorantly sinned. But if you still refuse the mercy He has provided in grace, then you can no longer plead ignorance, for you crucify to yourself the Son of God afresh and put Him to an open shame. This is the wilful sin so solem- ly portrayed in the Epistle to the Hebrews, the sin for which there is no forgiveness. It is not a question there of a Christian who has failed; but it is the enlightened man, the one who knows the gospel, who is intellectually assured of its truth, and yet turns his back deliberately upon that truth, and finally refuses to acknowledge the Son of God as his Saviour. There is nothing for that man but a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation which shall devour the adversaries. But every poor sinner who wishes to be saved may avail himself of the Great Sin Offering, and may know that all his guilt is forever put away.
In Lev 4:3 we read, If the priest that is anointed do sin; then in ver. 13 it is, If the whole congregation of Israel sin through ignorance, and the thing be hid from the eyes of the assembly, and they have done somewhat against any of the commandments of the Lord concerning things which should not be done, and are guilty; then in ver. 22 we read, When a ruler hath sinned, and done somewhat through ignorance against any of the commandments of the Lord his God concerning things which should not be done, and is guilty; whereas in ver. 27 it is, And if any one of the common people sin through ignorance, while he doeth somewhat against any of the commandments of the Lord concerning things which ought not to be done, and be guilty. When you read the instructions that follow you will observe that there are different grades of sin offerings. If the anointed priest sinned he had to bring a young bullock, and this was also the offering for the whole congregation; but if a ruler sinned he was to bring a kid of the goats, a lamb without blemish. On the other hand if it was one of the common people, he could bring a kid of the goats or a lamb of the flock, females. But in chap. 5:11-13 we find that even lesser offerings were acceptable if the sinner was exceedingly poor. All this suggests the thought that responsibility increases with privilege. The anointed priest was as guilty as the entire congregation; he should have known better because he was so much nearer to God in outward privilege. Then a ruler, while not so responsible as the priest, was more so than one of the common people. There is a principle here that is well for us all to remember: The more light we have on the truth of God and the greater the privileges which we enjoy in this scene, the more responsible God holds us; we shall be called to account in accordance with the truth He has made known to us. Alas, my brethren, is it not a lamentable fact that should bow us in shame before God that many of us who pride ourselves upon a wonderful unfolding of truth are ofttimes most careless in our behaviour, and become stumbling-blocks to those who have less light than we? How we need to have recourse to the great Sin Offering, to remember as we bow in confession of our failures before God that all our sins were dealt with on the Cross of Christ! It is hardly necessary to go into all the details of each of the offerings, but we may look particularly at that for the priest as it embraces practically everything that is mentioned in the lesser ones. First observe, the priest was to bring a young bullock without blemish unto the Lord for a sin offering. He who knew no sin made sin for us!-it is of this that the unblemished bullock speaks. It was to be brought to the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, before the Lord. The sinner was to identify himself with his offering by laying his hand upon its head and killing it himself. Then the officiating priest was to take of the blood of the bullock, and entering the sanctuary sprinkle it seven times before the Lord before the veil. He was to put some of the blood upon the horns of the altar of sweet incense before the Lord; the rest of it was to be poured out at the bottom of the altar of burnt offering. What solemn lessons are these! It was here on this earth our blessed Saviour died as the great Sin Offering; here His blood was poured out at the foot of His cross. This earth has drunk the blood of Him who was its Creator. That shed blood tells of life given up. In Lev 17:11 God says, The life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul. His life, holy, spotless, pure and undefiled, has been given up in death for us who are sinners by nature and by practice, and now as trusting Him we may well sing,
Upon a life I did not live,
Upon a death I did not die,
Anothers life, Anothers death,
I hang my whole eternity.
But that blood shed here on earth, has really pierced the heavens. It has, so to speak, been carried into the sanctuary, the sevenfold sprinkling has been done within the veil which in the old economy was still unrent. It was the testimony to God of the work completed here on earth. Then the blood upon the horns of the golden altar linked the altar in the sanctuary with the great altar out in the court, for the bronze altar spoke of Christs work in this world; the golden altar spoke of His work in heaven; the blood linked the two together. His intercession in heaven is based upon the work of the cross.
In verse 8 we learn that the priest was to take off from the bullock all the fat and certain inward parts that could only be reached by death, and he was to burn them upon the altar of the burnt offering. They were not said to be a sweet savor, for they spoke of Christ being made sin for us. This is further emphasized when we read that the skin of the bullock and all the rest of the carcase, even the whole bullock, was to be carried outside the camp where the ashes were poured out and there burned upon the wood with fire. This expresses the awful truth that Christ was made a curse for us. We read in Heb 13:11: For the bodies of those beasts, whose blood is brought into the holy place by the high priest as a sin offering, are burned outside the camp. Wherefore Jesus also, that He might sanctify the people by His own blood, suffered outside the gate. He went into the place of darkness and distance in order that we might be brought into the place of light and nearness to God for all eternity. In Lev. 13 the leper was put outside the camp. It was the place of the unclean, and so our blessed Lord, when He became the great Sin Offering, was dealt with as taking the place of the unclean ones, though Himself the infinitely Holy One. The place itself, however, is called a clean place. No actual defilement attached to it.
It is important to learn that it was not merely the physical suffering of Jesus that made atonement for sin; it was not the scourging in Pilates judgment hall, the suffering from the ribald soldiery in Herods court, the crowning with thorns and the flagellation-these were not in themselves what expiated our guilt. But we read in Isa. 53, When Thou shalt make His soul an offering for sin. It was what our Lord suffered in the depths of His inward being that met the claims of divine justice and settled the sin question. You have doubtless noticed that our blessed Saviour hung upon that cruel cross for six long hours, and these six hours are divided into two parts. From the third to the sixth hour, that is, from nine oclock in the morning to high noon, the sun was shining down on the scene, and in spite of all His intense physical suffering our Lord enjoyed unbroken communion with the Father. But from the sixth to the ninth hour, that is, to three oclock in the afternoon, darkness was over all the land. What took place in those awful hours only God and His beloved Son will ever know. It was then the soul of Jesus was made an offering for sin. It was as the darkness was passing away that He cried in anguish, My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me? You and I may well see in our sins and our innate sinfulness the answer to that cry. He was forsaken that we might have access as redeemed sinners to the Fathers face. And it is of this that the burning of the sacrifice outside the camp speaks. Observe, it was to be carried into a clean place. We have said that the outside place was the place of the unclean in the case of the leper, and this is true, but un-cleanness was never in any sense attached to Jesus; even as the sin offering He was most holy. He had no sin in Him though our sins were laid on Him.
A careful study of the directions for the peoples offering will bring to light some little details that have not perhaps been touched upon, but I need not dwell on them here for all will be clear in the light of what we have already looked at.
We have in chapter 5 some things that may well claim our attention. In the first four verses we get various degrees of uncleanness because of sin. And if a soul sin, and hear the voice of swearing, and is a witness, whether he hath seen or known of it; if he do not utter it, then he shall bear his iniquity. Or if a soul touch any unclean thing, whether it be of a carcase of an unclean beast, or a carcase of unclean cattle, or the carcase of unclean creeping things, and if it be hidden from him; he also shall be unclean, and guilty. Or if he touch the uncleanness of man, whatsoever uncleanness it be that a man shall be defiled withal, and it be hid from him; when he knoweth of it, then he shall be guilty. Of if a soul swear, pronouncing with his lips to do evil, or to do good, whatsoever it be that a man shall pronounce with an oath, and it be hid from him; when he knoweth of it, then he shall be guilty in one of these. These suggest what I have already dwelt upon, that the sin offering has particularly in view sin as evidencing the corruption of our nature. Any of these things would be manifesting the hidden uncleanness. Then in verse 5 we read, And it shall be, when he shall be guilty in one of these things, that he shall confess that he hath sinned in that thing. Notice the definiteness of the confession. A mere general acknowledgment of failure would not do. The culprit must face his actual transgression and confess it in the presence of God, and so we read, If we confess our sins He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness (Uohn 1:9). It is not merely if he asks for forgiveness, or in a general way acknowledges that we all fail-that we have left undone those things that we ought to have done, and we have done those things we ought not to have done, but there must be a definite confession in order to have a definite forgiveness.
Then in vers. 6-13 notice the grace of God in the provision made for even the poorest of His people. No matter how feeble our apprehension of Christ may be, if we come to God in His name He will forgive. The offerer under ordinary circumstances was to bring a female from the flock, a lamb or a kid of the goats for a sin offering. But God took poverty into account, and in ver. 7 we read, If he be not able to bring a lamb, then he shall bring for his guilt according to all he hath committed, two turtle-doves or two young pigeons unto the Lord, one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering. But there might be some in Israel who could not even procure an offering like this, and so in ver. 11 we are told, If he be not able to bring two turtle-doves or two young pigeons, then he that hath sinned shall bring for his offering a tenth part of a ephah of fine flour for a sin offering; he shall put no oil upon it, neither shall he put any frankincense thereon; for it is a sin offering. Then the priest was to take a memorial of it and burn it upon the altar, and even of this we read in ver. 13, The priest shall make an atonement for him as touching his sin that he hath sinned in one of these, and it shall be forgiven him; and the remnant shall be the priests, as a meal offering. There was nothing in this offering that spoke of the shedding of the blood, but it did picture Christ Himself, and it was Christ taking the sinners place. Hence the omission of the oil and frankincense. And God would accept this when the offerer could bring no more. It tells us that the feeblest apprehension of Christ as the Saviour of sinners brings forgiveness. One might not understand the atonement, nor what was involved in the redemptive work of our Saviour, but if he trusts in -Christ, however feebly, God thinks so much of the Person and work of His Son that He will have everyone in heaven who will give Him the least possible excuse for getting him there. What matchless grace!
In chap. 6: 24-30 we have the law of the sin offering, and the priest is instructed as to his own behaviour, and how to treat the vessels that were used in connection with it. Twice we read concerning the sin offering, It is most holy. God would not have our thoughts lowered in regard to the holiness of His Son because He stooped in grace to be made sin on our behalf. He was ever undefiled and undefilable.
There was a portion of the sin offering which the priests were to eat. We may think of this as suggesting our meditation upon what it meant for Christ to take the sinners place.
Help me to understand it,
That I may take it in,
What it meant to Thee, the Holy One,
To put away my sin.
Observe carefully, the priests were not to eat the sin-they were to eat the sin offering. It does not do for us to dwell upon the sin, either our own or that of others. To do so would be most defiling. But we are all called upon to eat the sin offering in the holy place. In ver. 30 we learn, however, that no sin offering, whereof any of the blood is brought into the tabernacle of the congregation to reconcile withal in the holy place, shall be eaten; it shall be burned in the fire. The priests could only partake of certain parts of such sacrifices as were not burned outside the camp, nor the blood sprinkled before the veil. We cannot enter into all the fulness of the death of Christ. Our apprehension of what He suffered for sin must always be feeble, and perhaps the full realization of it would be too much for our poor hearts and minds. It broke His heart (Psa 69:20); it would crush us completely; but, thank God, there is a sense in which we can indeed eat the sin offering in the holy place as we meditate upon what Scripture has clearly revealed in regard to the expiatory work upon that cross of shame. If we read carefully Ps. 22, which might be called the psalm of the sin offering, we may enter in, in some measure, to what His holy soul went through when He took our place in judgment. To do this with reverence and awe is to eat the sin offering in a manner acceptable to God.
In closing, let me say that God in thus giving His Son to take the sinners place, has told out to the full His infinite love to lost man. What then can be the guilt of that man who refuses such grace and tramples upon such love? What can there be for him but a certain fearful look- ing-for of judgment and fiery indignation which shall devour the adversaries?
Grace like this despised, brings judgment,
Measured by the wrath He bore.
God grant that no one to whom this message comes may trample on such loving-kindness and so merit such dire judgment.
We are told in Joh 3:18: He that believeth on Him is not condemned. He that believeth not is condemned already, because He hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And in Joh 16:9 the sin of which the Holy Spirit has come to convince men is thus described, Of sin, because they believe not on Me. This is wilful sin, and for this sin, if unrepented of, there is no forgiveness. Even the redemptive work of Christ will not avail to save the sinner who spurns the One who there died to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. To turn from the message of the gospel-to deliberately and finally reject the One who upon the accursed tree became the Great Sin Offering-is to do despite to the Spirit of God, to trample under foot the love of Christ, to count His precious atoning blood an unholy, a common, thing, and to crucify to oneself the Son of God afresh, thus putting Him to an open shame. Yea, more, it is to throw back into the outraged face of the Father the slain body of His beloved Son, thus calling down the righteous wrath of God upon the guilty rejecter of His grace!
