The priest that is anointed – i. e. the high priest. (Compare Lev 8:12; Lev 21:10; Exo 29:7). On the anointing of the other priests see the note at Lev 8:13.

The graduation of the sin-offerings is remarkable. It might seem that the distinction addressed itself more pointedly to each individual according to his rank and consequent responsibility (see Lev 4:32).

According to the sin of the people – Rather, to bring guilt on the people. The whole nation is concerned in every transgression of its representative.

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

Lev 4:3

If the priest that is anointed do sin.

The eminent sinfulness of error in the priest

I. From the superior position he occupied.

II. From the superior privileges he enjoyed. Exempt from many secular anxieties and temptations. Constantly in contact with sacred influences.

III. From the superior knowledge he possessed. Intimately acquainted with requirements of law. Possessing ample means and opportunities for ascertaining purpose of precepts enjoined.

IV. From the superior influence he exerted. Looked up to as an example. (F. W. Brown.)

Defiled sanctities

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–

I. That however far sin may have penetrated, and whatever solemn and sacred things it may have defiled, thither the atoning blood follows, carrying full expiation where sin has carried defilement.

II. That the dishonour done to God, to the sanctities of a godly life, and to the solemnities of sanctuary ministries, was compensated for in offering upon the altar of incense the symbols of the inherent and intrinsic excellency of christ. (W. H. Jellie.)

Sin in the priesthood

I. A holy office does not ensure infallibility.

II. Occupants of a holy office are specially called to sanctity.

III. Eminently privileged and enlightened, they who minister before God should be most vigilant lest they sin.

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. (W. H. Jellie.)

The priests sin

This man is a priest; the holy anointing oil of the Lord his God is upon him, and therefore, of course, he cannot sin! The fact of the matter is that none of us are beyond the reach of temptation, beyond the possibility of a fall. Well, what then? I know what the mocking world will say: If the priest that is anointed do sin, I will have nothing to do with religion at all; it is all hypocrisy; he is no better than other men. I know quite well what uncharitable professors will say: Turn him out; he is a hypocrite. If the priest that is anointed do sin, he has disgraced himself. I know what your own heart will say: It is no good; I have tried; I have fallen; I may as well give it all up, there is no hope at all. But what does God say? If the priest that is anointed do sin, let him bring his sacrifice; let him bring . . . a young bullock without blemish . . . for a sin-offering. Is it not marvellous! I do not so much wonder at the 27th verse where God says: If any one of the common people sin, but if the priest that is anointed do sin, let him bring his sacrifice. And yet, if you read that verse carefully all through, you will see that there is no minimising of the priests sin. God, in the terms that He uses, says that it is a very heinous thing for a priest to sin. If one of His own children goes astray it is a very serious thing. He has been anointed; that anointing not only implies separation to God, but enduing with power. That anointing of the Holy Spirit is upon him, he ought not to have sinned. No temptation came upon him more than he was able to bear. And if you read on you will see, in the Revised Version, If the priest that is anointed do sin, so as to cause the people to sin. Yes, if the priest sin, he causes the people to sin, and if the Christian sin he is a stumblingblock to others, therefore an ungodly man will go still further into the depths of sin. And yet, if the priest that is anointed do sin, let him bring his sacrifice. What does he do when he sacrifices? There are seven points you ought to consider. The first thing he has to do (Lev 4:4), He shall bring the bullock unto the door of the Tabernacle of the congregation before the Lord, and shall lay his hand upon the bullocks head. The bullock is to be without spot or blemish. The priest comes there conscious of his own sin, and lays his hand upon the bullocks head. And that is the first thing you must do. You must find a spotless victim. The Lord Jesus Christ is that Lamb without sin, without spot. The first thing to do is to put our hand upon the victim. And the moment the man laid his hand upon the victim that moment a transference took place. All the sinners sin was placed upon the victim. The victim was slain and east outside the camp, and the sinner goes into the Temple of God and takes his place in the Holy Place of Jehovah. And directly you lay the hand of faith upon Christ, directly you grasp Christ as your great Substitute, the same thing takes place. And if you arc a child of God, you have felt that the burden of sin is intolerable, it has weighed you down, and all that sin has been made to meet upon Him. Another reason why he was to lay his hand hard, was to show that all his trust was in that victim alone. He was to lean hard with all his weight upon him. If the victim did not support him the man fell prostrate to the ground. So we must lean entirely upon Christ, all our confidence must be in Him and Him alone. The second point is this–He shall kill the bullock before the Lord. There is no doubt about it, the wages of sin is death. Look at it! look priest! and see what your sin has brought about–the death of that pure and spotless victim. Now there were three things to be done with the blood of the bullock. The blood of the bullock was to be taken and sprinkled in three different places. First of all you read in Lev 4:6, the priest was to take the blood and sprinkle it seven times before the Lord, before the veil of the sanctuary. Seven times he was to sprinkle it there at the Holy of Holies. Why? Because within that Holy of Holies dwell the Shechinah glory of God. Christian, is this not the first result of your sin? You lose your communion with God. The first thing to be done is to restore that communion with God. The next thing to be done is this–he was to take some of the blood (Lev 4:7) and put it upon the altar of sweet incense. What was that? The place where the priest prayed for the people. When the people were praying outside the priest went into the Holy Place, and his offering went up as incense before God. Is not this the second result of sin–you lose the power of prayer; you say your prayers but you no longer pray; you lose all that joy and spontaneity of service; there is no fragrance about your prayers, it is mere routine, and there is no reality about them at all. If you want to have communion with God in prayer, and to be able to pray as you ought to pray, there must be the sprinkling of the blood there. The third thing to be done was to take the rest of the blood and pour it out on the altar of burnt-offering. What was that? The place where the daily burnt-offering was offered up. God will not accept your burnt-offering if there is sin in the heart. There is a controversy between me and God, and though I may try and bring Him offerings, God will not accept them. There was another thing to be done. And the skin of the bullock, and all his flesh, with his head, and with his legs, and his inwards, and his dung, 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. Now we have never had that word for burnt before. That word means to thoroughly consume with burning. Very different to another word for burning I shall notice presently. It is no use your saying you cannot get peace and joy as long as you are keeping your bullock within the camp. You must take it out and burn it. There will be no peace until you do. Inside the camp a very different scene was taking place. There, upon the altar, we read in the eighth and following verses, all the fat of the bullock, all the inwards of the bullock, he is to offer it up upon the altar of the burnt-offering for a sweet savour to God. That is a very different word from burnt–the word in Lev 4:10, is ktour; it means to burn as fragrance–not with consuming burning, but as sweet incense to God. And there is a sweet incense ascending from that altar. The priest may almost hear that whisper from the open heavens, and it is forgiven him. It is all forgiven; the sacrifice is accepted, and the sin is blotted out. (E. A. Stuart, M. A.)

