Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Leviticus 4:22
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;
22 26. The Sin-Offering for the ruler, a he-goat
The blood in this case is not brought into the tent of meeting but put upon the horns of the altar of Burnt-Offering, and poured out at the base of the altar. The fat and inwards are removed and burnt on the altar as in the two preceding cases. An ordinary priest officiates.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Ruler – Either the head of a tribe Num 1:4-16, or the head of a division of a tribe (Num 34:18; compare Jos 22:30).
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Lev 4:22-26
When a ruler hath sinned.
A lesson for politicians
While there are many in our parliaments and like governing bodies in Christendom who cast their every vote with the fear of God before their eyes, yet, if there be any truth in the general opinion of men upon this subject, there are many in such places who, in their voting, have before their eyes the fear of party more than the fear of God; and who, when a question comes before them, first of all consider, not what would the law of absolute righteousness, the law of God, require, but how will a vote, one way or the other, in this matter, be likely to affect their party? Such certainly need to be emphatically reminded of this part of the law of the sin-offering, which held the civil ruler specially responsible to God for the execution of his trust. For so it is still; God has not abdicated His throne in favour of the people, nor will He waive His crown-rights out of deference to the political necessities of a party. Nor is it only those who sin in this particular way who need the reminder of their personal responsibility to God. All need it who either are or may be called to places of greater or less governmental responsibility; and it is those who are the most worthy of such trust who will be the first to acknowledge their need of this warning. For in all times those who have been lifted to positions of political power have been under peculiar temptation to forget God, and become reckless of their obligation to Him as His ministers. But under the conditions of modern life, in many countries of Christendom, this is true as perhaps never before. For now it has come to pass that, in most modern communities, those who make and execute laws hold their tenure of office at the pleasure of a motley army of voters, Protestants and Romanists, Jews, atheists, and what not, a large part of whom care not the least for the will of God in civil government, as revealed in Scripture. Under such conditions, the place of the civil ruler becomes one of such special trial and temptation that we do well to remember in our intercessions, with peculiar sympathy, all who in such positions are seeking to serve supremely, not their party but their God, and so best serve their country. It is no wonder that the temptation too often to many becomes overpowering to silence conscience with plausible sophistries, and to use their office to carry out in legislation, instead of the will of God, the will of the people, or, rather, of that particular party which put them in power. Yet the great principle affirmed in this law of the sin-offering stands, and will stand for ever, and to it all will do well to take heed; namely, that God will hold the civil ruler responsible, and more heavily responsible than any private person, for any sin he may commit, and especially for any violation of law in any matter committed to his trust. And there is abundant reason for this. For the powers that be are ordained of God, and in His providence are placed in authority; not as the modern notion is, for the purpose of executing the will of the constituents, whatever that will may be, but rather the unchangeable will of the Most Holy God, the Ruler of all nations, so far as revealed, concerning the civil and social relations of men. Nor must it be forgotten that this eminent responsibility attaches, to them, not only in their official acts, but in all their acts as individuals. No distinction is made as to the sin for which the ruler must bring his sin-offering, whether public and official or private and personal. Of whatsoever kind the sin may be, if committed by a ruler, God holds him specially responsible, as being a ruler, and reckons the guilt of that sin, even if a private offence, to be heavier than if it had been committed by one of the common people. And this, for the evident reason that his exalted position gives his example double influence and effect. (S. H. Kellogg, D. D.)
Sins of the great
Judges and magistrates are the physicians of the state, and sins are the diseases of it. What skills it, whether a gangrene begin at the head or the heel, seeing both ways it will kill, if the part that is diseased be not out off; except this be the difference, that the head being nearer the heart, a gangrene in the head will kill sooner than that which is in the heel. Even so will the sins of great ones overthrow a state sooner than those of the meaner sort; therefore wise was that advice of Sigismund the Emperor, when upon a motion to reform the Church, one said, Let us begin at the minorities. Nay rather, saith the Emperor, let us begin at the majorities; for if the great ones be good, the meaner cannot be easily ill, but be the mean ones never so good, the great will be nothing the better.
The influence of a rulers sin on others
Nourshivan the Just, being one day a-hunting, would have eaten of the game which he had killed, but from the consideration that, after dressing it, his attendants had no salt to give it relish. He sent at last to buy some at the next village, but with severe injunctions not to take it without paying for it. What would be the harm, said one of his courtiers, if the king did not pay for a little salt? Nourshivan answered, If a king gathers an apple in the garden of one of his subjects, on the morrow the courtiers cut down all the trees.
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Verse 22. When a ruler hath sinned] Under the term nasi, it is probable that any person is meant who held any kind of political dignity among the people, though the rabbins generally understand it of the king.
A kid of the goats was the sacrifice in this case, the rites nearly the same as in the preceding cases, only the fat was burnt as that of the peace-offering. See Le 4:26, and Le 3:5.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
A ruler, to wit, of the people, or a civil magistrate.
Through ignorance; either not knowing it to be sin, or not observing and considering it till it be done. See before on Lev 4:22.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
22-26. When a ruler hath sinned, anddone somewhat through ignorance against any of thecommandmentsWhatever was the form of government, the king,judge, or subordinate, was the party concerned in this law. Thetrespass of such a civil functionary being less serious in itscharacter and consequences than that either of the high priest or thecongregation, a sin offering of inferior value was required”akid of the goats”; and neither was the blood carried into thesanctuary, but applied only to the altar of burnt offering; nor wasthe carcass taken without the camp; it was eaten by thepriests-in-waiting.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
When a ruler hath sinned,…. Or “prince”, the “nasi”, one that is lifted up above others in honour, power, and authority, or that bears the weight of government: the word comes from one which signifies to lift up, or to bear; it may be understood of a governor of a family, or of a tribe, as Aben Ezra observes; and so in the Talmud k it is said, it means the prince of a tribe, such as Nachson the son of Amminadab, prince of the tribe of Judah. Maimonides l says a king is designed, over whom none has power; and so Gersom on the place, who observes, that David the king is called a prince, Eze 34:24
and done [somewhat] through ignorance [against] any of the commandments of the Lord his God; the phrase, “his God”, is here added, and is not used neither of the anointed priest, nor of the congregation, nor of one of the common people; only of the prince, to show, that though he is above others, God is above him, and he is accountable to him; he is his God, of whom he is, and by whom he rules; wherefore if he breaks any of his commandments, though ignorantly, he must bring a sacrifice for it:
[concerning things] which should not be done, and is guilty; of transgressing negative precepts, which are as binding on him as others.
k T. Bab. Horayot, fol. 11. 1. l Hilchot Shegagot, c. 15. sect. 6.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
The sin of a ruler. – Lev 4:22. : , when. is the head of a tribe, or of a division of a tribe (Num 3:24, Num 3:30, Num 3:35).