Fuente: Commentaries on the New Testament and Prophets
4. The Sin Offering
CHAPTERS 4-5:13
1. The second utterance of Jehovah (Lev 4:1-2)
2. The sin offering for the high priest (Lev 4:3-12)
3. The sin offering for the congregation (Lev 4:13-21)
4. The sin offering for the ruler (Lev 4:22-26)
5. The sin offering for one of the people (Lev 4:27-35)
6. The sin offering for special inadvertent offences (Lev 5:1-13)
The burnt offering, meal offering, and peace offering typified the absolute and blessed perfection and devotion of Christ, and are therefore the sweet savour offerings. The remaining offerings, the sin and trespass offerings, are not called a sweet savour. In these offerings we see Christ typified as the bearer of the sins of His people. And as such He had to take upon Himself the judgment of God. This, no doubt, is the reason why these two offerings are not called a sweet savour; for God does not delight in judgment. Judgment is His strange work (Isa 28:21). Note also that the preceding three offerings were voluntary, the two remaining were compulsory. Forgiveness had to be sought and secured by them. In the actual approach of man to God, the sin offering always occupied the first place; the burnt offering followed. As we have seen the burnt offering is mentioned first, because it tells out the perfection and infinite worth of Him in whom, according to the eternal purpose of God, we are accepted. And now as accepted in the Beloved One, made nigh and brought into fellowship with God, the need which we have on account of our sins is fully met in the work of Christ, who bore our sins in His own body on the tree.
It is impossible to follow all the manifold types in connection with the sin offering for the priest, the ruler, and the congregation. The details of it demand a very careful and minute study which we cannot attempt here. We can treat the sin offering only in a general way. The bullock is the sin offering for the anointed priest and for the whole congregation (verses 4 and 13). Like in the burnt offering, the offerers had to identify themselves with the offering by laying their hands on the head of the bullock. But this difference must be noticed: in the burnt offering the believer is seen identified with Christ and accepted in Christ; in the sin offering Christ became identified with us in our sin. Sin was transferred to Him as our substitute. The Lord hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all. The blood then was sprinkled seven times before the Lord. Some of it was put upon the horns of the altar of incense; while the blood of the bullock, the greater portion of it, was poured at the bottom of the altar of burnt offering.
The skin of the bullock with the whole bullock was burned without the camp. The Hebrew word for burned is different from that used in the burnt offering. The word used in connection with the sin offering is saraph; it speaks of the burning of judgment. The commentary to this is Heb 13:11-12. The bodies of those beasts whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high priest for sin, are burned without the camp. Wherefore Jesus also, that He might sanctify the people with His own blood suffered without the gate. With the case of a ruler having sinned the offering was a kid of the goats, a male; and in the case of any one of the common people having sinned through ignorance still other instructions are given.
It is evident, therefore, that there is a graduated scale in these different instances. Why so? Because of a most solemn principle. The gravity of sin depends on the position of him that sins. It is not so, that man is prone to adjust matters, though his conscience feels its rectitude. How often man would screen the offense of him that is great, if he could! The same might be hard on the poor, friendless, and despised. The life of such at any rate seems of no great account. It is not so with God, nor ought it to be in the minds and estimate of His saints. And another witness of this in the last instance is not without interest for our souls. Only to one of the common people is allowed the alternative of a female lamb instead of a kid (verses 32-35), the offering of which for his sin is reiterated with the same minute care.
When the anointed priest sinned, the result was precisely such as if the whole congregation sinned. When a prince sinned, it was a different matter, though a stronger case for sacrifice than where it was a private man. In short, therefore, the relationship of the person that was guilty determines the relative extent of the sin, though none was obscure enough for his sin to be passed by. Our blessed Lord on the other hand meets each and all, Himself the true anointed priest, the only One who needs no offering–who could therefore be the offering for all, for any. This is the general truth, at least on the surface of the sin offering. The offence that was brought forward, confessed, and judged becomes the substitute in this case for him that was guilty; and the blood was put in the care of individuals on the brazen altar, as it only needed to be dealt with in the place of sinful mans access to God. (W. Kelly, Introduction to the Pentateuch.)
In studying the interesting details of the sin offerings it must be remembered that all is the shadow of good things to come, and that the good things which have come, and which we now enjoy, as believers in Christ, are far higher and more blessed than the types could reveal.
Fuente: Gaebelein’s Annotated Bible (Commentary)
Reciprocal: Lev 4:13 – through ignorance Lev 7:37 – sin
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
THE SIN AND TRESPASS OFFERINGS
THE SIN OFFERING
The data for the sin offering is found in Lev 4:1-35; Lev 5:1-13 and Lev 6:24-30. As to the name of this offering, it will be seen that sin is mentioned here for the first time in connection with the law of the offerings. The idea of sin is included in the others, but it was not the predominating idea as it is here. There was atonement for sin in the other offerings, but rather for sin in mans nature than the actual transgression in his life, while here the latter is brought into view. In Hebrew the same word applies for sin and sin offering as though the two were completely identified, or as though the offering were so charged with sin as to itself become sin. In this connection read Rom 8:3; 2Co 5:21 and Gal 3:14 to see how this was also true in our substitute, Jesus Christ. Another matter of interest is that while the preceding offerings were all known more or less in other nations and before the time of Moses, this offering is entirely new and original with Israel. This shows that Israel enters on a new stage of existence in the sense that as a nation she has a truer conception of sin and the need of expiation than the other nations that received no special revelation from God.
For evidence that the other offerings existed before Moses and were not confined to Israel compare Gen 31:54; Exo 18:12; Exo 32:6; and 1Co 10:6. This should strengthen our faith as showing mans natural sense of spiritual need and desire for fellowship with God, and also as pointing back to an original revelation from God to man on the whole subject. God thus seems to have based the Mosaic ordinances upon His earlier revelations to man, correcting them where they had been corrupted, and adding to them where it was necessary to the progress of revealed truth.
Passing from the name of this offering to its nature, what kind of sin is referred to in 4:2? This shows that while ignorance might palliate it could not remove the guilt of sin; sin is sinful whether recognized by the sinner or not, and requires atonement just the same. (Compare Psa 19:12; 1Co 4:4 R.V.) Observe the different sections of this law. What class of persons are first referred to (Lev 4:3-12)? After the priests, who are mentioned (Lev 4:13-21)? The congregation of Israel means the nation. What is the third class specified (v. 22-26)? The fourth class (Lev 4:27 to Lev 5:13)? In chapter 5 prescriptions were made for the common people (1) as to the nature of the offense (Lev 5:1-5) and (2) as to the nature of the offerings (Lev 5:6-13). In regard to these the higher the rank of the offerer the more costly must be his offering. Expressing that guilt is proportionate to privilege (compare 1Ki 11:9; Jam 3:1). Note the responsibility for sin on the part of whole communities (compare here Psalms 2; Revelation 2, 3). It is just as important to note also that no one can be overlooked, however obscure. God demands from and provides an offering for the poorest and the neediest (Lev 5:11-13).
In this offering, where was the victim to be burned (Lev 5:12-19)? To make the burning without the camp more distinct from that of the altar, another Hebrew word is used (compare in this case Heb 13:10-13). The burning on the altar symbolizes the full surrender to and the acceptance by God of the offerer, while the burning without the camp symbolizes the sacrifice for the sin of the world on the part of Him who was despised and rejected of men.
THE TRESPASS OFFERING
The facts associated with the trespass offering are found in Lev 5:14 to Lev 6:7 and Lev 7:1-10. It is hard to distinguish between the sin and trespass offerings because they almost necessarily overlap. Trespass means an invasion of the rights of others (compare Jos 7:1; 2Ch 28:20-22) and there are those who distinguish between the two offerings by saying that the sin offering represents sin as a principle, and the trespass offering sin as an act. Penalty is prominent in the first, and reparation or restitution in the second. Both find their fulfillment in Christ, who not only bore the penalty of but redressed every claim which God had upon the sinner.
The trespass offering had reference only to the sin of an individual and not the nation, as only an individual perhaps could make reparation. The victim in this case was the same for the poor as for the rich, a ram of the flock, indicating possibly that the obligation to repair the wrong cannot be modified to suit the condition of the offerer. Furthermore, notice that anything unjustly taken must not only be restored but a fifth must be added. In other words, no advantage must be gained by the trespass. Thus if the sin offering called for faith the trespass offering called for repentance. It is blessed to know that in our Lord Jesus Christ both God and man received back more than they lost.
There appear to be two distinct sections of this law of trespass offering. The first refers to trespass in the holy things of the Lord (Lev 5:14-19), and the second to trespass on the rights of man (Lev 6:1-7). By the holy things of the Lord are meant the eating unwittingly of the flesh of the firstling of ones cattle, or using ones tithe or any part of it for himself (compare Mal 3:8; Mal 3:10). The trespass on the rights of man included embezzlement, robbery, fraud, falsehood, etc. The order of proceeding in the latter instance was to confess the wrong, to make restitution and add one fifth, and to bring the guilt offering to God.
How comforting to know that Christ is the great antitype of all these offerings so far as we are concerned, that is, we who have believed on Him as our Savior and confessed Him as our Lord!
He is our burnt and meal offering in the sense that He is our righteousness. In Him we are fully surrendered to and accepted by God. He is our peace offering in the sense that in Him our life is in perfect fellowship with God. He is our sin offering, the One who has fully borne our sin, expiating our guilt. Finally, He is our trespass offering, rendering perfect satisfaction unto God and making reparation for all our offenses against Him in the com-pletest and to the fullest extent.
QUESTIONS
1. What view of sin is emphasized in the sin offering?
2. What peculiarity lies in the Hebrew word in this case?
3. What peculiarity is found in the history of the offering itself?
4. Is sin which is unrecognized sinful?
5. What is symbolized by burning without the camp?
6. Define the word trespass.
7. Distinguish between the sin offering and the trespass offering.
8. For what spiritual exercise did the trespass offering especially call?
9. Describe how Christ is represented by these offerings.
10. Have you received Him as your substitute Savior?
THE OTHER SIDE OF THE OFFERINGS
In the lessons on the offerings we have seen what Christ is to us and what He has done for us as symbolized in them, but before we pass from the subject it might be well to touch on the response which the work of Christ should awaken in our hearts.
In Brookes Studies in Leviticus he quotes the following collect from the liturgy of the Church of England:
Almighty God, who hast given Thine only Son to be unto us both a sacrifice for sin and also an example of godly life, give us grace that we may always most thankfully receive that His inestimable benefit, and also daily endeavor ourselves to follow the blessed steps of His most holy life.
This expresses the two ways in which the lessons from the offerings should be applied by Christians.
We need to always most thankfully receive His inestimable benefit. In other words, we must by faith accept Christ as our five-fold offering, on the basis of which alone we are saved and have our standing before God. Morning by morning as we awaken let it be with the consciousness that in the burnt offering and meat offering of Christ we are accepted and blessed of God, that in His peace offering we have the right to commune with Him, that through His sin and trespass offering every defect is remedied and every fault will find pardon.
But then let us remember that we should also daily endeavor ourselves to follow the blessed steps of His most holy life. After we have accepted Him and represented Him to God as our sacrifice by faith, then we can follow His example. But we are not in a position to do this before. If He is our example, then we may expect to find Him so in relation to each form of offering or sacrifice in which He has been revealed to us.
He is our burnt offering, a perfect dedication to God, but are we not also bidden in Him to present our bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is our reasonable service (Rom 12:1)? He is our meal offering presented to God for the service of man, but we too are every one of us to please his neighbor for his good to edification (Rom 15:2). He is our peace offering, making and maintaining peace between God and us, but we are to be peacemakers, not in the sense in which He alone is our peacemaker but in that human sense in which we can bring man and man together and so be called children of God. He is our sin and trespass offering, and in this too we may follow His example. It is impossible that we should make atonement for sin as He did, but there is a sense in which we may bear one anothers burdens and so fulfill the law of Christ (Gal 6:2).
In other words, our lives are to reflect what we have received and are receiving from Christ, a surrendered will, a loving walk, a life of blessing, a heart of compassion, a spirit of patience. So, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, we are changed into the same image from glory to glory as by the Spirit of the Lord (2Co 3:18).
Fuente: James Gray’s Concise Bible Commentary
Lev 4:1. The Lord spake unto Moses The laws contained in the first three chapters, seem to have been delivered to Moses at one time. Here begin the laws of another day, which God delivered from between the cherubim.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Lev 4:2. Sin through ignorance. Ignorance is itself a crime, for all men ought to know the scriptures; or in doubtful cases, they should ask advice. Error and negligence are therefore without excuse.
Lev 4:3. If the priest do sin. The LXX read the highpriest; and the Vulgate version adds, making the people to be delinquents, their sins tending to seduce them. The jewish highpriest we see was not infallible, much less is the Roman pontiff. The sins of men high in office in the sanctuary are doubly conspicuous, and doubly heinous.
Lev 4:6. Seven times. This number is much used in scripture as a number of perfection; but it is used here to mark the perfection of the atonement. The fathers had a notion that the world should endure seven thousand years; hence they affirmed, that Christs blood should be sprinkled throughout the seven ages or periods.