Sin in ministers

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 a 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. (S. H. Kellogg, D. D.)

Sin not excused by ignorance

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. There is no law written on all the dominion of nature with a broader and clearer hated 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. 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. 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. 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. The mercy is shown that a special offering was provided for the sin of ignorance 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 wilt 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. (J. Parker, D. D.)

Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell

Verse 3. If the priest that is anointed] Meaning, most probably, the high priest. According to the sin of the people; for although he had greater advantages than the people could have, in being more conversant with the law of God, and his lips should understand and preserve knowledge, yet it was possible even for him, in that time in which the word of God had not been fully revealed, to transgress through ignorance; and his transgression might have the very worst tendency, because the people might be thereby led into sin. Hence several critics understand this passage in this way, and translate it thus: If the anointed priest shall lead the people to sin; or, literally, if the anointed priest shall sin to the sin of the people; that is, so as to cause the people to transgress, the shepherd going astray, and the sheep following after him.

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

The priest that is anointed, i.e. the high priest, who only was anointed after the first time. See Exo 29:7; 30:30; 40:15; Lev 10:7; Num 3:3. His anointing is mentioned, because he was not complete high priest till he was anointed.

Do sin, either in doctrine or practice, which it is here supposed he may do. And this is noted as a blot and character of imperfection in the priesthood of the law, whereby the Israelites were directed to expect another and better High Priest, even one who is holy, harmless, and separate from sinners, Heb 7:26.

According to the sin of the people; in the same manner as any of the people do, which implies that God expected more circumspection and care from him than from the people. But the words may be rendered, to the sin or guilt of the people, which may be mentioned as a reason of the law, and an aggravation of his sin, that by it he commonly brings sin, and guilt, and punishment upon the people, who are infected or scandalized by his example.

A young bullock; the same sacrifice which was offered for all the people, to show how much his sin was aggravated by his quality.

For a sin-offering, Heb. sin, which word is oft taken in that sense, as Exo 29:14.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

3. If the priest that is anointed dosinthat is, the high priest, in whom, considering hischaracter as typical mediator, and his exalted office, the people hadthe deepest interest; and whose transgression of any part of thedivine law, therefore, whether done unconsciously or heedlessly, wasa very serious offense, both as regarded himself individually, andthe influence of his example. He is the person principally meant,though the common order of the priesthood was included.

according to the sin of thepeoplethat is, bring guilt on the people. He was to take ayoung bullock (the age and sex being expressly mentioned), and havingkilled it according to the form prescribed for the burnt offerings,he was to take it into the holy place and sprinkle the atoning bloodseven times before the veil, and tip with the crimson fluid the hornsof the golden altar of incense, on his way to the court of thepriests,a solemn ceremonial appointed only for very grave andheinous offenses, and which betokened that his sin, though done inignorance, had vitiated all his services; nor could any official dutyhe engaged in be beneficial either to himself or the people, unlessit were atoned for by blood.

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

If the priest that is anointed do sin,…. That is, the high priest, as the Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan, and the Septuagint version, render it; who in after times was only anointed, though at first Aaron’s sons were anointed with him; so an high priest is described in Le 21:10 and such an one was liable to sin, and often did; which shows not only that the greatest and best of men are not without sin, but proves what the apostle observes, that the law made men high priests which had infirmity, even sinful infirmities, who needed to offer for themselves as well as for the people; by which it appeared that perfection could not be had by the Levitical priesthood, and that it was proper it should cease, and another priesthood take place, Heb 7:11:

according to the sin of the people; committing the like sins of error and ignorance as the common people, to which he was liable as they; or “to make the people guilty”; as the margin reads; to which agrees the Septuagint version, “so that the people sin”; and the Vulgate Latin version, “making the people to sin”; either by his doctrine or example, and both through ignorance, heedlessness, and inadvertency: the Targum of Jonathan is,

“when he offers the offering of sin for the people, not according to its manner”

or rite; as if his sin lay in erring while he was offering; but be it in which way it may, whether by any unadvised inadvertent action of his own, or ignorant instruction of the people, so causing them to err, or any ignorance or mistake in offering the sacrifices of the people:

then let him bring for the sin which he has sinned; in either way:

a young bullock; not an ox which was three years old, nor a calf which was but of one year, but a bullock which was of two years; so Maimonides q observes, that wherever it is said a calf, that is a young one of the first year, but a bullock it is a young one of the second year: as are men’s characters, so are the aggravations of their sins, and sacrifices were proportioned thereunto; the high priest was obliged to bring the same offering as the whole congregation did in a like case; see Le 4:13

without blemish; a type of the sacrifice of Christ offered up without spot to God, as it follows;

unto the Lord; against whom sin is committed, and therefore sacrifice both in the type and antitype must be brought and offered up to him, by whom it is accepted, and to whom it is of a sweetsmelling savour, namely, the unblemished sacrifice of Christ:

for a sin offering; or “for sin”: the sin offering is called sin itself, and so is Christ the antitype of it, 2Co 5:21 Christ is most holy in himself, had no sin in him, nor knew any, nor were any committed by him; yet he appeared in the likeness of sinful flesh, took the place of sinners, and was their substitute, had all their sins laid upon him, and was by imputation made sin itself, and became an offering for it, and so fully answered the type of the sin offering.