Lev 4:23-26 “ If ( , see Ges. 155, 2) his sin is made known to him, ” i.e., if any one called his attention to the fact that he had transgressed a commandment of God, he was to bring a he-goat without blemish, and, having laid his hand upon it, to slay it at the place of burnt-offering; after which the priest was to put some of the blood upon the horns of the altar of burnt-offering, and pour out the rest of the blood at the foot of the altar, and then to burn the whole of the fat upon the altar, as in the case of the peaceoffering (see Lev 3:3-4), and thus to make atonement for the prince on account of his sin. , or alone (lit., hairy, shaggy, Gen 27:11), is the buck-goat, which is frequently mentioned as the animal sacrificed as a sin-offering: e.g., that of the tribe-princes (Num 7:16., Lev 15:24), and that of the nation at the yearly festivals (Lev 16:9, Lev 16:15; Lev 23:19; Num 28:15, Num 28:22, Num 28:30; Num 29:5, Num 29:16.) and at the consecration of the tabernacle (Lev 9:3, Lev 9:15; Lev 10:16). It is distinguished in Num 7:16. from the attudim , which were offered as peace-offerings, and frequently occur in connection with oxen, rams, and lambs as burnt-offerings and thank-offerings (Psa 50:9, Psa 50:13; Psa 66:15; Isa 1:11; Isa 34:6; Eze 39:18). According to Knobel, , or , was an old he-goat, the hair of which grew longer with age, particularly about the neck and back, and (Lev 4:28; Lev 5:16) an old she-goat; whilst was the younger he-goat, which leaped upon the does (Gen 31:10, Gen 31:12), and served for slaughtering like lambs, sheep, and goats (Deu 32:14; Jer 51:40). But as the was also slaughtered for food (Gen 37:31), and the skins of quite young he-goats are called (Gen 27:23), the difference between and is hardly to be sought in the age, but more probably, as Bochart supposes, in some variety of species, in which case seir and seirak might denote the rough-haired, shaggy kind of goat, and attud the buck-goat of stately appearance.
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
22 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; 23 Or if his sin, wherein he hath sinned, come to his knowledge; he shall bring his offering, a kid of the goats, a male without blemish: 24 And he shall lay his hand upon the head of the goat, and kill it in the place where they kill the burnt offering before the LORD: it is a sin offering. 25 And 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 his blood at the bottom of the altar of burnt offering. 26 And 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.
Observe here, 1. That God takes notice of and is displeased with the sins of rulers. Those who have power to call others to account are themselves accountable to the ruler of rulers; for, as high as they are, there is a higher than they. This is intimated in that the commandment transgressed is here said to be the commandment of the Lord his God, v. 22. He is a prince to others, but let him know the Lord is a God to him. 2. The sin of the ruler which he committed through ignorance is supposed afterwards to come to his knowledge (v. 23), which must be either by the check of his own conscience or by the reproof of his friends, both which we should all, even the best and greatest, not only submit to, but be thankful for. What we have done amiss we should be very desirous to come to the knowledge of. That which I see not, teach thou me, and show me wherein I have erred, are prayers we should put up to God every day, that though through ignorance we fall into sin we may not through ignorance lie still in it. 3. The sin-offering for a ruler was to be a kid of the goats, not a bullock, as for the priest and the whole congregation; nor was the blood of his sin-offering to be brought into the tabernacle, as of the other two, but it was all bestowed upon the brazen altar (v. 25); nor was the flesh of it to be burnt, as that of the other two, without the camp, which intimated that the sin of a ruler, though worse than that of a common person, yet was not so heinous, nor of such pernicious consequence, as the sin of the high priest, or of the whole congregation. A kid of the goats was sufficient to be offered for a ruler, but a bullock for a tribe, to intimate that the ruler, though major singulis–greater than each, was minor universis–less than the whole. It is bad when great men give bad examples, but worse when all men follow them. 4. It is promised that the atonement shall be accepted and the sin forgiven (v. 26), that is, if he repent and reform; for otherwise God swore concerning Eli, a judge in Israel, that the iniquity of his house should not be purged with sacrifice nor offering for ever, 1 Sam. iii. 14.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
Verses 22-26:
If the offerer of the Sin Offering were a ruler of the people, a government official, the requirements were the same as for the priest, with these exceptions:
1. The animal was to be a male kid goat;
2. The priest was to smear the blood of the sacrificial animal on the horns of the altar, instead of taking a portion into the holy place of the tabernacle;
3. The flesh of the sacrifice was not to be taken outside the camp and burned, but it was to be eaten by the priests in the tabernacle court, see Le 6:26.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
22. When a ruler hath sinned. A peculiar atonement is also appointed for the transgression of the rulers; and, although he speaks of the ruler in the singular number, yet inasmuch as the law was not yet enacted that one individual should bear rule, he undoubtedly designates the heads and governors generally, because they who bear rule do more injury by their bad example than private persons. If, then, any of the judges or governors had sinned through error, he might indeed be set free by a lesser victim than the priest or the whole people, yet there was individually this difference between them, that they were to offer she-goats or lambs, and the ruler a he-goat; and the object of this was that those in authority should more carefully keep themselves pure from every transgression, whereas otherwise they are wont to indulge themselves more freely, as if their rank and dignity allowed them greater license. Where we have given as our translation, “If (the sin) shall have become known,” ( si innotuerit ,) translators are not agreed. (262) The word used is properly a disjunctive particle Or; (263) but it is sometimes used for the conditional particle, as we shall see in the next chapter. Those who retain the primary and genuine meaning of the word do violence to the signification of the last word