Lev 4:21. Carry forth the bullock without the camp. Maimonides observes here, as in the case of the red heifer and of the scape-goat, that the more heinous crimes of the nation, for which no atonement was provided by the altar, but the law requiring on the contrary that such offenders should be put to death, those crimes were expiated by the victims being burned without the camp. And as no vestige of such sacrifices remained, so the remembrance of the sin was forgotten. The people, returning from those tragic sacrifices, left their sins behind their backs. An apostle calls those sins, dead works, which could only be purged by the superior efficacy of the blood shed on Calvary.
REFLECTIONS.
For wilful and presumptuous crimes there was no atonement: the soul so offending was to be cut off from the congregation of the Lord, and then to fall into the hands of divine justice. But for sins of ignorance and negligence, however great, atonement was provided. And if the highpriest at the head of the Jewish church, who bore the breastplate of righteousness and wore the robe of purity, was not infallible; if his sins subjected him to appear at the bloody altar as the chief of sinners, it should be a striking caution to all clothed with the ministerial character to beware of sin. See the highpriest bring his sacrifice, and stand arraigned with thieves and robbers,what an awful sight! He being the anointed of the Lord, and chief shepherd of the flock, it required a young bullock to be offered; the very same sacrifice to purge his sin, as to purge the sin of the whole congregation! The blot of ministers is not a common blot. The irregularity of their conduct is pregnant with mischief to weak believers, and to the infidel world, beyond all that language can convey.
If the highpriest had need of these atonements, then he was not the true priest, because his person and services were all defective. There was consequently a holier priest to arise, who should perfect the atonement without the camp, even on Calvary, without the gates of Jerusalem, once for all, and then appear in the presence of God for us.
The priest was not only to sprinkle the blood seven times before the Lord, but to put some of it on the horns of the altar of incense; and the veil so sprinkled was a striking figure of the raiment of Christ dipped or spotted with blood; and that altar, whose horns were tipped with gore, shows that there is no approach to God, no offering up of the incense of prayer, without the merits of Jesus Christ.
It was surely no small humiliation to the priest, and no small mark of the greatness of his sin, to see a ruler or a prince stand by him with a kid of the goats, though he had been guilty of the same offence. This evidently teaches that the sins of magistrates and of secular men, are far less heinous than the sins of those who officiate in the sanctuary of God. But let not the rich man triumph in his pride, as though the Lord took no cognizance of his crimes; for unless he also appear before his Maker with humility, with sincere repentance and all its fruits, he abides under the divine displeasure, and is cut off from his kingdom.
Whether an individual had offended in a private way, or whether the people had offended by a popular crime, atonement must be made. The prince and the peasant, the priest and the people, must all stand guilty before the tribunal of the Lord. No man being free from sin, no man can be exempt from repentance. Let every one therefore make haste, and sprinkle his conscience with the blood of the covenant; for if the destroying angel should pass by, and find no mark on his forehead, no blood on the door of his house, he will become a victim of divine justice, and be cut off from the city and temple of our God.
Fuente: Sutcliffe’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Leviticus 4 – 5:13
Having Considered the “sweet savour” Offerings, We now approach the “sacrifices for sin.” These were divided into two classes, namely, sin offerings and trespass offerings. Of the former, there were three grades; first, the offering for “the priest that is anointed,” and for “the whole congregation.” These two were the same in their rites and ceremonies. (Compare. ver. 3-12, with ver. 13-21) It was the same in result, whether it were the representative of the assembly, or the assembly itself, that sinned. In either case there were three things involved: God’s dwelling-place in the assembly, the worship of the assembly, and individual conscience. Now, inasmuch as all three depended upon the blood, we find, in the first grade of sin offering, there were three things done with the blood. It was sprinkled “seven times before the Lord, before the veil of the sanctuary.” This secured Jehovah’s relationship with the people, and His dwelling in their midst. Again, we read, “The priest shall put some of the blood upon the horns of the altar of sweet incense before the Lord, which is in the tabernacle of the congregation.” This secured the worship of the assembly. By putting the blood upon “the golden altar,” the true basis of worship was preserved; so that the flame of the incense and the fragrance thereof might continually ascend. Finally, “He shall pour all the blood of the bullock at the bottom of the altar of the burnt offering, which is at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.” Here we have the claims of individual conscience fully answered; for the brazen altar was the place of individual approach. It was the place where God met the sinner.
In the two remaining grades, for “a ruler” or “one of the common people: it was merely a question of individual conscience; and, therefore, there was only one thing done with the blood. It was all poured “at the bottom of the altar of burnt offering.” (Comp. ver. 7 with ver. 25, 30) There is divine precision in all this, which demands the close attention of my reader, if only he desires to enter into the marvellous detail of this type.*
{*There is this difference between the offering for “a ruler,” and for “one of the common people:” in the former, it was “a male without blemish;” in the latter, “a female without blemish.” The sin of a ruler would, necessarily, exert a wider influence than that of a common person; and, therefore, a more powerful application of the value of the blood was needed. In Lev. 5: 13, we find cases demanding a still lower application of the sin offering – cases of swearing and of touching any uncleanness, in which “the tenth part of an ephah of fine flour “was admitted as a sin offering. (See Lev. 5: 11-13) What a contrast between the view of atonement presented by a ruler’s bullock, and a poor man’s handful of flour! And yet, in the latter, just as truly as in the former, we read, “it shall be forgiven him.”
The reader will observe that Lev. 5: 1-13, forms a part of Lev. 6. Both are comprehended under one head, and present the doctrine of sin offering, in all its applications, from the bullock to the handful of flour. Each class of offering is introduced by the words, “And the Lord spake unto Moses.” Thus, for example, the sweet savour offerings (Lev. 1 – 3) are introduced by the words, “The Lord called unto Moses.” These words are not repeated until Lev. 4: 1, where they introduce the sin offering. They occur again at Lev. 5: 14, where they introduce the trespass offering for wrongs done “in the holy things of the Lord;” and again at Lev. 6: 1, where they introduce the trespass offering for wrong done to one’s neighbour.
This classification is beautifully simple, and will help the reader to understand the different classes: of offering. As to the different grades in each class, whether “a bullock,” “a ram,” “a female,” “a bird,” “or “a handful of flour: they would seem to be so many varied applications of the same grand truth.}
The effect of individual sin could not extend beyond individual conscience. The sin of “a ruler,” or of “one of the common people,” could not, in its influence, reach “the altar of incense” – the place of priestly worship. Neither could it reach to “the veil of the sanctuary” – the sacred boundary of God’s dwelling place in the midst of His people. It is well to ponder this. We must never raise a question of personal sin or failure, in the place of priestly worship, or in the assembly. It must be settled in the place of personal approach. Many err as to this. They come into the assembly, or into the ostensible place of priestly worship, with their conscience defiled, and thus drag down the whole assembly and mar its worship. This should be closely looked into, and carefully guarded against. We need to walk more watchfully, in order that our conscience may ever be in the light. And when we fail, as, alas! we do in many things, let us have to do with God, in secret, about our failure, in order that true worship, and the true position of the assembly may always be kept, with fullness and clearness, before the soul.
Having said thus much as to the three grades of sin offering, we shall proceed to examine, in detail, the principles unfolded in the first of these. In so doing, we shall be able to form, in some measure, a just conception of the principles of all. Before, however entering upon the direct comparison already proposed, I would call my reader’s attention to a very prominent point set forth in the second verse of this fourth chapter. It is contained in the expression,” If a soul shall sin through ignorance.” This presents a truth of the deepest blessedness, in connection with the atonement of the Lord Jesus Christ. In contemplating that atonement, we see infinitely more than the mere satisfaction of the claims of conscience, even though that conscience had reached the highest point of refined sensibility. It is our privilege to see, therein, that which has fully satisfied all the claims of divine holiness, divine justice, and divine majesty. The holiness of God’s dwelling-place, and the ground of His association with His people, could never be regulated by the standard of man’s conscience, no matter how high the standard might be. There are many things which man’s conscience would pass over – many things which might escape man’s cognisance – many things which his heart might deem all right, which God could not tolerate; and which, as a consequence, would interfere with man’s approach to, his worship of, and his relationship with, God. Wherefore, if the atonement of Christ merely made provision for such sins as come within the compass of man’s apprehension, we should find ourselves very far short of the true ground of peace. We need to understand that sin has been atoned for, according to God’s measurement thereof-that the claims of His throne have been perfectly answered – that sin, as seen in the light of His inflexible holiness, has been divinely judged. This is what gives settled peace to the soul. A full atonement has been made for the believer’s sins of ignorance, as well as for his known sins. The sacrifice of Christ lays the foundation of his relationship and fellowship with God, according; to the divine estimate of the claims thereof.
A clear sense of this is of unspeakable value. Unless this feature of the atonement be laid hold of, there cannot be settled peace; nor can there be any just moral sense of the extent and fullness of the work of Christ, or of the true nature of the relationship founded thereon. God knew what was needed in order that man might be in His presence without a single misgiving; and He has made ample provision for it in the cross. Fellowship between God and man were utterly impossible if sin had not been disposed of, according to God’s thoughts about it: for, albeit man’s conscience were satisfied, the question would ever be suggesting itself, Has God been satisfied If this question could not be answered in the affirmative, fellowship could never subsist.* The thought would be continually intruding itself upon the heart, that things were manifesting themselves in the details of life, which divine holiness could not tolerate. True, we might be doing such things “through ignorance but this could not alter the matter before God, inasmuch as all is known to Him. Hence, there would be continual apprehension, doubt, and misgiving. All these things are divinely met by the fact that sin has been atoned for, not according to our “ignorance,” but according to God’s knowledge. The assurance of this gives great rest to the heart and conscience. All God’s claims have been answered by His own work. He Himself has made the provision; and, therefore, the more refined the believer’s conscience becomes, under the combined action of the word and Spirit of God, the more he grows in a divinely-adjusted sense of all that morally befits the sanctuary – the more keenly alive he becomes to every thing which is unsuited to the divine presence, the fuller, clearer, deeper, and more vigorous will be his apprehension of the infinite value of that sin offering which has not only travelled beyond the utmost bounds of human conscience, but also met, in absolute perfection, all the requirements of divine holiness.
{*I would desire it to be particularly remembered, that the point before us in the text is simply atonement. The Christian reader is fully aware, I doubt not, that the possession of “the divine nature, is essential to fellowship with God. I not only need a title to approach God: but a nature to enjoy Him. The soul that “believes in the name of the only-begotten Son of God” has both the one and the other. (See John 12, John 13; John 3: 36; John 5: 24; John 20: 31; 1 John 5: 11-13)}
Nothing can more forcibly express man’s incompetence to deal with sin, than the fact of there being such a thing as a “sin of ignorance.” How could he deal with that which he knows not? How could he dispose of that which has never even come within the range of his conscience? Impossible. Man’s ignorance of sin proves his total inability to put it away. If he does not know of it, what can he do about it? Nothing. He is as powerless as he is ignorant. Nor is this all. The fact of a “sin of ignorance” demonstrates, most clearly, the uncertainty which must attend upon every settlement of the question of sin, in which no higher claims have been responded to than those put forth by the most refined human conscience. There can never be settled peace upon this ground. There will always be the painful apprehension that there is something wrong underneath. If the heart be not led into settled repose by the scripture testimony that the inflexible claims of divine Justice have been answered, there must, of necessity, be a sensation of uneasiness, and every such sensation presents a barrier to our worship, our communion, and our testimony. If I am uneasy in reference to the settlement of the question of sin, I cannot worship; I cannot enjoy communion, either with God or His people; nor can I be an intelligent or effective witness for Christ. The heart must be at rest, before God, as to the perfect remission of sin, ere we can “Worship him in spirit and in truth.” If there be guilt on the conscience, there must be terror in the heart; and, assuredly, a heart filled with terror cannot be a happy or a worshipping heart. It is only from a heart filled with that sweet and sacred repose which the blood of Christ imparts, that true and acceptable worship can ascend to the Father. The same principle holds good with respect to our fellowship with the People of God, and our service and testimony amongst men. All must rest upon the foundation of settled peace; and this peace rests upon the foundation of a perfectly purged conscience; and this purged conscience rests upon the foundation of the perfect remission of all our sins, whether they be sins of knowledge or sins of ignorance.
We shall now proceed to compare the sin offering with the burnt offering, in doing which, we shall find two very different aspects of Christ. But, although the aspects are different, it is one and the same Christ; and, hence, the sacrifice, in each case, was “without blemish.” This is easily understood. It matters not in what aspect we contemplate the Lord Jesus Christ, He must ever be seen as the same pure, spotless, holy, perfect One. True, He did, in His abounding grace, stoop to be the sin-bearer of His people; but it was a perfect, spotless Christ who did so; and it would be nothing short of diabolical wickedness to take occasion, from the depth of His humiliation, to tarnish the personal glory of the humbled One. The intrinsic excellence, the unsullied purity, and the divine glory of our blessed Lord appear in the sin offering, as fully as in the burnt offering. It matters not in what relationship He stands, what office He fills, what work He performs, what position He occupies, His personal glories shine out, in all their divine effulgence.