q Maaseh Hakorbanot, c. 1. sect. 14.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

The sin of the high priest. – The high priest is here called the “anointed priest” (Lev 4:3, Lev 4:5, Lev 4:16, Lev 6:15) on account of the completeness of the anointing with which he was consecrated to his office (Lev 8:12); in other places he is called the great (or high) priest (Lev 21:10; Num 35:25, etc.), and by later writers , the priest the head, or head priest (2Ki 25:18; 2Ch 19:11). If he sinned , “to the sinning of the nation,” i.e., in his official position as representative of the nation before the Lord, and not merely in his own personal relation to God, he was to offer for a sin-offering because of his sin an ox without blemish, the largest of all the sacrificial animals, because he filled the highest post in Israel.

Lev 4:4-7

The presentation, laying on of hands, and slaughtering, were the same as in the case of the other sacrifices (Lev 1:3-5). The first peculiarity occurs in connection with the blood (Lev 4:5-7). The anointed priest was to take (a part) of the blood and carry it into the tabernacle, and having dipped his finger in it, to sprinkle some of it seven times before Jehovah “ in the face of the vail of the Holy ” (Exo 26:31), i.e., in the direction towards the curtain; after that, he was to put ( ) some of the blood upon the horns of the altar of incense, and then to pour out the great mass of the blood, of which only a small portion had been used for sprinkling and smearing upon the horns of the altar, at the bottom of the altar of burnt-offering. A sevenfold sprinkling “in the face of the vail” also took place in connection with the sin-offering for the whole congregation, as well as with the ox and he-goat which the high priest offered as sin-offerings on the day of atonement for himself, the priesthood, and the congregation, when the blood was sprinkled seven times before ( ) the capporeth (Lev 16:14), and seven times upon the horns of the altar (Lev 16:18-19). So too the blood of the red cow, that was slaughtered as a sin-offering outside the camp, was sprinkled seven times in the direction towards the tabernacle (Num 19:4). The sevenfold sprinkling at the feast of atonement had respect to the purification of the sanctuary from the blemishes caused by the sins of the people, with which they had been defiled in the course of the year (see at ch. 16), and did not take place till after the blood had been sprinkled once “against (? upon) the capporeth in front” for the expiation of the sin of the priesthood and people, and the horns of the altar had been smeared with the blood (Lev 16:14, Lev 16:18); whereas in the sin-offerings mentioned in this chapter, the sevenfold sprinkling preceded the application of the blood to the horns of the altar. This difference in the order of succession of the two manipulations with the blood leads to the conclusion, that in the case before us the sevenfold sprinkling had a different signification from that which it had on the day atonement, and served as a preliminary and introduction to the expiation. The blood also was not sprinkled upon the altar of the holy place, but only before Jehovah, against the curtain behind which Jehovah was enthroned, that is to say, only into the neighbourhood of the gracious presence of God; and this act was repeated seven times, that in the number seven, as the stamp of the covenant, the covenant relation, which sin had loosened, might be restored. It was not till after this had been done, that the expiatory blood of the sacrifice was put upon the horns of the altar, – not merely sprinkled or swung against the wall of the altar, but smeared upon the horns of the altar; not, however, that the blood might thereby be brought more prominently before the eyes of God, or lifted up into His more immediate presence, as Hoffmann and Knobel suppose, but because the significance of the altar, as the scene of the manifestation of the divine grace and salvation, culminated in the horns, as the symbols of power and might. In the case of the sin-offerings for the high priest and the congregation, the altar upon which this took place was not the altar of burnt-offering in the court, but the altar of incense in the holy place; because both the anointed priest, by virtue of his calling and consecration as the mediator between the nation and the Lord, and the whole congregation, by virtue of its election as a kingdom of priests (Exo 19:6), were to maintain communion with the covenant God in the holy place, the front division of the dwelling-place of Jehovah, and were thus received into a closer relation of fellowship with Jehovah than the individual members of the nation, for whom the court with its altar was the divinely appointed place of communion with the covenant God. The remainder of the blood, which had not been used in the act of expiation, was poured out at the bottom of the altar of burnt-offering, as the holy place to which all the sacrificial blood was to be brought, that it might be received into the earth.

Lev 4:8-10

The priest was to lift off “all the fat” from the sacrificial animal, i.e., the same fat portions as in the peace-offering (Lev 3:3-4, is the subject to in Lev 3:10), and burn it upon the altar of burnt-offering.

Lev 4:11-12

The skin of the bullock, and all the flesh, together with the head and the shank and the entrails (Lev 1:9) and the foeces, in fact the whole bullock, was to be carried out by him (the sacrificing priest) to a clean place before the camp, to which the ashes of the sacrifices were carried from the ash-heap (Lev 1:16), and there burnt on the wood with fire. (On the construction of Lev 4:11 and Lev 4:12 see Ges. 145, 2).