of the foregoing verse, and translate it, “shall have offended” instead of “shall have felt that he has offended;” but since it appears from many passages that או, o, is equivalent to אם , im, there is no need of wresting the words to an improper sense. The word הודע, hodang, which they render transitively “to make known,” may fitly bear my translation, unless this is preferred, “if he shall have known,” ( si cognoverit) The words which Moses continually repeats, “the priest shall make an atonement for him, and his; iniquity shall be forgiven him,” some coldly restrict to external and civil cleansing, as if Moses only removed his condemnation before men; but God rather offers pardon to sinners, and assures them that He will be favorable to them, lest fear or doubt should prevent them from freely calling upon Him. And assuredly those who do not acknowledge that the legal rites were sacraments, are not acquainted with the very rudiments of the faith. Now to all sacraments, at any rate to the common sacraments of the Church, a spiritual promise is annexed: it follows, therefore, that pardon was truly promised to the fathers, who reconciled themselves to God by the offering of sacrifices, not because the slaying of beasts expiated sins, but because it was a certain and infallible symbol, in which pious minds might acquiesce, so as to dare to come before God with tranquil confidence. In sum, as now in baptism sins are sacramentally washed away, so under the Law also the sacrifices were means of expiation, though in a different way; since baptism sets Christ before us as if He were present, whilst under the Law He was only obscurely typified. Figuratively indeed what applies to Christ only is transferred to the signs, for in Him alone was manifested to us the fulfillment of all spiritual blessings, and He at length blotted out sins by His one and perpetual sacrifice; but since the question here is not as to the value of the legal ceremonies in themselves, let it suffice that they truly testified of the grace of God, of which they were the types; and so let not that profane imagination be listened to, that the sacrifices only politically and as far as regarded men absolved those by whom they were offered from guilt and condemnation.
(262) Instead of this and the following sentences, the Fr. says, “ Les expositeurs font bien ici quelques difficultez literales, mais pource que la deduction ne serviroit rien a ceux, qui ne sont point lettrez, je les passe.” Commentators certainly make some literal difficulties here, but since the statement of them would be useless to the unlearned, I pass them by.
(263) או , Or. Noldius, in his Concord. particularum, cites instances, such as 1Sa 20:10, in which this conjunction is equivalent to If. אשם is that last word of Lev 4:22 which S.M. has rendered deliquerit ; but A. V. more happily, is guilty, הודע, says S.M., is here used for נודע, the niphal of ידע, but it is simpler to regard it as a not unusual variation of הורע, the hophal, strictly meaning, caused to become known. — W.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
3. THE SIN OFFERING FOR THE RULER 4:2226
TEXT 4:2226
22
When a ruler sinneth, and doeth unwittingly any one of all the things which Jehovah his God hath commanded not to be done, and is guilty;
23
if his sin, wherein he hath sinned, be made known to him he shall bring for his oblation a goat, a male without blemish.
24
And he shall lay his hand upon the head of the goat, and kill it in the place where they kill the burnt-offering before Jehovah: it is a sin-offering.
25
And 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 the blood thereof shall he pour out at the base of the altar of burnt-offering.
26
And all the fat thereof shall he burn upon the altar, as the fat of the sacrifice of peace-offerings; and the priest shall make atonement for him as concerning his sin, and he shall be forgiven.
THOUGHT QUESTIONS 4:2226
70.
How does a ruler differ from an elder?
71.
What is implied in the expression known to him in Lev. 4:23?
72.
Is there any significance in the choice of a goat for the rulers victim?
73.
What was the particular place for the slaying of all the sacrifices? In what sense was it before the Lord?
74.
Why place the blood on the horns of the altar of burnt offering? Horns were symbolic of what?
75.
Peace was effected at what time and by what act?
PARAPHRASE 4:2226
If one of the leaders sins without realizing it and is guilty of disobeying one of Gods laws, as soon as it is called to his attention he must bring as his sacrifice a billy goat without any physical defect. He shall lay his hand upon its head and kill it at the place where the burnt offerings are killed, and present it to the Lord. This is his sin offering. Then the priest shall take some of the blood of this sin offering and place it with his finger upon the horns of the altar of burnt offerings, and the rest of the blood shall be poured out at the base of the altar. All the fat shall be burned upon the altar, just as if it were the fat of the sacrifice of a thank-offering; thus the priest shall make atonement for the leader concerning his sin, and he shall be forgiven.
COMMENT 4:2226
Lev. 4:22-23 There was once a ruler who sinned and did not know it, He took the wife of Isaac. The rulers name was Abimelech. This also happened to Pharaoh, ruler of all Egypt (Cf. Gen. 12:10-20; Gen. 20:3-17). In each case their guilt was made known to them through suffering. They were only forgiven when appeal was made through Gods priest and prophet.
We need to consider these men as civil magistrates, but not separated from worship and the laws of God since Moses and Israel lived in a theocracy. Read Numbers chapter seven for a description of such rulers. Cf. Pro. 29:12.
The Lord is described here as in a very personal sense in relation to the ruler, i.e. his God. We like this thought, for when a ruler of Gods people sustains a personal relationship with God he can influence the people to do the same. The converse is also true. Is not this the major sin of our nation? There are many who acknowledge God but so very few who own a personal relationship with Him.
The choice of a male goat teaches us that God does weigh the effects of sin. The sin of the high priest or the sin of the whole assembly calls for a bullock and blood in the holy place and on the horns of the golden altar. A rulers sin is among the peopleoutside so to speak, his forgiveness must also be among or before the people. In a very real sense he has become the goat for all the people. Thank God he has (and we all have) One who became the goat for him.