This truth of one and the same Christ, whether in the burnt offering, or in the sin offering, is seen, not only in the fact that, in each case, the offering was “without blemish,” but, also, in “the Law of the sin offering,” where we read, “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.” (Lev. 6: 25) Both types point to one and the same great Antitype, though they present Him in such contrasted aspects of His work. In the burnt offering, Christ is seen meeting the divine affections; in the sin offering, He is seen meeting the depths of human need. That presents Him to us as the Accomplisher of the will of God; this, as the Bearer of the sin of man. In the former, we are taught the preciousness of the sacrifice; in the latter, the hatefulness of sin. Thus much, as to the two offerings, in the main. The most minute examination of the details will only tend to establish the mind in the truth of this general statement.
In the first place, when considering the burnt offering, we observed that it was a voluntary offering. “He shall offer it of his own voluntary will.”* Now, the word “voluntary” does not occur in the sin offering. This is precisely what we might expect. It is in full keeping with the specific object of the Holy Ghost, in the burnt offering, to set it forth as a free-will offering. It was Christ’s meat and drink to do the will of God, whatever that will might be. He never thought of inquiring what ingredients were in the cup which the Father was putting into His hand. It was quite sufficient for Him that the Father had mingled it. Thus it was with the Lord Jesus as foreshadowed by the burnt offering. But, in the sin offering, we have quite a different line of truth unfolded. This type introduces Christ to our thoughts, not as the “voluntary” Accomplisher of the will of God, but as the Bearer of that terrible thing called “sin,” and the Endurer of all its appalling consequences, of which the most appalling, to Him, was the hiding of God’s countenance. Hence, the word “voluntary” would not harmonise with the object of the Spirit, in the sin offering. It would be as completely out of place, in that type, as it is divinely in place, in the burnt offering. Its presence and its absence are alike divine; and both alike exhibit the perfect, the divine precision of the types of Leviticus.
{*some may find difficulty in the fact that the word “voluntary” has reference to the worshipper and not to the sacrifice; but this can, in no wise, affect the doctrine put forward in the text, which is founded upon the fact that a special word used in the burnt offering is omitted in the sin offering. The contrast holds good, whether we think of the offerer or the offering.}
Now, the point of contrast which we have been considering, explains, or rather harmonises, two expressions used by our Lord. He says, on one occasion, “the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?” And, again, “Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me.” The former of these expressions was the full carrying out of the words with which He entered upon His course, namely, “Lo, I come to do thy will, O God;” and, moreover, it is the utterance of Christ, as the burnt offering. The latter, on the other hand, is the utterance of Christ, when contemplating the place which He was about to occupy, as the sin offering. What that place was, and what was involved to Him, in taking it, we shall see, as we proceed; but it is interesting and instructive to find the entire doctrine of the two offerings involved, as it were, in the fact that a single word introduced in the one is omitted in the other. If, in the burnt offering, we find the perfect readiness of heart with which Christ offered Himself for the accomplishment of the will of God; then, in the sin offering, we find how perfectly He entered into all the consequences of man’s sin, and how He travelled into the most remote distance of man’s position as regards God. He delighted to do the will of God; He shrank from losing, for a moment, the light of His blessed countenance. No one offering could have foreshadowed Him in both these phases. We needed a type to present Him to us as One delighting to do the will of God; and we needed a type to present Him to us as One whose holy nature shrank from the consequences of imputed sin. Blessed be God, we have both. The burnt offering furnishes the one, the sin offering the other. Wherefore, the more fully we enter into the devotion of Christ’s heart to God, the more fully we shall apprehend His abhorrence of sin; and vice versa. Each throws the other into relief; end the use of the word “voluntary” in the one, and not in the other, fixes the leading import of each.
But, it may be said, “Was it not the will of God that Christ should offer Himself as an atonement for sin? And, if so, how could there be ought of shrinking from the accomplishment of that will?” Assuredly, it was “the determinate counsel” of God that Christ should suffer; and, moreover, it was Christ’s joy to do the will of God. But how are we to understand the expression, “If it be possible, let this cup pass from me?” Is it not the utterance of Christ? And is there no express type of the Utterer thereof? Unquestionably There would be a serious blank among the types of the Mosaic economy, were there not one to reflect the Lord Jesus in the exact attitude in which the above expression presents Him. But the burnt offering does not thus reflect Him. There is not a single circumstance connected with that offering which would correspond with such language. The sin offering alone furnishes the fitting type of the Lord Jesus as the One who poured forth those accents of intense agony, for in it alone do we find the circumstances which evoked such accents from the depths of His spotless soul. The awful shadow of the cross, with its shame, its curse, and its exclusion from the light of God’s countenance, was passing across His spirit, and He could not even contemplate it without an “If it be possible let this cup pass from me.” But, no sooner had He uttered these words, than His profound subjection manifests itself in, “thy Will be done.” What a bitter cup” it must have been to elicit, from a perfectly subject heart, the words,” let it pass from me!” What perfect subjection there must have been when, in the presence of so bitter a cup, the heart could breathe forth,” thy will be done!”
We shall now consider the, typical act of “laying on of hands.” This act was common both to the burnt offering and the sin offering; but, in the case of the former, it identified the offerer with an unblemished offering in the case of the latter, it involved the transfer of the sin of the offerer to the head of the offering. Thus it was in the type; and, when we look at the Antitype, we learn a truth of the most comforting and edifying nature – a truth which, were it more clearly understood, and fully experienced, would impart a far more settled peace than is ordinarily possessed.
What, then, is the doctrine set forth in the laying on of hands? It is this: Christ was “made sin for us, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.” (2 Cor. 5) He took our position with all its consequences, in order that we might get His position with all its consequences. He was treated as sin, upon the cross, that we might be treated as righteousness, in the presence of infinite Holiness. He was cast out of God’s presence because He had sin upon Him, by imputation, that we might be received into God’s house and into His bosom, because we have a perfect righteousness by imputation. He had to endure the hiding of God’s countenance, that we might bask in the light of that countenance. He had to pass through three hours’ darkness, that we might walk in everlasting light. He was forsaken of God, for a time, that we might enjoy His presence for ever. all that was due to us, as ruined sinners, was laid upon Him, in order that all that was due to Him, as the Accomplisher of redemption, might be ours. There was everything against Him When He hung upon the cursed tree, in order that there might be nothing against us He was identified with us, in the reality of death and judgement, in order that we might be identified with Him, in the reality of life and righteousness. He drank the cup of wrath, – the cup of trembling, that we might drink the cup of salvation – the cup of infinite favour. He was treated according to our deserts, that we might be treated according to His.
Such is the wondrous truth illustrated by the ceremonial act of imposition of hands. When the worshipper had laid his hand upon the head of the burnt offering, it ceased to be a question as to what he was, or what he deserved, and became entirely a question of what the offering was in the judgement of Jehovah. If the offering was without blemish, so was the offerer; if the offering was accepted, so was the offerer. They are perfectly identified. The act of laying on of hands constituted them one, in God’s view. He looked at the offerer through the medium of the offering. Thus it was, in the case of the burnt offering. But, in the sin offering, when the offerer had laid his hand upon the head of the offering, it became a question of what the offerer was, and what he deserved. The offering was treated according to the deserts of the offerer. They were perfectly identified. The act of laying on of hands constituted them one, in the judgement of God. The sin of the offerer was dealt with in the sin offering; the person of the offerer: was accepted in the burnt offering. This made a vast difference. Hence, though the act of laying on of hands was common to both types, and, moreover, though it was expressive, in the case of each, of identification, yet here the consequences as different as possible. The just treated as the unjust; the unjust accepted in the just. “Christ hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God.” This is the doctrine. Our sins brought Christ to the cross; but He brings us to God. And, if He brings us to God, it is in His own acceptableness, as risen from the dead, having put away our sins, according to the perfectness of His own work. He bore away our sins far from the sanctuary of God, in order that He might bring us nigh, even into the holiest of all, in full confidence of heart, having the conscience purged by His precious blood from every stain of sin.
Now, the more minutely we compare all the details of the burnt offering and the sin offering, the more clearly shall we apprehend the truth of what has been above stated, in reference to the laying on of hands, and the results thereof, in each case.
In the first chapter of this volume, we noticed the fact that “the sons of Aaron” are introduced in the burnt offering, but not in the sin offering. As priests they were privileged to stand around the altar, and behold the flame of an acceptable sacrifice ascending to the Lord. But in the sin offering, in its primary aspect, it was a question of the solemn judgement of sin, and not of priestly worship or admiration; and, therefore, the sons of Aaron do not appear. It is as convicted sinners that we have to do with Christ, as the Antitype of the sin offering. It is as worshipping priests, clothed in garments of salvation, that we contemplate Christ, as the Antitype of the burnt offering.
But, further, my reader may observe that the burnt offering was “flayed,” the sin offering was not. The burnt offerings was “cut into his pieces,” the sin offering was not. “The inwards and the legs” of the burnt offering were “washed in water,” which act was entirely omitted in the sin offering. Lastly, the burnt offering was burnt upon the altar, the sin offering was burnt without the camp. These are weighty points of difference arising simply out of the distinctive character of the offerings. We know there is nothing in the word of God without its own special meaning; and every intelligent and careful student of Scripture will notice the above points of difference; and, when he notices them, he will, naturally, seek to ascertain their real import. Ignorance of this import there may be; but indifference to it there should not. In any section of inspiration, but especially one so rich as that which lies before us, to pass over a single point, would be to offer dishonour to the Divine Author, and to deprive our own souls of much profit. We should hang over the most minute details, either to adore God’s wisdom in them, or to confess our own ignorance of them. To pass them by, in a spirit of indifference, is to imply that the Holy Ghost has taken the trouble to write what we do not deem worthy of the desire to understand. This is what no right-minded Christian would presume to think. If the Spirit, in writing upon the ordinance of the sin offering, has omitted the various rites above alluded to – rites which get a prominent place in the ordinance of the burnt offering, there must, assuredly, be some good reason for, and some important meaning in, His doing so. These we would seek to apprehend; and, no doubt, they arise out of the special design of the divine mind in each offering. The sin offering sets forth that aspect of Christ’s work in which He is seen taking, judicially, the place which belonged to us morally. For this reason we could not look for that intense expression of what He was, in all His secret springs of action, as unfolded in the typical act of “flaying.” Neither could there be that enlarged exhibition of what He was, not merely as a whole, but in the most minute features of His character, as seen in the act of “cutting it into his pieces.” Nor, yet, could there be that manifestation of what He was, personally, practically, and intrinsically, as set forth in the significant act of “washing the inwards and legs in water.”
All these things belonged to the burnt-offering phase of our blessed Lord, and to that alone, because, in it, we see Him offering Himself to the eye, to the heart, and to the altar of Jehovah, without any question of imputed sin, of wrath, or of judgement. In the sin offering, on the contrary, instead of having, as the great prominent idea, what Christ is, we have what sin is. Instead of the preciousness of Jesus, we have the odiousness of sin. In the burnt offering, inasmuch as it is Christ Himself offered to, and accepted by, God, we have every thing done that could possibly make manifest what He was, in every respect. In the sin offering, because it is sin, as judged By God, the very reverse is the case. All this is so plain as to need no effort of the mind to understand it. It naturally flows out of the distinctive character of the type.
However, although the leading object in the sin offering, is to shadow forth what Christ became for as, and not what He was in Himself; there is, nevertheless, one rite connected with this type, which most fully expresses His personal acceptableness to Jehovah. This rite is laid down in the following words, “And he shall take off from it all the fat of the bullock for the sin offering; the fat that covereth the inwards, and all the fat that is upon the inwards, and the two kidneys, and the fat that is upon them, which is by the flanks, and the caul above the liver, with the kidneys, it shall he take away, as it was taken off from the bullock of the sacrifice of peace offering; and the priest shall burn them upon the altar of the burnt offering.” (Lev. 4: 8-10) Thus, the intrinsic excellency of Christ is not omitted, even in the sin-offering. The fat burnt upon the altar is the apt expression of the divine appreciation of the preciousness of Christ’s Person, no matter what place He might, in perfect grace, take, on our behalf or in our stead; He was made sin for us, and the sin offering is the divinely-appointed shadow of Him, in this respect. But, inasmuch as it was the Lord Jesus Christ, God’s elect, His Holy One, His pure, His spotless, His eternal Son that was made sin, therefore the fat of the sin offering was burnt upon the altar, as a proper material for that fire which was the impressive exhibition of divine holiness.