The different course, adopted with the blood and flesh of the sin-offerings, from that prescribed in the ritual of the other sacrifices, was founded upon the special signification of these offerings. As they were presented to effect the expiation of sins, the offerer transferred the consciousness of sin and the desire for forgiveness to the head of the animal that had been brought in his stead, by the laying on of his hand; and after this the animal was slaughtered, and suffered death for him as the wages of sin. But as sin is not wiped out by the death of the sinner, unless it be forgiven by the grace of God, so devoting to death an animal laden with sin rendered neither a real nor symbolical satisfaction or payment for sin, by which the guilt of it could be wiped away; but the death which it endured in the sinner’s stead represented merely the fruit and effect of sin. To cover the sinner from the holiness of God because of his sin, some of the blood of the sacrifice was sprinkled seven times before Jehovah in the holy place; and the covenant fellowship, which had been endangered, was thereby restored. After this, however, the soul, which was covered in the sacrificial blood, was given up to the grace of God that prevailed in the altar, by means of the sprinkling of the blood upon the horns of the altar of incense, that it might receive the forgiveness of sins and reconciliation with God, and the full enjoyment of the blessings of the covenant be ensured to it once more. But the sin, that had been laid upon the animal of the sin-offering, lay upon it still. The next thing done, therefore, was to burn the fat portions of its inside upon the altar of burnt-offering. Now, if the flesh of the victim represented the body of the offerer as the organ of his soul, the fat portions inside the body, together with the kidneys, which were regarded as the seat of the tenderest and deepest emotions, can only have set forth the better part or inmost kernel of the man, the (Rom 7:22; Eph 3:16). By burning the fat portions upon the altar, the better part of human nature was given up in symbol to the purifying fire of the Holy Spirit of God, that it might be purified from the dross of sin, and ascend in its glorified essence to heaven, for a sweet savour unto the Lord (Lev 4:31). The flesh of the sin-offering, however, or “the whole bullock,” was then burned in a clean place outside the camp, though not merely that it might be thereby destroyed in a clean way, like the flesh provided for the sacrificial meals, which had not been consumed at the time fixed by the law (Lev 7:17; Lev 8:32; Lev 19:6; Exo 12:10; Exo 29:34), or the flesh of the sacrifices, which had been defiled by contact with unclean objects (Lev 7:19); for if the disposal of the flesh formed an integral part of the sacrificial ceremony in the case of all the other sacrifices, and if, in the case of the sin-offerings, the blood of which was not brought into the interior of the sanctuary, the priests were to eat the flesh in a holy place, and that not “as a portion assigned to them by God as an honourable payment,” but, according to the express declaration of Moses, “to bear and take away ( ) the iniquity of the congregation, to make atonement for them” (Lev 10:17), the burning of the flesh of the sin-offerings, i.e., of the animal itself, the blood of which was not brought into the holy place, cannot have been without significance, or simply the means adopted to dispose of it in a fitting manner, but must also have formed one factor in the ceremony of expiation. The burning outside the camp was rendered necessary, because the sacrifice had respect to the expiation of the priesthood, and the flesh or body of the bullock, which had been made by the laying on of the hand, could not be eaten by the priests as the body of sin, that by the holiness of their official character they might bear and expiate the sin imputed to the sacrifice (see at Lev 10:17). In this case it was necessary that it should be given up to the effect of sin, viz., to death or destruction by fire, and that outside the camp; in other words, outside the kingdom of God, from which everything dead was removed. But, inasmuch as it was sacrificial flesh, and therefore most holy by virtue of its destination; in order that it might not be made an abomination, it was not to be burned in an unclean place, where carrion and other abominations were thrown (Lev 14:40, Lev 14:45), but in the clean place, outside the camp, to which the ashes of the altar of burnt-offering were removed, as being the earthly sediment and remains of the sacrifices that had ascended to God in the purifying flames of the altar-fire.

(Note: The most holy character of the flesh of the sin-offering (Lev 6:18.) furnishes no valid argument against the correctness of this explanation of the burning; for, in the first place, there is an essential difference between real or inherent sin, and sin imputed or merely transferred; and secondly, the flesh of the sin-offering was called most holy, not in a moral, but only in a liturgical or ritual sense, as subservient to the most holy purpose of wiping away sin; on which account it was to be entirely removed from all appropriation to earthly objects. Moreover, the idea that sin was imputed to the sin-offering, that it was made sin by the laying on of the hand, has a firm basis in the sacrifice of the red cow (Num 19), and also occurs among the Greeks (see Oehler in Herzog’s Cycl.).)

Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament

3. If the priest that is anointed. He now distinguishes between different persons, and begins with the high priest, who alone bore the high distinction of the holy unction, unless it be thought better to apply it to the whole supreme class. (260) It is probable, however, that it only refers to one. The more illustrious was his dignity, the more diligently and zealously ought his life to be confirmed to the model of holiness; and therefore the infirmity which was more tolerable in others, was more exceedingly reprehensible in him. This is the reason why it was required that he should atone for himself with a greater victim. But this in some measure related to all the Levites, inasmuch as they were chosen to be of the sacred class; and it now extends to all the ministers and pastors of the Church, not that they should ransom themselves by the sacrifice of a calf, but that they should diligently beware of every sin, and be more intent in their endeavors after holiness. The clause “according to the sin of the people,” might be also rendered “ unto the sin,” etc., as though Moses had said that the priest through sin corrupted the people by his bad example; for, since his life is the rule of holiness and righteousness, so his faults give occasion to the errors of others. The sense, however, that I have followed is simpler, i.e., that though the transgression of the priest may be an ordinary one, yet in consideration of his office it becomes more weighty, and deserving of greater punishment.

(260) “ Sur toute la maison d’Aaron.” — Fr.

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary

(3) The priest that is anointed.To illustrate this law, the conduct of the high priest is adduced as the first instance, to show when and how this exalted functionary is to bring the sin offering in question. By this the Levitical law indicates that even the chief of the priesthood was but a frail being like the rest of the people, and was exposed to the same infirmities as the laity, thus precluding the assumption of spiritual superiority. Hence the remark of the Apostle, the law made those high priests who had infirmity, and who needed daily to offer up sacrifices, first for their own sins, and then for the peoples; but our high priest, Christ Jesus, was holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens (Heb. 7:27-28). The phrase the priest that is anointed for the high priest is restricted to this book, where it occurs four times (Lev. 4:3; Lev. 4:5; Lev. 4:16; Lev. 6:15 in Heb.; 22 in the English). The great priest, or high priest, is the appellation used in the other portions of the Pentateuch (Lev. 21:10; Num. 35:25; Num. 35:28), and in Joshua (Jos. 20:6); whilst in the later books of the Old Testament this functionary is called chief priest (2Ki. 25:18; 2Ch. 19:11; 2Ch. 24:11; 2Ch. 26:20; 2Ch. 31:10; Ezr. 7:5). He is called the anointed priest, because, like Aaron, he alone was anointed when he succeeded to the high office, whilst the ordinary priests were simply consecrated. Their anointing descended with them to all futurity by virtue of being the descendants of Aaron. (See Lev. 8:12.)