Lev. 4:24-25 Horns have always been a symbol of strength or power. Upon the four horns of the altar of burnt offering must be smeared the blood for the sin offering of the ruler. The cry of the blood on the four hornsthe strong cry, based on all prevailing atonement within the sight and hearing of all was forgiveness provided for the ruler. His sin affected allall should know of his forgiveness. We do not know why he must use the altar of burnt offering instead of the altar of incense, but we have conjectured a possibility.
Lev. 4:26 It would seem from the use of the term sin that perhaps the ruler was involved in some particular sinat least he should be made aware that God does not ignore those we ignore.
FACT QUESTIONS 4:2226
96.
There were two rulers who sinned and needed forgiveness through Gods priest and prophet. Who were they?
97.
What is meant in the use of the expression his God as applied to the ruler? How does this relate to our nation?
98.
What does the choice of a male goat for a sacrifice teach us as to the weight of the effects of sin?
99.
Why put the blood on the horns of the altar? What is symbolized? Why use the altar of burnt offering?
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
(22) When a ruler hath sinned.The third instance adduced is that of a ruler sinning inadvertently (Lev. 4:22-26). As the word here translated ruler is used for a king (1Ki. 11:34; Eze. 34:24; Eze. 46:2), the head of a tribe (Num. 1:4-16) or of the division of a tribe (Num. 34:18), opinions differ as to the exact position of the personage here meant. Now, in comparing the phrase used with regard to the sin of ignorance in the case of the high priest, the congregation, and any one of the people, it will be seen that in all the three instances it is simply described as a sin against any commandments of the Lord(comp. Lev. 4:2; Lev. 4:13; Lev. 4:27), whereas in the case of the ruler, we have the exceptional phrase, against any of the commandments of the Lord his God. Hence the interpretation obtained during the second Temple that the addition of the phrase his God, which shows a peculiar relationship to his God, denotes here one over whom God alone is exaltedthe sovereign who is only responsible to his God.
And is guilty.Rather, and acknowledges his guilt, as the Authorised Version rightly translates it in Hos. 5:15. (Comp. also Zec. 11:5.) This sense is not only required by the disjunctive particle or, with which the next verse begins, but by the fact that the declaration in the present rendering, When men sin they are guilty, is a truism. The sinner is guilty whether he sins advertently or inadvertently. The case here supposed is that the prince had himself come to the knowledge that what he had done was a sin, and had acknowledged it as such.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
SIN OF A PRINCE, Lev 4:22-26.
22. A ruler This term signifies any high political officer, especially the heads of the tribes, or phylarchs. The rabbins generally understand that under the monarchy it referred only to the king. The ritual for a prince is like that for the priest and for the congregation, except that the victim was a kid of the goats, and that the fat was burned as was that of the peace offering. Instead of being burnt without the camp, the flesh was to be eaten by the priest. Lev 6:26.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
The Purification for Sin Offering For a Ruler of the People ( Lev 4:22-26 ).
We now come a step down to a ruler of the people. The situation is now different. He does not represent the whole nation, nor, although appointed by God, is he God’s anointed mediator for the whole people. This is a sin of only a section of the people. It is therefore not a total rejection of the covenant. Thus the offering too is toned down and its remains disposed of differently, as with the peace sacrifices. It is necessary for atonement and the restoration of the unity of the nation, but not for the restoration of the covenant as a whole.
Lev 4:22-23
‘When a ruler sins, and does unwittingly any one of all the things which Yahweh his God has commanded not to be done, and is become guilty; if his sin, by which he has sinned, be made known to him, he shall bring for his oblation a goat, a male without blemish.’
The ruler’s sin may be personal, or it may have affected his sub-group. Either way it affects those over whom he is responsible. Thus he has brought guilt on himself and his sub-group. This time the offering is to be a he-goat. And it must be without blemish, for it is in the place of one who is blemished so that its death may be on his account. Its maleness reflects the importance of, and vitality of, the offering.
“If his sin be made known to him.” The rulers and elders are clearly responsible to account for each other. The idea is probably that his behaviour has come to the attention of the other rulers, and they approach him in order to deal with the matter for the sake of the whole, exerting peer pressure. It may, however, mean made known by God.
The question of what is meant by ‘a ruler’ cannot be definitely answered, although its general significance is clear. The term is general. In Exo 16:22 the ‘rulers’ of the congregation came to Moses with a problem of the people. They thus appear as spokesmen of the whole, and possibly different from the elders. But their importance is undoubted. It may, however, refer to any prominent leader in a position of fairly wide authority. The point behind this is that having authority lays greater responsibility on the one who has it, for he is responsible for others as well as himself.
Lev 4:24
‘And he shall lay his hand on the head of the goat, and kill it in the place where they kill the whole burnt-offering before Yahweh. It is a sin-offering.’
The ruler is now publicly to lay his hand on the goat and kill it ‘in the place where they kill the whole burnt offering before Yahweh’. This means to the north side of the altar (Lev 1:11) and its mention only here may suggest that the two above may have been killed in a more prominent position. (Compare in Leviticus 1. It may indicate that all bull ox sacrifices were slain more prominently).
It is clear now that this sacrifice is of a lesser nature. The tension is no longer there, except for the person involved. It is a he-goat and it is slain where all whole burnt offerings are slain. The reason that it is not to be a sheep is possibly because he-goats are often used to depict rulers. They are ‘stately in their going’ (Pro 30:31). Compare ‘the he-goats before the flocks’ (Jer 50:8); ‘the he-goats of the earth’ signifying its important men (Isa 14:9). Thus the he-goat adequately represents a ruler.
Lev 4:25
‘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 whole burnt-offering; and its blood shall he pour out at the base of the altar of whole burnt-offering.’