But, even in this very point, we see what a contrast there is between the sin offering and the burnt offering. In the case of the latter, it was not merely the fat, but the whole sacrifice that was burnt upon the altar, because it was Christ, without any question of sin-bearing whatever. in the case of the former, there was nothing but the fat to be burnt upon the altar, because it was a question of sin-bearing, though Christ was the sin bearer. The divine glories of Christ’s Person shine out, even from amid the darkest shades of that cursed tree to which He consented to be nailed as a curse for us. the hatefulness of that with which, in the exercise of divine love, He connected His blessed Person, on the cross, could not prevent the sweet odour of His preciousness from ascending to the throne of God. Thus, have we unfolded to us the profound mystery of God’s face hidden from that which Christ became, and God’s heart refreshed by what Christ was. This imparts a peculiar charm to the sin offering. The bright beams of Christ’s Personal glory shining out from amid the awful gloom of Calvary – His Personal worth set forth, in the very deepest depths of His humiliation – God’s delight in the One from whom He had, in vindication of His inflexible justice and holiness, to hide His face – all this is set forth in the fact that the fat of the sin offering was burnt upon the altar.
Having, thus, endeavoured to point out, in the first place, what was done with “the blood;” and, in the second place, what was done with “the fat;” we have, now, to consider what was done with “the flesh.” “And the skin of the bullock, and all his flesh.. even the whole bullock shall he carry forth without the camp unto a clean place, where the ashes are poured out, and burn him On the wood with fire: where the ashes are poured out shall he be burnt.” (Ver. 11, 12) In this act, we have the main feature of the sin offering-that which distinguished it both from the burnt offering and the peace offering. Its flesh was not burnt upon the altar, as in the burnt offering; neither was it eaten by the priest or the worshipper, as in the peace offering. It was wholly burnt without the camp.* “No sin offering, whereof any of the blood is brought into the tabernacle of the congregation, to reconcile withal in the holy place, shall be eaten: it shall be burnt in the fire.” (Lev. 6: 30) “For the bodies of those beasts, whose blood is brought unto the sanctuary by the high priest for sin, are burned without the camp. Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate.” (Heb. 13: 11, 12)
{*The statement in the text refers only to the sin offerings of which the blood was brought into the holy place. There were sin offerings of which Aaron and his sons partook. (See Lev 6: 26-29; Num. 18: 9, 10)}
Now, in comparing what was done with the “blood” with what was done with the “flesh” or “body” of the sacrifice, two great branches of truth present themselves to our view, namely, worship and discipleship. The blood brought into the sanctuary is the foundation of the former. The body burnt outside the camp is the foundation of the latter. Before ever we can worship, in Peace of conscience, and liberty of heart, we must know, on the authority of the word, and by the power of the Spirit, that the entire question of sin has been for ever settled by the blood of the divine sin offering-that His blood has been sprinkled, perfectly, before the Lord – that all God’s claims, and all our necessities, as ruined and guilty sinners, have been, for ever, answered. This gives perfect peace; and, in the enjoyment of this peace, we worship God. When an Israelite, of old, had offered his sin offering, his conscience was set at rest, in so far as the offering was capable of imparting rest. True, it was but a temporary rest, being the fruit of a temporary sacrifice. But, clearly, whatever kind of rest the offering was fitted to impart, that the offerer might enjoy. Hence, therefore, our Sacrifice being divine and eternal, our rest is divine and eternal also. As is the sacrifice such is the rest which is founded thereon. A Jew never had an eternally purged conscience, simply because he had not an eternally efficacious sacrifice. He might in a certain way, have his conscience purged for a day, a month, or a year; but he could not have it purged for ever. “But Christ being come, an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood, he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption. For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh; how much more shall the blood of Christ, who, through the eternal Spirit, offered Himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?” (Heb. 11: 11-14)
Here, we have the full, explicit statement of the doctrine. The blood of goats and calves procured a temporary redemption; the blood of Christ procures eternal redemption. The former purified outwardly; the latter, inwardly. that purged the flesh, for a time; this, the conscience, for ever. The whole question hinges, not upon the character or condition of the offerer, but upon the value of the offering. The question is not, by any means, whether a Christian is a better man than a Jew, but whether the blood of Christ is better than the blood of a bullock. Assuredly, it is better. How much better? Infinitely better. The Son of God imparts all the dignity of His own divine Person to the sacrifice which He offered; and, if the blood of a bullock purified the flesh for a year, “how much more” shall the blood of the Son of God purge the conscience for ever? If that took away some sin, how much more shall this take away “all?”
Now, why was the mind of a Jew set at rest, for the time being, when he had offered his sin offering? How did he know that the special sin for which he had brought his sacrifice was forgiven? Because God had said, “it shall be forgiven him.” His peace of heart, in reference to that particular sin, rested upon the testimony of the God of Israel, and the blood of the victim. So, now, the peace of the believer, in reference to “all SIN,” rests upon the authority of God’s word, and “the precious blood of Christ.” If a Jew had sinned, and neglected to bring his sin offering, he should have been “Cut Off from among his people;” but when he took his place as a sinner – when he laid his hand upon the head of a sin offering, then, the offering was “Cut Off” instead of him, and he was free, so far. The offering was treated as the offerer deserved; and, hence, for him not to know that his sin was forgiven him, would have been to make God a liar, and to treat the blood of the divinely-appointed sin offering as nothing.
And, if this were true, in reference to one who had only the blood of a goat to rest upon, “how much more” powerfully does it apply to one, who has the precious blood of Christ to rest upon? The believer sees in Christ One who has been judged for all his sin – One who, when He hung upon the cross, sustained the entire burden of his sin – One who, having made Himself responsible for that sin, could not be where He now is, if the whole question of sin had not been settled, according to all the claims of infinite justice. So absolutely did Christ take the believer’s place on the cross – so entirely was he identified with Him – so completely was all the believer’s sin imputed to Him, there and then, that all question of the believer’s liability – all thought of his guilt all idea of his exposure to judgement and wrath, is eternally set aside.* It was all settled on the cursed tree, between Divine Justice and the Spotless Victim. And now the believer is as absolutely identified with Christ, on the throne, as Christ was identified with him on the tree. Justice has no charge to bring against the believer, because it has no charge to bring against Christ. Thus it stands for ever. If a charge could be preferred against the believer, it would be calling in question the reality of Christ’s identification with him, on the cross, and the perfectness of Christ’s work, on his behalf. If, when the worshipper, of old, was on his way back, after having offered his sin offering, any one had charged him with that special sin for which his sacrifice had bled, what would have been His reply? Just this: “the sin has been rolled away, by the blood of the victim, and Jehovah has pronounced the words, ‘It shall be forgiven him.'” The victim had died instead of him; and he lived instead of the victim.
{*We have a singularly beautiful example of the divine accuracy of Scripture, in 2 Cor. 5: 21, “He hath made him to be sin (hamartian epoiesen) for us, that we might become (ginometha) the righteousness of God in him.” The English reader might suppose that the word which is rendered “made” is the same in each clause of the passage, This is not the case.}
Such was the type. And, as to the Antitype, when the eye of faith rests on Christ as the sin offering, it beholds Him as One who, having assumed a Perfect human life, gave up that life on the cross, because sin was, there and then, attached to it by imputation. But, it beholds Him, also, As One who, having, in Himself, the power of divine and eternal life, rose from the tomb therein, and who now imparts this, His risen, His divine, His eternal life to all who believe in His name. The sin is gone, because the life to which it was attached is gone, and now, instead of the life to which sin was attached, all true believers possess the life to which righteousness attaches. The question of sin can never once be raised, in reference to the risen and victorious life of Christ; but this is the life which believers possess. There is no other life. All beside is death, because all beside is under the power of sin. “He that hath the Son hath life;” and he that hath life, hath righteousness also. The two things are inseparable, because Christ is both the one and the other. If the judgement and death of Christ, upon the cross, were realities, then, the life and righteousness of the believer are realities. If imputed sin was a reality to Christ, imputed righteousness is a reality to the believer. The one is as real as the other; for, if not, Christ would have died in vain. The true and irrefragable ground of peace is this – that the claims of God’s nature have been perfectly met, as to sin. The death of Jesus has satisfied them all – satisfied them of the awakened conscience? The great fact of resurrection. A risen Christ declares the full deliverance of the believer – his perfect discharge from every possible demand. “He was delivered for our offences, and raised again for our justification” (Rom. 4: 25) For a Christian not to know that his sin is gone, and gone for ever, is to cast slight upon the blood of his divine sin offering. It is to deny that there has been the perfect presentation – the sevenfold sprinkling of the blood before the Lord.
And now, ere turning from this fundamental point which has been occupying us, I would desire to make an earnest and a most solemn appeal to my reader’s heart and conscience Let me ask you, dear friend, have you been led to repose on this holy and happy foundation? Do you know that the question of your sin has been for ever disposed of? Have you laid your hand, by faith, on the head of the sin offering? Have you seen the atoning blood of Jesus rolling away all your guilt, and carrying it into the mighty waters of God’s forgetfulness? Has Divine Justice anything against you? Are you free from the unutterable horrors of a guilty conscience? Do not, I pray you, rest satisfied until you can give a joyous answer to these enquiries. Be assured of it, it is the happy privilege of the feeblest babe in Christ to rejoice in full and everlasting remission of sins, on the ground of finished atonement; and, hence, for any to teach otherwise, is to lower the sacrifice of Christ to the level of “goats and calves.” If we cannot know that our sins are forgiven, then, where are the good tidings of the gospel? Is a Christian in no wise better off in the matter of a sin offering, than a Jew? The latter was privileged to know that his matters were set straight for a year, by the blood of an annual sacrifice. Can the former not have any certainty at all? Unquestionably. Well, then, if there is any certainty, it must be eternal, inasmuch as it rests on an eternal sacrifice.
This, and this alone, is the basis of worship. The full assurance of sin put away, ministers, not to a spirit of self-confidence, but to a spirit of promise, thankfulness, and worship. It produces, not a spirit of self-complacency, but of Christ-complacency, which, blessed be God, is the spirit which shall characterise the redeemed throughout eternity. It does not lead one to think little of sin, but to think much of the grace which has perfectly pardoned it, and of the blood which has perfectly cancelled it. It is impossible that any one can gaze on the cross – can see the place which Christ took – can meditate upon the sufferings which He endured – can ponder on those three terrible hours of darkness, and, at the same time, think lightly of sin. When all these things are entered into, in the power of the Holy Ghost, there are two results which must follow, namely, an abhorrence of sin, in all its forms, and a genuine love to Christ, His people, and His cause.
Let us now consider what was done with the “flesh” or “body” of the sacrifice, in which, as has been stated, we have the true ground of discipleship. “The whole bullock shall he carry forth, without the camp, unto a clean place, where the ashes are poured out, and burn him on the wood with fire.” (Lev. 4: 12) This act is to be viewed in a double way; first, as expressing the place which the Lord Jesus took for us, as bearing sin; secondly, as expressing the place into which He was cast, by a world which had rejected Him. It is to this latter point that I would here call my reader’s attention.
The use which the apostle, in Heb. 13, makes of Christ’s having “suffered without the gate,” is deeply practical. “Let us go forth, therefore, unto him, without the camp, bearing his reproach.” If the sufferings of Christ have secured us an entrance into heaven, the place where He suffered expresses our rejection from earth. His death has procured us a city on high; the place where He died divests us of a city below.* “He suffered without the gate,” and, in so doing, He set aside Jerusalem as the present centre of divine operation. There is no such thing, now, as a consecrated spot on the earth. Christ has taken His place, as a suffering One, outside the range of this world’s religion – its politics, and all that pertains to it. The world hated Him, and cast Him out. Wherefore, the word is, “go forth.” This is the motto, as regards every thing that men would set up here, in the form of a “camp,” no matter what that camp may be. If men set up “a holy city,” you must look for a rejected Christ “without the gate.” If men set up a religious camp, call it by what name you please, you must “go forth” out of it, in order to find a rejected Christ. It is not that blind superstition will not grope amid the ruins of Jerusalem, in search of relics of Christ. It assuredly will do so, and has done so. It will affect to find out, and do honour to, the site of His cross, and to His sepulchre. Nature’s covetousness, too, taking advantage of nature’s superstition, has carried on, for ages, a lucrative traffic, under the crafty plea of doing honour to the so-called sacred localities of antiquity. But a single ray of light from Revelation’s heavenly lamp, is sufficient to enable us to say that you must “go forth” of all these things, in order to find and enjoy communion with a rejected Christ.