According to the sin of the people.That is, he having in ignorance committed the same sin as the common people, to which he is as liable as they. From the phrase against any commandments of the Lord in the preceding verse, as well as from Lev. 10:6; Lev. 21:10-15, it is evident that the sin of ignorance here alluded to does not refer to the inadvertent neglect of his official duty, which devolves upon the high priest as the spiritual head of the people, but to any offence whatsoever ignorantly committed. According to the marginal reading, to make the people guilty, or more literally, to the guilt of the people, which is equally admissible, the meaning of the passage is, that he by committing a sin causes the people to transgress, inasmuch as his example is followed by them; or that, in virtue of the intimate connection which subsisted between the representative of the nation and the people, the sin of the one was the sin of the other. (Comp. Lev. 10:6; 1Ch. 21:3.)

A young bullock.Literally, a steer, the son of a bull. The sacrificial rules which obtained at the time of Christ minutely defined the respective ages of the bullock: the steer, the son of a bull, and the calf. The bullock or ox which was brought as a sacrifice had to be three years old: the steer the son of a bull rendered in the passage before us, and in the Authorised Version generally, by a young bullock (Exo. 29:1; Lev. 4:14; Lev. 16:3; Lev. 23:8, &c.), had to be two years old; whilst the calf had to be of the first year.

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

SIN OF A PRIEST, Lev 4:3-12.

3. The priest The term priest in the original signifies a performer of the offices of worship. In the English it is derived from presbyter, referring more to the order than to the duties.

That is anointed The anointing at the consecration of the Aaronic priest symbolized his setting apart to a sacred office, and prefigured the inward unction of the Holy Ghost, which, after Jesus was glorified, should be poured upon all perfect believers in Christ, making them “kings and priests unto God.” Rev 1:6. The original is the word messiah, adumbrating the only Priest who mediates between the believer and the Father in the Gospel dispensation. The high priest is here intended, because he had the anointing in a pre-eminent sense. Lev 16:32; note on Lev 6:22; Psa 133:2. The anointing oil was composed of pure myrrh, sweet cinnamon, calamus, cassia, and olive oil, (Exo 30:23,) emblematic of the gifts and graces of the Holy Spirit. St. Chrysostom never opened his “golden mouth” for a more terse and truthful sentence than this: “The Law was the Gospel in anticipation; the Gospel is the Law in fulfilment.”

Do sin The radical notion of sin, in both the Hebrew and Greek mind, is that of missing the mark. The priest “taken from among men is compassed with infirmities,” and is so liable to miss the mark by any involuntary unsteadiness of aim that he is regarded as a presumptive sinner, (Lev 8:14,) and provision is made for the expiation of his offences before he can acceptably officiate at the altar in behalf of others, who, like himself, are unwittingly “out of the way.”

According to the sin of the people Rather, to the fault of the people, so that they incur guilt. If the high priest sins, the propitiation which he attempts to make is null and void, and the people are left in a state of guilt exposed to the penalty of the law. Hence provision is made to secure an atonement for the atoner. At no point does the superiority of our great High Priest to the frail and sinning head of the Levitical hierarchy shine forth with greater brightness. He is not obliged to present an offering first for himself and then for us. “We have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.”

Without blemish See note on Lev 1:3.

Sin offering The Hebrew chattath signifies sin, sinner, sacrifice for sin, repentance, or punishment. This explains 2Co 5:21. The idea of rendering satisfaction for the transgression of the law lies on the very surface of the sin offering. The blood of the bullock is the life. The life of the animal must be substituted for the forfeited life of the sinner. See Introduction, (6.)

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

Sinful Failure By The Anointed Priest ( Lev 4:3-12 ).

Here we are now faced with sinful failure by the anointed Priest himself. This was a grave matter indeed. Here was the one who, together with his sons had been set apart by God, and who represented the whole people before God and acted on their behalf. He was their mediator and representative. He was to be the perfect exemplar. Any failure on his part to fulfil properly the ritual requirements exactly as prescribed, and the ritual requirements included all the moral requirements, reflected therefore directly on the people. For how could they act for the people once they themselves had sinned? Purification was therefore immediately necessary.

The maintenance of the true ritual exactly as prescribed was especially vital, for the danger was always that they might by altering it stray into the ways of the nations and fall away from the truth that God had revealed. The temptation was all around them constantly. The maintenance of true morality (our distinction, not theirs) was also vital because God is also morally ‘holy’ (set apart as totally different in that way), and those who are unholy morally have therefore no standing before Him. And this was especially true of the Anointed Priest. As the one especially set apart to God the Anointed Priest had a special responsibility to be holy, both in carrying out the ritual, in his activities, and in his whole way of living. Exactness in ritual did matter. Purity of life did matter. These both prevented the straying from the truth which could follow a consideration of the ‘good ideas’ or the sin of others which would only lead into error.

The Anointed Priest was primarily the High Priest, (called ‘the Priest’) but the office also included those who acted under him, at this time the sons of Aaron. They had the huge responsibility of maintaining the purity of the faith of Israel. For being ‘anointed’ sets apart the one so anointed for God’s service. They henceforth stood as God’s man between man and his God. Anointing did not necessarily involve an outward impartation of God’s Spirit, although that did happen at times when the person was being chosen and set apart by God for a task where that power would be needed. It indicated rather that the person was ‘chosen and set apart’ permanently for a God-given task. Thus for the one appointed to act as men’s mediator before God to sin, was to invalidate his whole position and his whole efficacy. His position ceased to be tenable. And yet, alas, it did happen, and that was why, when it did, he must instantly set about obtaining atonement for himself. As the writer to the Hebrews pointed out, he had first to offer for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people (Heb 5:3; Heb 7:27; Heb 9:7). Until Jesus came there was no perfect mediator. This then brings out in contrast the perfection of our own Mediator, Jesus Christ, to Whom is purity and glory for ever.