The blood is applied to the horns of the altar of whole burnt offerings rather than within the Holy Place. The future of Israel is no longer seen as in doubt. Nevertheless the strength of God is called on, and the plea of the blood goes up to Him through the horns of the altar, and the altar is purified. The rest of the blood is then flung at the base of the altar to make atonement for it (Lev 8:15). It is all presented before God. It is the shedding of the blood which results in forgiveness of sins. It is the blood that makes the atonement for the whole person (Lev 17:11).
Lev 4:26
‘And all its fat shall he burn on the altar, as the fat of the sacrifice of peace-sacrifices; and the priest shall make atonement for him as concerning his sin, and he shall be forgiven.’
The fat of the sin offering is treated like the fat of the peace offerings, presumably along with all the inner organs. They belong to God. Nothing is said of the meat and the skin. These actually go to the priest. They are holy, but not most holy. For in Lev 6:26-29 we learn that all the priests may eat of the meat, but only in the tabernacle precincts because it is holy.
“And the priest shall make atonement for him as concerning his sin, and he shall be forgiven.” The result of the work of the priest, using God’s allotted means, results in atonement for the ruler. He is forgiven.
This offering brings out the responsibility of Christian leadership. For those who lead sin is more virulent, for they hurt not only themselves but those that they lead. But Christ having been made our purification for sin offering purification and atonement is available through Him, even for those who sin in leadership and bear more guilt.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
For a Ruler
v. 22. When a ruler, v. 23. or if his sin wherein he hath sinned come to his knowledge, v. 24. and he shall lay his hand up on the head of the goat, v. 25. And the priest shall take of the blood of the sin-offering with his finger, and put it up on the horns of the altar of burnt offering, v. 26. And he shall burn all his fat upon the altar, as the fat of the sacrifice of peace-offerings,
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
Lev 4:22. When a ruler i.e. Any person of superior rank and authority; a magistrate. The Hebrew word nasi, is a ruler or prince; one that lifteth up or easeth the burdens of the people by governing them, Num 11:17. Exo 18:22 and is a common name both for inferior rulers, as Num 16:2. Exo 16:22 and for the chief, as the king, Eze 34:24; Eze 38:2; Eze 45:7.Is guilty, at the end of this verse, is understood by some to signify conscious of his guilt; see Hos 5:15 but, rendering the or if, in the next verse, by when (as the original will well bear), the passage is sufficiently clear: is guilty, signifying, hath contracted guilt.
REFLECTIONS.However sin comes to our knowledge, we should be thankful for the notice. Rulers, as well as other men, have need often to open their ears to admonition; they may, even when they mean well, do ill. A kid sufficed for the atonement; intimating, that though the offence were the same, the crime was not so aggravated, nor pernicious in its consequence, as that of the high-priest or congregation. Note; Though all sins are not alike evil in their effects to others, they are all mortal to the sinful soul without an atonement.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
What a blessed provision is here shadowed forth, of the efficacy of CHRIST’S redemption, which taketh away all sin; in the delivery from the sin of ignorance. Job 6:24 .
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Lev 4:22 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;
Ver. 22. When a ruler hath sinned. ] Great men’s sins do more hurt, (1.) By imitation; for, Vita principis censura est, imo Cynosura; according to these glasses most men dress themselves: (2.) By imputation; for, plectuntur achivi; the poor people pay for it; as they did for David’s, whether ignorance or infirmity, in omitting that duty enjoined; Exo 30:12-15 thence the plague. 2Sa 24:13-17
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
ruler. Hebrew word is used of a king (1Ki 11:34. Eze 34:24; Eze 46:2), the head of a tribe (Num 1:16, Num 1:46; Num 34:18), but as the words “his God” are used here, and are absent (in verses: Lev 4:2, Lev 4:13, Lev 4:27), it denotes one whom God appoints and to whom the ruler is responsible.
sinned. Hebrew. chat’a. See App-44.
God. Hebrew. Elohim. App-4.
guilty = should become aware of his inadvertences.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Sin-Offerings for Rulers and People
Lev 4:22-35
The character of the sin for which the sin-offering was presented is expressed by the words, repeated again and again, through ignorance, or unwittingly, or through error. It is the word used of the unintentional man-slayer, who, without premeditation, might kill another. See Num 35:1-34. Gods Word distinguishes deliberate, willful sin from that of which it may be said, they know not what they do; or, I wot that through ignorance ye did it. See Luk 23:34; Act 3:17. While the blood of the offering for the priest and the congregation was brought into the holy place and sprinkled seven times before the Lord, the blood of the offerings for the ruler or the individual was sprinkled only on the horns of the altar. The hue of the sin was not so dark in the latter case as where there was greater knowledge of Gods will. In Luk 12:47-48, our Lord makes a similar distinction.
Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary
a ruler hath sinned: Under the term nasi, that is, one preferred or elevated above others, from nasa, to exalt, it is probable that any person is meant who held any kind of political dignity among the people; and it evidently means the head of a tribe as in Num 1:4, Num 1:16, Num 7:2. But the Rabbins generally understand it of the prince of the great sanhedrin, who, when they were under the regal form of government, was the king. A kid of the goats was the sacrifice in this case; and the rites were nearly the same as in the preceding, only the fat was burnt as that of the peace offering – Lev 4:26. Exo 18:21, Num 16:2, 2Sa 21:1-3, 2Sa 24:10-17
and done: Lev 4:2, Lev 4:13
Reciprocal: Lev 5:17 – a soul sin Num 15:22 – General Num 18:9 – every sin Ezr 6:17 – a sin offering Jam 2:11 – Now
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Lev 4:22; Lev 4:24. A ruler Of the people, or a civil magistrate. Where they kill the burnt-offering So called by way of eminence, to wit, the daily burnt-offering. It is a sin-offering And therefore to be killed where the burnt-offering is killed; whereby it is distinguished from the peace- offerings, which were killed elsewhere.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Lev 4:22-26. The Sin Offering tor a Ruler, or tribal chief or representative. The word is also used of the one chief of the nation in post-exilic writers when the succession of kings had come to an end. It would apply to Nehemiah, or perhaps to a foreign ruler like the Persian Bagoas, governor of Jerusalem in 402 B.C. The offering is a goat instead of a bullock, and its blood is only smeared on the horns of the altar, not sprinkled, and, as it would seem, by an ordinary priest, not the High Priest.
Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible
ete_me Lev 4:13-14
GRADED RESPONSIBILITY
Lev 4:3; Lev 4:13-14; Lev 4:22-23; Lev 4:27-28
“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 the Lord for a sin offering And if the whole congregation of Israel shall err, and the thing be hid from the eyes of the assembly, and they have done any of the things which the Lord hath commanded not to be done, and are guilty; when the sin wherein they have sinned is known, then the assembly shall offer a young bullock for a sin offering, and bring it before the tent of meeting When a ruler sinneth, and doeth unwittingly any one of all the things which the Lord his God hath commanded not to be done. and is guilty; if his sin, wherein he hath sinned, be made known to him, he shall bring for his oblation a goat, a male without blemish And if any one of the common people sin unwittingly, in doing any of the things which the Lord hath commanded not to be done, and be guilty; if this sin, which he hath sinned, be made known to him, then he shall bring for his oblation a goat, a female without blemish, for his sin which he hath sinned.”
The law concerning the sin offering is given in four sections, of which the last, again, is divided into two parts, separated by the division of the chapter. These four sections respectively treat of-first, the law of the sin offering for the “anointed priest” (Lev 4:3-12); secondly, the law for the offering for the whole congregation (Lev 4:13-21); thirdly, that for a ruler (Lev 4:22-26); and lastly, the law for an offering made by a private person, one of “the common people”. {Lev 4:27-35; Lev 5:1-16} In this last section we have, first, the general law, {Lev 4:27-35} and then are added {Lev 5:1-16} special prescriptions having reference to various circumstances under which a sin offering should be offered by one of the people. Under this last head are mentioned first, as requiring a sin offering, in addition to sins of ignorance or inadvertence, which only were mentioned in the preceding chapter, also sins due to rashness or weakness (Lev 4:1-4): and then are appointed, in the second place, certain variations in the material of the offering, allowed out of regard to the various ability of different offerers (Lev 4:5-16).
In the law as given in chapter 4, it is to be observed that the selection of the victim prescribed is determined by the position of the persons who might have occasion to present the offering.
For the whole congregation, the victim must be a bullock, the most valuable of all; for the high priest, as the highest religious official of the nation, and appointed also to represent them before God, it must also be a bullock. For the civil ruler, the offering must be a he-goat-an offering of a value less than that of the victim ordered for the high priest, but greater than that of those which were prescribed for the common people. For these, a variety of offerings were appointed, according to their several ability. If possible, it must be a female goat or lamb, or, if the worshipper could not bring that, then two turtledoves, or two young pigeons. If too poor to bring even this small offering, then it was appointed that, as a substitute for the bloody, offering, he might bring an offering of fine flour, without oil or frankincense, to be burnt upon the altar.
Evidently, then, the choice of the victim was determined by two considerations: first, the rank of the person who sinned, and, secondly, his ability. As regards the former point, the law as to the victim for the sin offering was this: the higher the theocratic rank of the sinning person might be, the more costly offering he must bring. No one can well miss of perceiving the meaning of this. The guilt of any sin in Gods sight is proportioned to the rank and station of the offender. What truth could be of more practical and personal concern to all than this?
In applying this principle, the law of the sin offering teaches, first, that the guilt of any sin is the heaviest, when it is committed by one who is placed in a position of religious authority. For this graded law is headed by the case of the sin of the anointed priest, that is, the high priest, the highest functionary in the nation.
We read (Lev 4:3): “If the anointed priest shall sin so as to bring guilt on the people, then let him offer for his sin which he hath committed, a young bullock without blemish, unto the Lord, for a sin offering.”
That is, the high priest, although a single individual, if he sin, must bring as large and valuable an offering as is required from the whole congregation. For this law there are two evident reasons. The first is found in the fact that in Israel the high priest represented before God the entire nation. When he sinned it was as if the whole nation sinned in him. So it is said that by his sin he “brings guilt on the people”-a very weighty matter. And this suggests a second reason for the costly offering that was required from him. The consequences of the sin of one in such a high position of religious authority must, in the nature of the case, be much more serious and far-reaching than in the case of any other person.
And here we have another lesson as pertinent to our time as to those days. As the high priest, so, in modern time, the bishop, minister, or elder, is ordained as an officer in matters of religion, to act for and with men in the things of God. For the proper administration of this high trust, how indispensable that such a one shall take heed to maintain unbroken fellowship with God! Any shortcoming here is sure to impair by so much the spiritual value of his own ministrations for the people to whom he ministers. And this evil consequence of any unfaithfulness of his is the more certain to follow, because, of all the members of the community, his example has the widest and most effective influence; in whatever that example be bad or defective, it is sure to do mischief in exact proportion to his exalted station. If then such a one sin, the case is very grave, and his guilt proportionately heavy.
This very momentous fact is brought before us in an impressive way in the New Testament, where, in the epistles to the Seven Churches of Asia {Rev 2:1-29; Rev 3:1-22} it is “the angel of the church,” the presiding officer of the church in each city, who is held responsible for the spiritual state of those committed to his charge. No wonder that the Apostle James wrote: {Jam 3:1} “Be not many teachers, my brethren, knowing that we shall receive heavier judgment.” Well may every true-hearted minister of Christs Church tremble, as here in the law of the sin offering he reads how the sin of the officer of religion may bring guilt, not only on himself, but also “on the whole people”! Well may he cry out with the Apostle Paul: {2Co 2:16} “Who is sufficient for these things?” and, like him, beseech those to whom he ministers, “Brethren, pray for us!”
With the sin of the high priest is ranked that of the congregation, or the collective nation. It is written (Lev 4:13-14): “If the whole congregation of Israel shall err, and the thing be hid from the eyes of the assembly, and they have done any one of the things which the Lord hath commanded not to be done, and are guilty, then the assembly shall offer a young bullock for a sin offering.”