{*The Epistle to the Ephesians furnishes the most elevated view of the Church’s place above, and gives it to us, not merely as to the title, but also as to the mode. The title is, assuredly, the blood; but the mode is thus stated: “But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love, wherewith he loved us, even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ (by grace ye are saved); and hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus.” (Eph. 2: 4-6)}
However, my reader will need to remember that there is far more involved in the soul-stirring call to “go forth,” than a mere escape from the gross absurdities of an ignorant superstition, or the designs of a crafty covetousness. There are many who can, powerfully and eloquently, expose all such things, who are very far indeed from any thought of responding to the apostolic summons. When men set up a “camp,” and rally round a standard on which is emblazoned some important dogma of truth, or some valuable institution – when they can appeal to an orthodox creed – an advanced and enlightened scheme of doctrine – a splendid ritual, capable of satisfying the most ardent aspirations of man’s devotional nature – when any or all of these things exist, it demands much spiritual intelligence to discern the real force and proper application of the words, “Let us go forth,” and much spiritual energy and decision to act upon them. They should, however, be discerned and acted upon, for it is perfectly certain that the atmosphere of a camp, let its ground or standard be what it may, is destructive of personal communion with a rejected Christ; and no so-called religious advantage can ever make up for the loss of that communion. It is the tendency of our hearts to drop into cold stereotyped forms. This has ever been the case in the professing church. These forms may have originated in real power. They may have resulted from positive visitations of the Spirit of God. The temptation is to stereotype the form when the spirit and power have all departed. This is, in principle, to set up a camp. The Jewish system could boast a divine origin. A Jew could triumphantly point to the temple, with its splendid system of worship, its priesthood, its sacrifices, its entire furniture, and show that it had all been handed down from the God of Israel. He could give chapter and verse, as we say, for everything connected with the system to which he was attached. Where is the system, ancient, mediaeval, or modern, that could put forth such lofty and powerful pretensions, or come down upon the heart with such an overwhelming weight of authority? And yet, the command was to “GO FORTH.”
This is a deeply solemn matter. It concerns us all, because we are all prone to slip away from communion with a living Christ and sink into dead routine. Hence the practical power of the words, to go forth therefore unto him.” It is not, Go forth from one system to another – from one set of opinions to another – from one company of people to another. No: but go forth from everything that merits the appellation of a camp, “to him” who “suffered without the gate.” The Lord Jesus is as thoroughly outside the gate now, as He was when He suffered there eighteen centuries ago. What was it that put Him outside? “The religious world” of that day: and the religious world of that day is, in spirit and principle, the religious world of the present moment. The world is the world still. “There is nothing new under the sun.” Christ and the world are not one. The world has covered itself with the cloak; of Christianity; but it is only in order that its hatred to Christ may work itself up into more deadly forms underneath. Let us not deceive ourselves. If we will walk with a rejected Christ, we must be a rejected people. If our Master “suffered without the gate,” we cannot expect to reign within the gate. If we walk in His footsteps, whither will they lead us? Surely, not to the high places of this Godless, Christless world.
“His path, uncheered by earthly smiles,
Led only to the cross.”
He is a despised Christ – a rejected Christ – a Christ outside the camp. Oh! then, dear Christian reader, let us go forth to Him, bearing His reproach. Let us not bask in the sunshine of this world’s favour, seeing it crucified, and still hates, with an unmitigated hatred, the beloved One to whom we owe our present and eternal all, and who loves us with a love which many waters cannot quench. Let us not, directly or indirectly, accredit that thing which calls itself by His sacred name; but, in reality, hates His Person, hates His ways, hates His truth, hates the bare mention of His advent. Let us be faithful to an absent Lord. Let us live for Him who died for us. While our consciences repose in His blood, let our heart’s affections entwine themselves around His Person; so that our separation from” this present evil world” may not be merely a matter of cold principle, but an affectionate separation, because the object of our affections is not here. May the Lord deliver us from the influence of that consecrated, prudential selfishness, so common at the present time, which would not be without religiousness, but is the enemy of the cross of Christ. What we want, in order to make a successful stand against this terrible form of evil, is not peculiar views, or special principles, or curious theories, or cold intellectual accuracy. We want a deep-toned devotedness to the Person of the Son of God; a whole-hearted consecration of ourselves, body, soul, and spirit, to His service; an earnest longing for His glorious advent. These, my reader, are the special wants of the times in which you and I live. Will you not, then, join in uttering, from the very depths of your heart, the cry, “O Lord, revive thy work” – “accomplish the number of thine elect!” – “hasten thy kingdom!” – “Come, Lord Jesus, come quickly!”
Fuente: Mackintosh’s Notes on the Pentateuch
Lev 4:1 to Lev 5:13. The Sin Offering.This, and the guilt offering, whose ritual follows, are unknown before the Exile, save as fines (2Ki 12:16, Amo 2:8). Ezek. mentions both, but is conscious of no difference between them. Probably the distinction between them grew up gradually (see on Eze 5:14 ff.). The ritual is derived partly from that of the burnt offering and peace offering; partly from other old rites. No idea of substitution seems to be implied (though it is true that a ritual tablet from Babylonia states that idea very clearly; the life of the kid has he given for his own life, its head for his head, etc.), since the sin offering is most holy, a term which could not be applied to the offerer; a meal offering is included, as if the sacrifice were thought of originally as an offering of food; and the sacrifice is offered for sins not demanding death, though the victim is always killed, and by the worshipper. [Observe also that were the sacrifice substitutionary, the chief point would be the slaughter. But it was rather the manipulation of the blood.A. S. P.] On the other hand, the conception of a gift or payment in return for a wrong done is prominent throughout. The offerer has no more share in his offering than in the case of the burnt offering, though the priest has. This becomes clearer when it is seen that sin is used, not of deliberate disobedience or defiance of Yahwehs moral law, but more particularly of ritual or ceremonial mistakes or defilement committed through inadvertence or ignorance. The sin offering often accompanies other sacrifices; in Ezek., the consecration of the altar (Eze 43:19). While the later legislation thus purifies the sacrificial ritual from anything that could remotely savour of irreverence, it is very far from the standpoint of Psalms 51; it simply perpetuates, for good and evil, the primitive conception of sin as an infraction of the restrictions or taboos imposed on human conduct by the deity. The main characteristics of the sin offering are the killing of the victim by the worshipper and the pouring out of the blood, as in the burnt offering; the flesh is burnt outside the camp or eaten by the priest, i.e. it is most holy. The manipulation of the blood, however, is more complicated (cf. Lev 4:5 ff.), and different kinds of animals are to be offered, according to the rank of the offererHigh Priest, congregation, ruler, private person, or the poor. The seven times repeated sprinkling of the blood before Yahweh (Lev 4:6) recalls the ritual of ch. 16; both may well be among the latest developments of Priestly legislation.
Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible
THE SIN OFFERING
FOR CASES OF IGNORANCE (vv. 1-2)
The sin offering was for sins of ignorance, or inadvertence. These are things that we do not realize are sin and we easily fall into such things unintentionally. Why do we do this? Because we have a sinful nature inherited from Adam which leads even a believer into things he does not approve of. This gives him the struggle of Rom 7:1-25, as expressed in verse 19, For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice. We are not responsible for having the sinful nature, for we were born with it, but we are responsible for letting it express itself. Therefore, when one in Israel realized that he had sinned, however unintentional it had been, he must bring an offering to God.
Under law there was no sacrifice for the sins of willful disobedience. Num 15:30 says, But the person who does anything presumptuously that one brings reproach on the Lord, and he shall be cut off from among his people. Thus there was no sacrifice for David’s sin (Psa 51:16). Under grace today, how wonderful the difference, for the blood of Jesus Christ, His Son, cleanses us from all sin (1Jn 1:7). So that we must distinguish between the literal application of these sacrifices to Israel, and the spiritual significance for them for us today.
THE SIN OF AN ANOINTED PRIEST (vv. 3-12)
The sin of a priest was especially serious, because he was a representative of the people Godward. That sin must not be covered, but judged. Therefore the priest must offer a young bull without blemish as a sin offering. As with the burnt offering, he was to lay his hand of the head of the bull and kill it before the Lord at the door of the tabernacle. Then he was to dip his finger in the blood and sprinkle some of it seven times before the Lord in front of the veil of the sanctuary and also put some of the blood on the horns of the altar of sweet incense. This sprinkling was not the same as with the burnt offering, however, for that blood was sprinkled around the altar of burn offering, outside.
Some of the blood of the sin offering for the anointed priest was sprinkled in front of the veil of the sanctuary, some put on the horns of the altar of sweet incense, and the rest poured out at the base of the altar of burnt offering. We shall see that, in the case of the sin of a ruler or of one of the common people (vv. 22, 27) the blood was sprinkled as it was with the burnt offering, but in the case of the sin of the whole congregation of Israel (v. 13) the blood was sprinkled just as in the case of the sin of a priest.
The reason for this seems to be that the priest was the spiritual representative of the people and he had access into the sanctuary: therefore the sanctuary was purged by blood on his account. The case of the sin of the whole congregation is evidently connected in such a way with the priest as their representative that a similar ritual was necessary.
Again the fat was to be removed, the two kidneys and the fatty lobe attached to the liver, and these burned on the altar of burnt offering, as God’s portion. But nothing of this offering was to be eaten by the offerer. All was to be carried outside the camp and burned where the ashes were poured out.
This was not a voluntary offering, but one required because of the priest’s sin: therefore it was not a sweet savor offering, for it speaks of Christ suffering from God under the curse of our sins, in a place of total rejection outside the camp. This was true of all the sin offerings of which the blood was taken into the sanctuary (Heb 13:11), which included that for the priest and that for the whole congregation (vv. 6-6; 17-18). However, one day in the year, the great day of atonement, the high priest took the blood of the sin offering, not only into the first room of the holy place, but inside the veil, in the holiest of all, where he sprinkled the blood before and on the mercy seat (Lev 16:1-17). The body of the animal was burned outside the camp.
It might be that the whole congregation of Israel became involved in a sin that they did not at the time realize was sin. Their ignorance did not excuse them, however. When the sin was brought to their attention, then a sin offering was required. The connection of this with the sin of the priest seems very clear, for the instructions as to the sacrifice are just the same, except that it is the elders of the people who were to lay their hands on the head of the bull before its slaughter, for the elders represent the people.
This offering for the whole congregation appears to teach us that at the cross sin in its entirety was fully judged, not only individual sins. This would be a further reason for the animal being burned outside the camp, with the blood brought into the sanctuary to make atonement. This sin offering aspect of the sacrifice of Christ is emphasized in the Gospel of Mark.
FOR A RULER (vv. 22-26)
A ruler was not a spiritual representative, as the priest was, yet he was in authority over the common people, so that his sin and that of one of the common people (v. 27) required the same treatment, except that a male goat was required for the ruler, a female for the subject. As to the priest and the whole congregation there was a marked difference.
Still, the ruler is typical of Christ, who willingly took the responsibility for our sins as though they had been His own. Indeed, when He is considered as King, Matthew writes of Him, You shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins (Mat 1:21).
The male kid of the goats was used because the ruler is objectively the authority. Again he was to lay his hand on its head and kill it at the door of the tabernacle. As with the burnt offering, the priest was then to take some of the blood with his finger and put it on the horns of the copper altar and pour out the rest of the blood at the base of this altar. Then he was to burn all its fat on the altar. Thus his sin was forgiven. This does not speak of eternal forgiveness, but governmental, that is, for the time being, but it is typical of the value of the sacrifice of Christ as obtaining eternal forgiveness.
FOR ONE OF THE COMMON PEOPLE (vv. 27-35).
In the case of the sin of ignorance on the part of one of the common people, the instructions were just the same as for a ruler, except that a female animal was required, and also that either a sheep or a goat was acceptable. The female was appropriate for a subject, for the female speaks of a subjective character, rather than objective, as in the case of a ruler. The goat is typical of Christ as Substitute, the lamb speaking of His lowly submission in sacrifice. The necessity of all of these offerings and the instructions concerning them should make a very real impression on the heart of every believer, for in this way we learn the horror of sin in God’s sight and the infinite greatness of the sacrifice of Christ.
Fuente: Grant’s Commentary on the Bible
4. The sin offering 4:1-5:13
The sin offering was a very important offering since it was to be offered before any of the others. It also played a key role on the Day of Atonement. Ancient Near Easterners offered certain offerings before God incorporated these into the Mosaic Law. Moses previously mentioned burnt offerings in Gen 12:7; Gen 13:4; Gen 13:18; Genesis 22; Gen 26:25; Gen 33:20; and Gen 35:1-7, and peace offerings in Gen 31:54; Gen 46:1. However the sin and trespass offerings were new.
They ". . . were altogether unknown before the economy of the Sinaitic law." [Note: Keil and Delitzsch, 2:269.]
The structure of the chapters dealing with the sin and trespass offerings differs from that describing the burnt, meal, and peace offerings. Also the opening words of this chapter introduce a new section. These differences help us appreciate the fact that these two offerings were in a class by themselves while sharing some of the similarities of the first three. The sacrificial victim was the organizing principle in chapters 1-3 with revelation about the more valuable animals leading off each chapter. In Lev 4:1 to Lev 6:7 the most important factor is the type of sin that called for sacrifice, and the status of the sinner is a secondary factor.
"Whereas the main issue in the burnt, grain, and fellowship offerings was the proper procedure to be followed, the main issue in the discussion in the sin and guilt offerings is the occasion that would require these sacrifices." [Note: Rooker, p. 106.]
There were two types of occasions that called for the sin offering: unwitting or inadvertent sins (ch. 4) and sins of omission (Lev 5:1-13). We could subdivide this section on the sin offering as follows. [Note: Wenham, p. 87.]