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 has sinned, a young bull ox without blemish to Yahweh for a purification for sin-offering.’

So if the anointed priest became aware of any sin that he had committed, which would have brought guilt on the people because of whom he was, and especially in cases where the failure had been where he was acting as ‘The Priest’, he must immediately act in order for that sin to be neutralised, to be totally got rid of, so that his own and their holiness could be restored. He had sinned on their behalf as well as his own. Thus they have sinned in him. He was therefore called on to make the most valuable of sacrifices, the young bull ox; maturing, life producing, vital and powerful (by tradition it would be required to be three years old). And it is to be ‘perfect’, total and complete, without blemish. This was a reminder that it was being offered for someone who was blemished, and it therefore required one who was unblemished to die for him. It was the sacrifice of the unblemished for the blemished (compare 2Co 5:21). And it was to be brought to Yahweh Who alone could deal with his sin. The matter was between the Priest and Yahweh.

In this sacrifice, the writer to the Hebrews tells us, we have the shadow, the copy, which points forward to Christ, for He also was a growing, mature male, was without blemish and was offered to God as a sin offering for others (Heb 10:12; 2Co 5:21), and it is through Him alone that sin can be dealt with. But He died for sin not His own.

Lev 4:4

‘And he shall bring the bull ox to the door of the tent of meeting before Yahweh, and he shall lay his hand on the head of the bull ox, and kill the bull ox before Yahweh.’

In the same way as with the other offerings and sacrifices the bull ox is brought ‘to the door of the tent of meeting’, that is into the courtyard where the bronze altar was, in front of the outer curtains of the sanctuary behind which, separated only by the Holy Place, was the throne room of Yahweh. And there the priest was to lay his hand firmly on the bull ox, firmly identifying with it and making it his representative for the bearing and purification of his sin. And then he killed it before Yahweh, and its life flowed out in death, and so before Yahweh there was a death for his sin, the death of a perfect representative who died in his place, and in the place of the people. His sin was identified with the bull ox, just as he was identified with the bull ox, and the bull ox died for his sin. And that death neutralised the sin. It was the antidote to sin. The sin was fully punished and the barrier that had arisen between him and God was removed. It ‘made atonement’ and brought purification for the sin.

The wages of sin is death, he who sins shall die, and that was why a life had to be forfeit. But a death having taken place the priest could, by the grace of God, become as though he had never sinned. And the bull ox too was no longer tainted with sin for the price of sin was paid. Instead it became excessively ‘holy’ because of God’s activity through it and on it. It was now wholly ‘separated to God’ as His instrument of purification. His holy action on it had made it ‘holy’. By means of the necessary punishment of death sin had been dealt with. It was ‘forgiven’. And the result of God’s holy working through it was that the ox bull became holy. Its remains had therefore to be dealt with with the greatest possible care. It had been God’s instrument of mercy.

That the sacrifice becomes holy is declared clearly elsewhere (Lev 6:25-27; Lev 7:1; Lev 7:6; Lev 10:17), and is emphasised by the fact that when taken outside the camp it has to be buried ‘in a clean place’.

The writer to the Hebrews reminds us that Jesus too was offered as a purification for sin offering, and that indeed as the anointed High Priest He offered Himself, and that His blood too was poured out and was accepted for purification for sins (Heb 9:11-14; Heb 10:5-14; Heb 1:3). And he reminds us that He too was excessively holy (Heb 2:10; Heb 5:8-9; Heb 7:26; Heb 10:7; Heb 13:12), so holy that His death and offering up had to be ‘outside the camp’. Indeed the death of the bull ox had been but a shadow of this, and without this offering of Christ once-for-all the shadow would have been ineffective. The efficacy of Christ’s sacrifice was carried back into the blood that was offered before Yahweh (Rom 3:25).

Lev 4:5

‘And the anointed priest shall take of the blood of the bull ox, and bring it to the tent of meeting,’

Here we have the first major difference with this particular offering for purification for sin (together with the community offerings for purification of sin) from all the others. The blood of the slain bull, caught in a bowl, is to be brought into the tent of meeting. All else had been dealt with at the door of the tent of meeting, without entering through the curtain. But here he goes beyond the door of the tent of meeting right into the Holy Place itself, and there approaches the veil. Once there only the veil separates him from the Holy of Holies and the very covenant throne of God. To be able to enter here is evidence that the blood has become ‘very holy’ indeed. But in what does this holiness consist? It is in that the blood has been shed for sin, and has been accepted, so that it has become God’s instrument in making purification for sin. It has ‘totally covered’ the sin of the anointed priest, and the resulting defilement of the Holy Place, and neutralised it by the action of God in the imparting His holiness, thus making both once again holy, and the blood holy with the holiness of God. It has become a most precious thing.

Lev 4:6

‘And the priest shall dip his finger in the blood, and sprinkle of the blood seven times before Yahweh, before the veil of the sanctuary.’

And this ‘blood made holy’ is now sprinkled by means of the priest’s finger seven times before Yahweh within the Holy Place of the tabernacle, before the veil, to demonstrate that all that has to do with the priest and the Holy Place has now again been made holy. The sinning priest had not only defiled the people but also the Holy Place. But that shed ‘blood made holy’ was the proof of holiness fully restored to the whole through the shedding of blood (Lev 17:11). It completed the cleansing. The covenant was restored. The Priest’s mediating work could go on.

There is also in this a recognition in this that the priest’s sin or the nation’s sin had defiled the Sanctuary. Thus the blood also purifies the Sanctuary.