Thus Israel was taught by this law, as we are, that responsibility attaches not only to each individual person, but also to associations of individuals in their corporate character, as nations, communities, and-we may add-all Societies and Corporations, whether secular or religious. Let us emphasise it to our own consciences, as another of the fundamental lessons of this law: there is individual sin; there is also such a thing as a sin by “the whole congregation.” In other words, God holds nations, communities-in a word, all associations and combinations of men for whatever purpose, no less under obligation in their corporate capacity to keep His law than as individuals, and will count them guilty if they break it, even through ignorance.
Never has a generation needed this reminder more than our own. The political and social principles which, since the French Revolution in the end of the last century, have been, year by year, more and more generally accepted among the nations of Christendom, are everywhere tending to the avowed or practical denial of this most important truth. It is a maxim ever more and more extensively accepted as almost axiomatic in our modern democratic communities, that religion is wholly a concern of the individual; and that a nation or community, as such, should make no distinction between various religions as false or true, but maintain an absolute neutrality, even between Christianity and idolatry, or theism and atheism. It should take little thought to see that this modern maxim stands in direct opposition to the principle assumed in this law of the sin offering; namely, that a community or nation is as truly and directly responsible to God as the individual in the nation. But this corporate responsibility the spirit of the age squarely denies.
Not that all, indeed, in our modern so-called Christian nations have come to this. But no one will deny that this is the mind of the vanguard of nineteenth century liberalism in religion and politics. Many of our political leaders in all lands make no secret of their views on the subject. A purely secular state is everywhere held up, and that with great plausibility and persuasiveness, as the ideal of political government; the goal to the attainment of which all good citizens should unite their efforts. And, indeed, in some parts of Christendom the complete attainment of this evil ideal seems not far away.
It is not strange, indeed, to see atheists, agnostics, and others who deny the Christian faith, maintaining this position; but when we hear men who call themselves Christians-in many cases, even Christian ministers-advocating, in one form or another, governmental neutrality in religion as the only right basis of government, one may well be amazed. For Christians are supposed to accept the Holy Scriptures as the law of faith and of morals, private and public; and where in all the Scripture will anyone find such an attitude of any nation or people mentioned, but to be condemned and threatened with the judgment of God?
Will anyone venture to say that this teaching of the law of the sin offering was only intended, like the offering itself, for the old Hebrews? Is it not rather the constant and most emphatic teaching of the whole Scriptures, that God dealt with all the ancient Gentile nations on the same principle? The history which records the overthrow of those old nations and empires does so, even professedly, for the express purpose of calling the attention of men in all ages to this principle, that God deals with all nations as under obligations to recognise Himself as King of nations, and submit in all things to His authority. So it was in the case of Moab, of Ammon, of Nineveh, and Babylon; in regard to each of which we are told, in so many words, that it was because they refused to recognise this principle of national responsibility to the one true God, which was brought before Israel in this part of the law of the sin offering, that the Divine judgment came upon them in their utter national overthrow. How awfully plain, again, is the language of the second Psalm on this same subject, where it is precisely this national repudiation of the supreme authority of God and of His Christ, so increasingly common in our day, which is named as the ground of the derisive judgment of God, and is made the occasion of exhorting all nations, not merely to belief in God, but also to the obedient recognition of His only-begotten Son, the Messiah, as the only possible means of escaping the future kindling of His wrath.
No graver sign of our times could perhaps be named than just this universal tendency in Christendom, in one way or another, to repudiate that corporate responsibility to God which is assumed as the basis of this part of the law of the sin offering. There can be no worse omen for the future of an individual than the denial of his obligations to God and to His Son, our Saviour; and there can be no worse sign for the future of Christendom, or of any nation in Christendom, than the partial or entire denial of national obligation to God and to His Christ. What it shall mean in the end, what is the future toward which these popular modern principles are conducting the nations, is revealed in Scripture with startling clearness, in the warning that the world is yet to see one who shall be in a peculiar and eminent sense “the Antichrist”; {1Jn 2:18} who shall deny both the Father and Son, and be “the Lawless One,” and the “Man of Sin,” in that He shall “set Himself forth as God”; {2Th 2:3-8} to whom authority will be given “over every tribe, and people, and tongue, and nation.” {Rev 13:7}
The nation, then, as such, is held responsible to God! So stands the law. And, therefore, in Israel, if the nation should sin, it was ordained that they also, like the high priest, should bring a bullock for a sin offering, the most costly victim that was ever prescribed. This was so ordained, no doubt, in part because of Israels own priestly station as a “kingdom of priests and a holy nation,” exalted to a position of peculiar dignity and privilege before God, that they might mediate the blessings of redemption to all nations. It was because of this fact that, if they sinned, their guilt was peculiarly heavy.
The principle, however, is of present day application. Privilege is the measure of responsibility, no less now than then, for nations as well as for individuals. Thus national sin, on the part of the British or American nation, or indeed with any of the so-called Christian nations, is certainly judged by God to be a much more evil thing than the same sin if committed, for example, by the Chinese or Turkish nation, who have had no such degree of Gospel light and knowledge.
And the law in this case evidently also implies that sin is aggravated in proportion to its universality. It is bad, for example, if in a community one man commit adultery, forsaking his own wife; but it argues a condition of things far worse when the violation of the marriage relation becomes common; when the question can actually be held open for discussion whether marriage, as a permanent union between one man and one woman, be not “a failure,” as debated not long ago in a leading London paper; and when, as in many of the United States of America and other countries of modern Christendom, laws are enacted for the express purpose of legalising the violation of Christs law of marriage, and thus shielding adulterers and adulteresses from the condign punishment their crime deserves. It is bad, again, when individuals in a State teach doctrines subversive of morality; but it evidently argues a far deeper depravation of morals when a whole community unite in accepting, endowing, and upholding such in their work.