Inadvertent sin ch. 4
Introduction Lev 4:1-2
Blood sprinkled in the holy place Lev 4:3-21
For the high priest Lev 4:3-12
For the congregation Lev 4:13-21
Blood smeared on the brazen altar Lev 4:22-35
For the tribal leader Lev 4:22-26
For the ordinary Israelite offering a goat Lev 4:27-31
For the ordinary Israelite offering a lamb Lev 4:32-35
Sins of omission Lev 5:1-13
A lamb or goat offering Lev 5:1-6
A bird offering Lev 5:7-10
A flour offering Lev 5:11-13
The sin (purification, Heb. hatta’t) offering dealt with unintentional sins, as opposed to high-handed sins (cf. Num 15:22-31). The translation "sin offering" is a bit misleading since the burnt, peace, and trespass offerings also atoned for sin.
"Propitiation of divine anger . . . is an important element in the burnt offering. Restitution . . . is the key idea in the reparation [trespass] offering. Purification is the main element in the purification [sin] sacrifice. Sin not only angers God and deprives him of his due, it also makes his sanctuary unclean. A holy God cannot dwell amid uncleanness. The purification offering purifies the place of worship, so that God may be present among his people." [Note: Ibid., p. 89.]
"The root ht’ for ’sin’ occurs 595 times in the Old Testament, and Leviticus, with 116 attestations, has far more occurrences than any other Old Testament book. This section (fifty-three attestations) is the heaviest concentration of the discussion of ’sin’ in the Bible." [Note: Rooker, p. 107.]
Like the burnt and meal offerings this one was compulsory, but the Israelites offered it less frequently (cf. Numbers 28-29). The most important feature of this offering was the sprinkling of the blood of the sacrifice.
"The law reminds people of sin-not just the major sins, but sins that are often overlooked, like not keeping one’s word, failing to do what is right, or living in a defiled world and never considering what that does to the spiritual life." [Note: Ross, p. 144.]
Three notable distinctives stand out.
1. This offering was not a soothing aroma. It was for expiation, namely, to make amends. The offerer ritually charged the sacrificial animal with his sin (cf. Isa 53:5; 1Pe 2:24). The animal had to be without defect (cf. 1Pe 2:22). The offerer executed God’s judgment for sin on the sacrificial substitute by slaying it. In every sin offering an innocent substitute replaced the sinner (cf. 2Co 5:21).
A problem arises in Lev 4:31 where Moses referred to this non-soothing offering as a soothing aroma. One commentator suggested that a copyist accidentally transferred the statement from the discussions of the peace offering in chapter 3. [Note: A. Noordtzij, Leviticus, p. 63.] Another believed it was the burning of the fatty tissue, not the whole sin offering, that was the soothing aroma. [Note: Harrison, p. 67.] This second explanation seems more probable.
2. Smearing blood on the horns of the altar symbolized purifying the whole sanctuary. The horns represented the powerful force of the entire altar. The priest burned outside the camp the skin and other parts that he did not eat or burn on the altar. He burned the fat on the altar. God evidently regarded it as the best part of the animal. The priest ate most of the flesh (Lev 6:26; cf. Heb 13:11-13; Mat 27:46).
3. This offering dealt with most unintentionally committed sins (cf. Lev 5:14-16). These oversights demonstrated a sinful nature. Any sin committed unwittingly (Lev 4:2; Lev 4:13; Lev 4:22; Lev 4:27; Lev 5:2-4) proved the need for this offering and demonstrated a sinful nature.
God permitted several varieties of this offering.
1. God permitted the offering of less expensive animals or flour (Lev 5:11) by the poor. However everyone had to offer this sacrifice since everyone committed unintentional sins. Flour did not express the cost of expiation as well as a blood sacrifice did, but God permitted it for the very poor.
"On the one hand this arrangement says that the more influential the person, the costlier the offering that had to be brought-the sins of the prominent were more defiling. But on the other hand it is also saying that the way was open to all. The poor were not excluded because their sins were not so defiling or because they had no animals. God made provision for everyone to find cleansing for reentry into the sanctuary." [Note: Ross, p. 131.]
2. People with higher social and economic status had to bring more expensive sacrifices, illustrating the principle that privilege increases responsibility. Evidently any sin that the high priest committed in private or in his public capacity brought guilt on the whole nation (cf. Lev 10:6; Lev 22:16). [Note: Wenham, p. 97.]
3. God allowed procedural differences as well (e.g., where the priest sprinkled the blood, how he burned the fat, etc.) depending on the offerer’s position in the nation.
The sin offering covered only sins committed unintentionally. This category included sins done by mistake, in error, through oversight or ignorance, through lack of consideration, or by carelessness. That is, this sacrifice covered sins that sprang from the weakness of the flesh (cf. Num 15:27-29). It did not cover sins committed with a "high hand," namely, in haughty, defiant rebellion against God. Such a sinner was "cut off from among his people" (Num 15:30-31). Many reliable commentators interpret this phrase to mean the offender suffered death. [Note: E.g., Keil and Delitzsch, 1:224; Wenham, pp. 241-2; and idem, Numbers, p. 131.] Not all deliberate sins were "high handed," however, only those committed in defiant rebellion against God.
"The sin offerings did not relate to sin or sinfulness in general, but to particular manifestations of sin, to certain distinct actions performed by individuals, or by the whole congregation." [Note: Keil and Delitzsch, 2:302-303.]
The meaning of "congregation" is somewhat obscure. Sometimes the whole nation seems to be in view (e.g., Exo 12:3; Exo 12:6; Exo 17:1; Num 20:1-2). If this is the meaning in Lev 4:13-21, as seems to be the case, the "congregation" is synonymous with the "assembly." However in other passages "congregation" seems to describe a representative group within the nation (e.g., Exo 16:1-2; Exo 16:9; Num 8:20; Num 15:33-36; Num 27:2; Num 35:12; Num 35:24-25). The context helps determine the meaning.
Note the promises that the offering would atone (make amends) for these sins (Lev 4:26; Lev 4:31; Lev 4:35; Lev 5:10). Scholars have understood the meaning of "atonement," from the Hebrew root kpr, in three different ways. Most of them have believed that it is related to the Arabic cognate meaning "to cover." Another possibility is that the verb means "to wipe or purge." A third view is that the verb means "to ransom." Probably the second and third views are best since they go back to the Hebrew root rather than to the Arabic cognate. Both these interpretations are valid depending on the context. However, the idea of covering is also frequently present. [Note: See Rooker, p. 52, for further discussion.]
". . . one hears it being taught that sins in the Old Testament were never fully forgiven or atoned, but merely covered over as a temporary measure. But Scripture says that atonement was made and they were forgiven (Lev 4:26; Lev 4:31; Lev 4:35; Psa 130:4; Psa 32:1-2 . . .)." [Note: Ross, p. 93.]
Most commentators understand this sacrifice as the principal expiatory offering in ancient Israel. [Note: E.g., Hertz, p. 22; and C. F. Keil, Manual of Biblical Archaeology, 1:299.] Nevertheless references to this offering in the text consistently connect it with purification. Sin defiles people and, particularly, God’s sanctuary. Animal blood was the means of purification. The pollution of sin does not endanger God but human beings. Textual evidence points to the burnt offering as the principal atoning sacrifice in Israel. [Note: See Wenham, The Book . . ., pp. 93-95.]
The idea that sin pollutes and defiles seems very strange in the modern world. Notwithstanding Leviticus reveals that sins pollute the place where they take place (cf. Lev 18:24-30; Deu 21:1-9).
The relationship of Lev 5:1-13 to chapter 4 is a problem. I have suggested one solution above: these sin offerings deal with sins of omission rather than inadvertent sin. One scholar suggested another explanation.
"Modern critics tend to regard Lev 5:1-13 as the ’poor man’s’ offering, the option given to the offender of Lev 4:27-35 who cannot afford the prescribed flock animal. This interpretation, however, is beset with stylistic and contextual difficulties: . . . My own hypothesis is herewith submitted: The graduated hatta’t [sin offering] is a distinct sacrificial category. It is enjoined for failure or inability to cleanse impurity upon its occurrence. This ’the sin of which he is guilty’ (Lev 5:6; Lev 5:10; Lev 5:13) is not the contraction of impurity but its prolongation." [Note: Jacob Milgrom, "The Graduated Hatta’t of Leviticus 5:1-13," Journal of the American Oriental Society 103:1 (January-March 1983):249-250.]
This relationship continues to be the subject of some debate. Wenham summarized this section well.
"The purification [sin] offering dealt with the pollution caused by sin. If sin polluted the land, it defiled particularly the house where God dwelt. The seriousness of pollution depended on the seriousness of the sin, which in turn related to the status of the sinner. If a private citizen sinned, his action polluted the sanctuary only to a limited extent. Therefore the blood of the purification offering was only smeared on the horns of the altar of burnt sacrifice. If, however, the whole nation sinned or the holiest member of the nation, the high priest, sinned, this was more serious. The blood had to be taken inside the tabernacle and sprinkled on the veil and the altar of incense. Finally over the period of a year the sins of the nation could accumulate to such an extent that they polluted even the holy of holies, where God dwelt. If he was to continue to dwell among his people, this too had to be cleansed in the annual day of atonement ceremony (see Leviticus 16)." [Note: Wenham, The Book . . ., p. 96.]
Under the New Covenant the blood of Jesus Christ cleanses the believer from all sin (cf. Hebrews 9-10; 1Pe 1:2; 1Jn 1:7; Rev 7:14). Thus this offering is now obsolete for the Christian. However sin in the believer’s life can grieve the indwelling Holy Spirit (Eph 4:30). Furthermore the New Testament reminds us that judgment is still proportionate to responsibility (cf. Luk 12:48; Jas 3:1). For us confession is a prerequisite to cleansing for fellowship (1Jn 1:9) even though Christ’s death has brought purification from sin’s defilement and condemnation.
"God will restore the sinner who appeals to him for forgiveness on the basis of the purifying blood of the sacrifice." [Note: Ross, p. 134.]
"Anyone who becomes aware of obligations left undone or impure contacts left unpurified must make confession and find forgiveness through God’s provision of atonement." [Note: Ibid., p. 144.]
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
THE SIN OFFERING
Lev 4:1-35
BOTH in the burnt offering and in the peace offering, Israel was taught, as we are, that all consecration and all fellowship with God must begin with, and ever depends upon, atonement made for sin. But this was not the dominant thought in either of these offerings; neither did the atonement, as made in these, have reference to particular acts of sin. For such, these offerings were never prescribed. They remind us therefore of the necessity of atonement, not so much for what we do or fail to do, as for what we are.
But the sin even of true believers, whether then or now, is more than sin of nature. The true Israelite was liable to be overtaken in some overt act of sin; and for all such cases was ordained, in this section of the law, {Lev 4:1-35; Lev 5:1-13} the sin offering; an offering which should bring out into sole and peculiar prominence the thought revealed in other sacrifices more imperfectly, that in order to pardon of sin, there must be expiation. There was indeed a limitation to the application of this offering; for if a man, in those days, sinned wilfully, presumptuously, stubbornly, or, as the phrase is, “with a high hand,” there was no provision made in the law for his restoration to covenant standing. “He that despised Moses law died without mercy under two or three witnesses”; he was “cut off from his people.” But for sins of a lesser grade, such as resulted not from a spirit of wilful rebellion against God, but were mitigated in their guilt by various reasons, especially ignorance, rashness, or inadvertence, God made provision, in a typical way, for their removal by means of the atonement of the sin and the guilt offerings. By means of these, accompanied also with full restitution of the wrong done, when such restitution was possible, the guilty one might be restored in those days to his place as an accepted citizen of the kingdom of God.
No part of the Levitical law is more full of deep, heart-searching truth than the law of the sin offering. First of all, it is of consequence to observe that the sins for which this chief atoning sacrifice was appointed, were, for the most part, sins of ignorance. For so runs the general statement with which this section opens (Lev 4:2): “If anyone shall sin unwittingly, in any of the things which the Lord hath commanded not to be done, and shall do any of them.” And to these are afterwards added sins committed through rashness, the result rather of heat and hastiness of spirit than of deliberate purpose of sin; as, for instance, in Lev 5:4 : “Whatsoever it be that a man shall utter rashly with an oath, and it be hid from him.” Besides these, in the same section (Lev 5:1-4), as also in all the cases mentioned under the guilt offering, and the special instance of a wrong done to a slave girl, {Lev 19:20-21} a number of additional offences are mentioned which all seem to have their special palliation, not indeed in the ignorance of the sinner, but in the nature of the acts themselves, as admitting of reparation. For all such it was also ordained that the offender should bring a sin (or a guilt) offering, and that by this, atonement being made for him, his sin might be forgiven.