“Seven times.” Seven was the ancient number of divine completeness and perfection. Compare how Naaman had to dip in the Jordan seven times to be cleansed of leprosy (2Ki 5:10; 2Ki 5:14). Throughout Leviticus the number will occur again and again, indicating the same idea. In early Sumer numbering to seven was as far as a man could count, using five fingers on a hand, and then the two extra numbers he could manage. Thus seven very early on became the number that represented everything that could be counted, and continued in all nations to indicate divine completeness. It became, and continued to be, the number of divine perfection. Beyond that man could not go. (That is until someone thought of using both hands, then ‘twelve’ (two eleph) became the limit of counting – two eleph means two more – and thirteen was thus seen as unlucky – but by then the significance of seven had been fixed. The number thirteen was not, however, seen as unlucky in Israel. Thirteen bull oxen could be offered on the first day of the Feast of Tabernacles).

So the sevenfold sprinkling indicated the divine completeness of the purification, and the restoration of the covenant relationship, and was necessary before he could make this first approach to the altar of incense after becoming aware of sin.

Lev 4:7

‘And the priest shall put of the blood on the horns of the altar of sweet incense before Yahweh, which is in the tent of meeting; and all the blood of the bull ox shall he pour out at the base of the altar of ‘offering up’ (of the whole burnt offering) which is at the door of the tent of meeting.’

Then having sprinkled the blood with his finger seven times towards the veil as he approached, indicating that the sin that would have prevented his approach has been dealt with, he is able to apply some of the blood to the horns of the altar of incense before the veil, which is seen as uniquely ‘before Yahweh’. For directly behind the veil, with its two poles pushing the veil forward where they extended into the Holy Place (1Ki 8:8 – probably on each side of the altar of incense), was the Ark of the Covenant of Yahweh, where from an earthly point of view Yahweh was enthroned invisibly between the Cherubim. This was as close as the blood could be brought without going within the veil into the Holy of Holies itself. Indeed the altar was seen as in some way within the Holy of Holies, as being a kind of appendage (1Ki 6:22; Heb 9:4) of the Holy of Holies, made available in the Holy Place for the priestly offering of incense, and for this type of application of blood.

“The horns on the altar” were upward projections at each corner. Comparative incense altars with similar projections have now been found elsewhere, for example at Megiddo, in Palestine. Their description as ‘horns’ suggests that they were probably intended to symbolise power, as the horns of a beast constantly represent its power throughout Scripture. The altar was seen as a place of power, and powerfully effective in what it achieved. And the blood was thus applied to its most powerfully effective part. Part of the reason was to purify this altar (compare Lev 8:15). But we are probably to see that all the power of God went into receiving that blood on God’s behalf, and it was made powerfully effective in purification in general. Having now become holy it has become a kind of incense to God, an act of worship on restoration of the covenant. It was holy blood, shed for sin but then made holy by God as he accepted the price that had been paid. Prayer could, as it were, now begin again, and it began with the blood. (We must not underestimate the devastating nature of the Priest’s sin).

The remainder of the blood was then taken out of the sanctuary and poured out at the base of the altar in the courtyard which was ‘at the door of the tent of meeting’ within the holy precincts of the tabernacle. This was to sanctify it and make atonement for it (Lev 8:15). So the whole of the blood which had been made very holy by being shed for sin was dealt with within the tabernacle precincts. And it was first applied for the purification of sin, and to make atonement, and then to purify the Holy Place and its contents, and then to give praise for that atonement, and then it was finally all given to God.

Lev 4:8-10

‘And all the fat of the bull ox of the sin-offering he shall take off from it; the fat that covers the innards, and all the fat that is on the innards, and the two kidneys, and the fat that is on them, which is by the loins, and the covering of fat on the liver, with the kidneys, shall he take away, as it is taken off from the ox of the sacrifice of peace-offerings: and the priest shall burn them on the altar of whole burnt-offering.’

All the fat of the bull ox, was then stripped from it, including the innards, and the fat that was on them, and the two kidneys and the liver, and all fat associated with them, and these were burnt up on the altar as an offering to Yahweh. The fat represented the very best of the offering, and the parts mentioned represented its vital being, its life and emotions and all that it essentially was, given by Yahweh in creation when He first gave them life and breath. These belonged to Yahweh and were passed back to Him, offered up in worship to Him. So even the sin offering has a worship aspect and recognises God’s rights as Creator. Indeed the blood having now been shed the worship could be offered truly.

Lev 4:11-12

‘And the skin of the bull ox, and all its flesh, with its head, and with its legs, and its inwards, and its dung, even the whole bull ox shall he carry forth without the camp to 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.’

Then all that remained of the bull ox and its carcase, including its skin, was taken out to be burned in ‘a clean place’. This was very significant. It was far from just getting rid of the remains. Being burned ‘in a clean place’ indicated its extreme holiness, and that it was being handed over to God. Nothing that could defile would be taken to ‘a clean place’. So even its dung has been made most holy. Like all else connected with the sacrifice God’s power had transformed it. We can almost hear the words, ‘what God has cleansed do not call common’ (Act 10:15). It is burned in the clean place where the very ashes from the altar were taken for disposal, outside the camp. Those ashes too were holy for they had received of the offerings and sacrifices that had been offered on the altar. (Compare the live coal from the altar and its purifying effect in Isa 6:6-7). Indeed they were too holy to remain in the camp outside the tabernacle. So nothing that was taken there could be seen as defiling. Thus it is not correct to suggest that they were taken outside the camp because they had become unholy, and were saturated with sin. They were taken out because they were too holy to be disposed of in the camp. The sin had been neutralised by its penalty having been exacted, and the offering had become possessed by God’s holiness as having been His instrument of salvation and as having purified the Holy Place.

The inference is that these parts of the bull ox had become so totally holy that they could not even be burned on the altar (as the whole burnt offering was). They were beyond being offered to God by men in any worshipping way. The altar was for offering to God men’s offerings. But these had been involved in God’s activity in the purification of sin and had so been made excessively holy. They therefore belonged to Him already. God’s holiness had been imparted to them. Man could not offer them.