Next in order comes the case of the civil ruler. For him it was ordered: “When a ruler sinneth, and doeth unwittingly any of the things which the Lord his God hath commanded not to be done, and is guilty: if his sin, wherein he hath sinned, be made known to him, he shall bring for his oblation a goat, a male without blemish” (Lev 4:22). Thus, the ruler was to bring a victim of less value than the high priest or the collective congregation; but it must still be of more value than that of a private person; for his responsibility, if less than that of the officer of religion, is distinctly greater than that of a man in private life.
And here is a lesson for modern politicians, no less than for rulers of the olden time in Israel. While there are many in our Parliaments and like governing bodies in Christendom who cast their every vote with the fear of God before their eyes, yet, if there be any truth in the general opinion of men upon this subject, there are many in such places who, in their voting, have before their eyes the fear of party more than the fear of God; and who, when a question comes before them, first of all consider, not what would the law of absolute righteousness, the law of God, require, but how will a vote, one way or the other, in this matter, be likely to affect their party? Such certainly need to be emphatically reminded of this part of the law of the sin offering, which held the civil ruler specially responsible to God for the execution of his trust. For so it is still; God has not abdicated His throne in favour of the people, nor will He waive His crown rights out of deference to the political necessities of a party.
Nor is it only those who sin in this particular way who need the reminder of their personal responsibility to God. All need it who either are or may be called to places of greater or less governmental responsibility; and it is those who are the most worthy of such trust who will be the first to acknowledge their need of this warning. For in all times those who have been lifted to positions of political power have been under peculiar temptation to forget God, and become reckless of their obligation to Him as His ministers. But under the conditions of modern life, in many countries of Christendom, this is true as perhaps never before. For now it has come to pass that, in most modern communities, those who make and execute laws hold their tenure of office at the pleasure of a motley army of voters, Protestants and Romanists, Jews, atheists, and what not, a large part of whom care not the least for the will of God in civil government, as revealed in Holy Scripture. Under such conditions, the place of the civil ruler becomes one of such special trial and temptation that we do well to remember in our intercessions, with peculiar sympathy, all who in such positions are seeking to serve supremely, not their party, but their God, and so best serve their country. It is no wonder that the temptation too often to many becomes overpowering, to silence conscience with plausible sophistries, and to use their office to carry out in legislation, instead of the will of God, the will of the people, or rather, of that particular party which put them in power.
Yet the great principle affirmed in this law of the sin offering stands, and will stand forever, and to it all will do well to take heed; namely, that God will hold the civil ruler responsible, and more heavily responsible than any private person, for any sin he may commit, and especially for any violation of law in any matter committed to his trust. And there is abundant reason for this. For the powers that be are ordained of God, and in His providence are placed in authority; not as the modern notion is, for the purpose of executing the will of their constituents, whatever that will may be, but rather the unchangeable will of the Most Holy God, the Ruler of all nations, so far as revealed, concerning the civil and social relations of men. Nor must it be forgotten that this eminent responsibility attaches to them, not only in their official acts, but in all their acts as individuals. No distinction is made as to the sin for which the ruler must bring his sin offering, whether public and official, or private and personal. Of whatsoever kind the sin may be, if committed by a ruler, God holds him specially responsible, as being a ruler; and reckons the guilt of that sin, even if a private offence, to be heavier than if it had been committed by one of the common people. And this, for the evident reason that, as in the case of the high priest, his exalted position gives his example double influence and effect. Thus, in all ages and all lands, a corrupt king or nobility have made a corrupt court; and a corrupt court or corrupt legislators are sure to demoralise all the lower ranks of society. But however it may be under the governments of men, under the equitable government of the Most Holy God, high station can give no immunity to sin. And in the day to come, when the Great Assize is set, there will be many who in this world stood high in authority, who will learn, in the tremendous decisions of that day, if not before, that a just God reckoned the guilt of their sins and crimes in exact proportion to their rank and station.
Last of all, in this chapter, comes the law of the sin offering for one of the common people, of which the first part is given Lev 4:27-35. The victim which is appointed for those who are best able to give, a female goat, is yet of less value than those ordered in the cases before given; for the responsibility and guilt in the case of such is less. The first prescription for a sin offering by one of the common people is introduced by these words: -” If any one of the common people sin unwittingly, in doing any of the things which the Lord hath commanded not to be done, and be guilty; if his sin, which he hath sinned, be made known to him, then he shall bring for his oblation a goat, a female without blemish, for his sin which he hath sinned” (Lev 4:27-28).
In case of his inability to bring so much as this, offerings of lesser value are authorised in the section following, {Lev 5:5-13} to which we shall attend hereafter.
Meanwhile it is suggestive to observe that this part of the law is expanded more fully than any other part of the law of the sin offering. We are hereby reminded that if none are so high as to he above the reach of the judgment of God, but are held in that proportion strictly responsible for their sin; so, on the other hand, none are of station so low that their sins shall therefore be overlooked. The common people, in all lands, are the great majority of the population; but no one is to imagine that, because he is a single individual, of no importance in a multitude, he shall therefore, if he sin, escape the Divine eye, as it were, in a crowd. Not so. We may be of the very lowest social station; the provision in Lev 5:11 regards the case of such as might be so poor as that they could not even buy two doves. Men may judge the doings of such poor folk of little or no consequence; but not so God. With Him is no respect of persons, either of rich or poor. From all alike, from the anointed high priest, who ministers in the Holy of Holies, down to the common people, and among these, again, from the highest down to the very lowest, poorest, and meanest in rank, is demanded, even for a sin of ignorance, a sin offering for atonement.
What a solemn lesson we have herein concerning the character of God! His omniscience, which not only notes the sin of those who are in some conspicuous position, but also each individual sin of the lowest of the people! His absolute equity, exactly and accurately grading responsibility for sin committed, in each case, according to the rank and influence of him who commits it! His infinite holiness, which cannot pass by without expiation even the transient act or word of rash hands or lips, not even the sin not known as sin by the sinner; a holiness which, in a word, unchangeably and unalterably requires from every human being, nothing less than absolute moral perfection like His own!