All this must have brought before Israel, and is meant to bring before us, the absolute equity of God in dealing with His creatures. We think often of His stern justice in that He so unfailingly takes note of every sin. But here we may learn also to observe His equity in that He notes no less carefully every circumstance that may palliate our sin. We thankfully recognise in these words the spirit of Him of whom it was said {Heb 5:2, marg.} that in the days of His flesh He could “reasonably bear with the ignorant”; and who said concerning those who know not their Masters will and do it not, {Luk 12:48} that their “stripes” shall be “few”; and who, again, with equal justice and mercy, said of His disciples fault in Gethsemane, {Mat 26:41} “The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.” We do well to note this. For in these days we hear it often charged against the holy religion of Christ, that it represents God as essentially and horribly unjust in consigning all unbelievers to one and the same unvarying punishment, the eternal lake of fire; and as thus making no difference between those who have sinned against the utmost light and knowledge, wilfully and inexcusably, and those who may have sinned through ignorance, or weakness of the flesh. To such charges as these we have simply to answer that neither in the Old Testament nor in the New is God so revealed. We may come back to this book of Leviticus, and declare that even in those days when law reigned, and grace and love were less clearly revealed than now, God made a difference, a great difference, between some sins and others; He visited, no doubt, wilful and defiant sin with condign punishment; but, on the other hand, no less justly than mercifully, He considered also every circumstance which could lessen guilt, and ordained a gracious provision for expiation and forgiveness. The God revealed in Leviticus, like the God revealed in the Gospel, the God “with whom we have to do,” is then no hard and unreasonable tyrant, but a most just and equitable King. He is no less the Most Just, that He is the Most Holy; but, rather, because He is most holy, is He therefore most just. And because God is such a God, in the New Testament also it is plainly said that ignorance, as it extenuates guilt, shall also ensure mitigation of penalty; and in the Old Testament, that while he who sins presumptuously and with a high hand against God, shall “die without mercy under two or three witnesses,” on the other hand, he who sins unwittingly, or in some sudden rash impulse, doing that of which he afterward truly repents; or who, again, has sinned, if knowingly, still in such a way as admits of some adequate reparation of the wrong, -all these things shall be judged palliation of his guilt; and if he confess his sin, and make all possible reparation for it, then, if he present a sin or a guilt offering, atonement may therewith be made, and the sinner be forgiven.
This then is the first thing which the law concerning the sin offering brings before us: it calls our attention to the fact that the heavenly King and Judge of men is righteous in all His ways, and therefore will ever make all the allowance that strict justice and righteousness demand, for whatever may in any way palliate our guilt.
But none the less for this do we need also to heed another intensely practical truth which the law of the sin offering brings before us: namely, that while ignorance or other circumstances may palliate guilt, they do not and cannot nullify it. We may have sinned without a suspicion that we were sinning, but here we are taught that there can be no pardon without a sin offering. We may have sinned through weakness or sudden passion, but still sin is sin, and we must have a sin offering before we can be forgiven.
We may observe, in passing, the bearing of this teaching of the law on the question so much discussed in our day, as to the responsibility of the heathen for the sins which they commit through ignorance. In so far as their ignorance is not wilful and avoidable, it doubtless greatly diminishes their guilt; and the Lord Himself has said of such that their stripes shall be few. And yet more than this He does not say. Except we are prepared to cast aside the teaching alike of Leviticus and the Gospels, it is certain that their ignorance does not cancel their guilt. That the ignorance of anyone concerning moral law can secure his exemption from the obligation to suffer for his sin, is not only against the teaching of all Scripture, but is also contradicted by all that we can see about us of Gods government of the world. For when does God ever suspend the operation of physical laws, because the man who violates them does not know that he is breaking them? And so also, will we but open our eyes, we may see that it is with moral law. The heathen, for example, are ignorant of many moral laws; but do they therefore escape the terrible consequences of their law breaking, even in this present life, where we can see for ourselves how God is dealing with them? And is there any reason to think it will be different in the life hereafter?
Does it seem harsh that men should be punished even for sins of ignorance, and pardon be impossible, even for these, without atonement? It would not seem so, would men but think more deeply. For beyond all question, the ignorance of men as to the fundamental law of God, to love Him with all the heart, and our neighbour as ourselves, which is the sum of all law, has its reason, not in any lack of light, but in the evil heart of man, who everywhere and always, until he is regenerated, loves self more than he loves God. The words of Christ {Joh 3:20} apply: “He that doeth evil cometh not to the light”; not even to the light of nature.
And yet, one who should look only at this chapter might rejoin to this, that the Israelite was only obliged to bring a sin offering, when afterward he came to the knowledge of his sin as sin; but, in case he never came to that knowledge, was not then his sin passed by without an atoning sacrifice? To this question, the ordinance which we find in chapter 16 is the decisive answer. For therein it was provided that once every year a very solemn sin offering should be offered by the high priest, for all the multitudinous sins of Israel, which were not atoned for in the special sin offerings of each day. Hence it is strictly true that no sin in Israel was ever passed over without either penalty or shedding of blood. And so the law keeps it ever before us that our unconsciousness of sinning does not alter the fact of sin, or the fact of guilt, nor remove the obligation to suffer because of sin; and that even the sin of which we are quite ignorant, interrupts mans peace with God and harmony with him. Thus the best of us must take as our own the words of the Apostle Paul: {1Co 4:4, R.V} “I know nothing against myself; yet am I not hereby justified; He that judgeth me is the Lord.”
Nor does the testimony of this law end here. We are by it taught that the guilt of sins unrecognised as sins at the time of their committal, cannot be cancelled merely by penitent confession when they become known. Confession must indeed, be made, according to the law, as one condition of pardon, but, besides this, the guilty man must bring his sin offering.
What truths can be more momentous and vital than these! Can anyone say, in the light of such a revelation, that all in this ancient law of the sin offering is now obsolete, and of no concern to us? For how many there are who are resting all their hopes for the future on the fact that they have sinned, if at all, then ignorantly; or that they have meant to do right; or that they have confessed the sin when it was known, and have been very sorry. And yet, if this law teach anything, it teaches that this is a fatal mistake, and that such hopes rest on a foundation of sand. If we would be forgiven, we must indeed confess our sin and we must repent; but this is not enough. We must have a sin offering; we must make use of the great sin offering which that of Leviticus typified; we must tell our compassionate High Priest how in ignorance, or in the rashness of some unholy, overmastering impulse, we sinned, and commit our case to Him, that He may apply the precious blood in our behalf with God.
It is a third impressive fact, that after we include all the cases for which the sin offering was provided, there still remain many sins for the forgiveness of which no provision was made. It was ordered elsewhere, for instance {Num 35:31-33} that no satisfaction should be taken for the life of a murderer. He might confess and bewail his sin, and be never so sorry, but there was no help for him; he must die the death. So was it also with blasphemy; so with adultery, and with many other crimes. This exclusion of so many cases from the merciful provision of the typical offering had a meaning. It was intended, not only to emphasise to the conscience the aggravated wickedness of such crimes, but also to develop in Israel the sense of need for a more adequate provision, a better sacrifice than any the Levitical law could offer; blood which should cleanse, not merely in a ceremonial and sacramental way, but really and effectively; and not only from some sins, but from all sins.
The law of the sin offering is introduced by phraseology different from that which is used in the case of the preceding offerings. In the case of each of these, the language used implies that the Israelites were familiar with the offering before its incorporation into the Levitical sacrificial system. The sin offering, on the other hand, is introduced as a new thing. And such, indeed, it was. While, as we have seen, each of the offerings before ordered had been known and used, both by the Shemitic and the other nations, since long before the days of Moses, before this time there is no mention anywhere, in Scripture or out of it, of a sacrifice corresponding to the sin or the guilt offering. The significance of this fact is apparent so soon as we observe what was the distinctive conception of the sin offering, as contrasted with the other offerings. Without question, it was the idea of expiation of guilt by the sacrifice of a substituted victim. This idea, as we have seen, was indeed not absent from the other bloody offerings; but in those its place was secondary and subordinate. In the ritual of the sin offering, on the contrary, this idea was brought out into almost solitary prominence; -sin pardoned on the ground of expiation made through the presentation to God of the blood of an innocent victim.
The introduction of this new sacrifice, then, marked the fact that the spiritual training of man, of Israel in particular, herewith entered on a new stadium; which was to be distinguished by the development, in a degree to that time without a precedent, of the sense of sin and of guilt, and the need therefore of atonement in order to pardon. This need had not indeed been unfelt before; but never in any ritual had it received so full expression. Not only is the idea of expiation by the shedding of blood almost the only thought represented in the ritual of the offering, but in the order afterward prescribed for the different sacrifices, the sin offering, in all cases where others were offered, must go before them all; before the burnt offering, the meal offering, the peace offering. So again, this new law insists upon expiation even for those sins which have the utmost possible palliation and excuse, in that at the time of their committal the sinner knew them not as sins; and thus teaches that even these so fatally interrupt fellowship with the holy God, that only such expiation can restore the broken harmony. What a revelation was this law, of the way in which God regards sin and of the extremity, in consequence, of the sinners need!
Most instructive, too, were the circumstances under which this new offering, with such a special purpose, embodying such a revelation of the extent of human guilt and responsibility, was first ordained. For its appointment followed quickly upon the tremendous revelation of the consuming holiness of God upon Mount Sinai. It was in the light of the holy mount, quaking and flaming with fire, that the eye of Moses was opened to receive from God this revelation of His will, and he was moved by the Holy Ghost to appoint for Israel, in the name of Jehovah, an offering which should differ from all other offerings in this-that it should hold forth to Israel, in solitary and unprecedented prominence, this one thought, that “without shedding of blood there is no remission of sin,” not even of sins which are not known as sins at the time of their committal.
Our own generation, and even the Church of today, greatly needs to consider the significance of this fact. The spirit of our age is much more inclined to magnify the greatness and majesty of man, than the infinite greatness and holy majesty of God. Hence many talk lightly of atonement, and cannot admit its necessity to the pardon of sin. But can we doubt, with this narrative before us, that if men saw God more clearly as He is, there would be less talk of this kind? When Moses saw God on Mount Sinai, he came down to ordain a sin offering even for sins of ignorance! And nothing is more certain, as a fact of human experience in all ages, than this, that the more clearly men have perceived the unapproachable holiness and righteousness of God, the more clearly they have seen that expiation of our sins, even of our sins of ignorance, by atoning blood, is the most necessary and fundamental of all conditions, if we will have pardon of sin and peace with a Holy God.
Man is indeed slow to learn this lesson of the sin offering. It is quite too humbling and abasing to our natural, self-satisfied pride, to be readily received. This is strikingly illustrated by the fact that it is not until late in Israels history that the sin offering is mentioned in the sacred record: while even from that first mention till the Exile, it is mentioned only rarely. This fact is indeed often in our day held up as evidence that the sin offering was not of Mosaic origin, but a priestly invention of much later days. But the fact is quite as well accounted for by the spiritual obtuseness of Israel. The whole narrative shows that they were a people hard of heart and slow to learn the solemn lessons of Sinai; slow to apprehend the holiness of God, and the profound spiritual truth set forth in the institution of the sin offering. And yet it was not wholly unobserved, nor did every individual fail to learn its lessons. Nowhere in heathen literature do we find such a profound conviction of sin, such a sense of responsibility even for sins of ignorance, as in some of the earliest Psalms, and the earlier prophets. The self-excusing which so often marks the heathen confessions, finds no place in the confessions of those Old Testament believers, brought up under the moral training of that Sinaitic law which had the sin offering as its supreme expression on this subject. “Search me, O God, and try my heart; and see if there be in me any wicked way”; {Psa 139:23-24} “Cleanse Thou me from secret sins.”; {Psa 19:12} “Against Thee only have I sinned, and done this evil in Thy sight”. {Psa 51:4} Such words as these, with many other like prayers and confessions, bear witness to the deepening sense of sin, till at the last the sin offering teaches, as its own chief lesson, its own inadequacy for the removal of guilt, in those words of the prophetic, {Psa 40:6} from the man who mourned iniquities more than the hairs of his head: “Sin offering Thou hast not required.”
But, according to the Epistle to the Hebrews, we are to regard David in these words, speaking by the Holy Ghost, as typifying Christ; for we thus Heb 10:5-10 : “When He cometh into the world He saith, Sacrifice and offering Thou wouldst not, but a body didst Thou prepare for Me; in whole burnt offerings and sin offerings Thou hadst no pleasure. Then said I, Lo, I am come (in the roll of the book it is written of Me) to do Thy will, O God.”
Which words are then expounded thus: “Saying above, Sacrifices and offerings, and whole burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin Thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein (the which are offered according to the law); then hath He said, Lo, I am come to do Thy will. He taketh away the first that He may establish the second. By which will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.”
And so, as the deepest lesson of the sin offering, we are taught to see in it a type and prophecy of Christ, as the true and one eternally effectual sin offering for the sins of His people; who, Himself at once High Priest and Victim, offering Himself for us, perfects us forever, as the old sin offering could not, giving us therefore “boldness to enter into the holy place by the blood of Jesus.” May we all have grace by faith to receive and learn this deepest lesson of this ordinance, and thus in the law of the sin offering discover Him who in His person and work became the Fulfiller of this law.