So they no longer in any way represented man and his offerings. Man could no longer offer them up. They were already devoted to God. Therefore while they had to be removed from the earthly sphere and given to God as His, it was by being burned (despatched to God) outside the camp altogether, in a clean place, a place so clean that it could receive the ashes of the altar. They were too holy for the altar, they were too holy for the camp, and they were too holy for the priests to partake of. They could only be offered by burning in a clean place outside the camp, and not as an offering and sacrifice, because they were already His, but as already belonging to Him. They were already devoted to Yahweh.

This point is taken up by the writer to the Hebrews in Lev 13:10-13 when he stresses that Jesus offered up Himself outside the camp, in His case totally, because of His extreme holiness. Jerusalem was no longer holy enough for Him to be offered there, and God took Him without the camp to His own special altar, for Him to be offered there in holiness. Jerusalem meant it as a reproach. God by it indicated His extreme holiness. Jerusalem testified against itself. As a result He is able to make holy and to purify all Who come to God through Him, for he is their purification for sin offering.

“A clean place — outside the camp.” Such is referred to again in Lev 6:11. It was clearly a place set apart for God’ use and was regularly needed for the depositing of holy ashes. How or why it was clean or made clean we are never told. (see also Lev 10:14 where it has a different meaning but with a similar intent of holy things being dealt with there). But they had met God in the wilderness and it was still to be seen as His possession. He was still the Creator of all things, and watched over those places where man and beast were not allowed to control and defile. The ashes would be safe there in God’s keeping. It was in contrast with ‘an unclean place’ (Lev 14:40-41; Lev 14:45). All these many details constantly bring out how accurately the narrative fits into the time of the wilderness. To suggest that someone later invented all these details is inadmissible.

It is noteworthy that there is no mention of atonement here. This is not because there was none but because it cannot be said that ‘the priest made atonement’ for himself. In this case the atonement was directly made by God. The Priest was merely a suppliant.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

Lev 4:3. The priest that is anointed That is, the high-priest. The phrase that is anointed, specifies no more than holy; if the holy priest. It is used for the common priests, Num 3:3. According to the sin of the people, is rendered by Houbigant and many others, if he shall lead the people to sin, i.e. drawing them into error by his example or misinformation. The Hebrew literally is, if the holy priest shall sin to the sin of the people, that is, to the causing the people to sin also; see Heb 5:2 and compare with Heb 7:26-28.

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

Observe the highest order is not more exempt than the lowest. Rom 3:10-19 . Heb 7:28 . Observe again, in this place, as in many former instances, the offering for sin, is to be an unblemished offering; thereby evidently referring unto CHRIST. Heb 9:14 ; 1Pe 1:19 .

Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

Lev 4:3 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.

Ver. 3. A young bullock. ] The same sacrifice that should be offered for the sin of the whole people, Lev 4:14 to note the heinousness of the priest’s sin above others. The sins of teachers are the teachers of sins.

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

the priest that is anointed. This phrase is confined to Lev. (Lev 4:3, Lev 4:5, Lev 4:16; Lev 6:22) four times. In other portions of the Pentateuch it is “high priest” or “great priest” (Lev 21:10. Num 35:25, Num 35:28, and in Jos 20:6), after this it is “chief priest” (2Ki 25:18. 2Ch 19:11; 2Ch 26:20; 2Ch 31:10. Ezr 7:5. Hag. and Zech.)

do sin. Hebrew. chat’a. App-44.

the sin. Hebrew. ‘asham. See App-44.

his sin . . . sinned. Hebrew. chat’a. App-44.

sin offering. Hebrew. chat’a. “Offering” not in Hebrew; rightly supplied here, as it should be in Gen 4:7.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

sin-offering

The sin-offering, though still Christ, is Christ seen laden with the believer’s sin, absolutely in the sinner’s place and stead, and not, as in the sweet savour offerings, in His own perfections. It is Christ’s death as viewed in Isa 53:1-12; Psa 22:1-31; Mat 26:28; 1Pe 2:24; 1Pe 3:18.

But note Lev 6:24-30 how the essential holiness of Him who was “made sin for us” 2Co 5:21 is guarded. The sin-offerings are expiatory, substitutional, efficacious Lev 4:12; Lev 4:29; Lev 4:35 and have in view the vindication of the law through substitutional sacrifice.

Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes

the priest: Lev 8:12, Lev 21:10-12, Exo 29:7, Exo 29:21

a young bullock: Lev 4:14, Lev 9:2, Lev 16:6, Lev 16:11, Eze 43:19

for a sin: Lev 5:6, Exo 29:14, Exo 30:10, Num 8:8, Ezr 8:35, Rom 8:3, 2Co 5:21, Heb 5:3, Heb 7:27, Heb 7:28

Reciprocal: Lev 4:20 – with the Lev 4:24 – it is a sin Lev 6:22 – is anointed Lev 6:25 – the law Lev 6:30 – General Lev 8:14 – he brought Lev 9:7 – offer thy Lev 16:3 – a young Lev 16:32 – the priest Num 6:14 – one ewe Num 35:25 – anointed 2Ch 29:21 – a sin offering Ezr 6:17 – a sin offering Neh 7:64 – as polluted Eze 40:39 – the sin Eze 44:27 – he shall offer Mat 27:32 – as

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

Lev 4:3. If the priest The high-priest, who only was anointed. His anointing is mentioned, because he was not complete high-priest till he was anointed. Do sin Either in doctrine or practice, which it is here supposed he might do. And this is noted as a character of imperfection in the priesthood of the law, Whereby the Israelites were directed to expect another and better high-priest, even one who is holy, harmless, and separate from sinners, Heb 7:26. According to the sin of the people In the same manner as any of the people do; which implies that God expected more circumspection from him than from the people. But the words may be rendered, to the sin or guilt of the people, which may be mentioned as an aggravation of his sin, that by it he commonly brings sin, and guilt, and punishment upon the people, who are infected or scandalized by his example. A young bullock The same sacrifice which was offered for all the people, to show how much his sin was aggravated by his quality. Sin-offering Hebrew, sin, which word is often taken in that sense.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

Lev 4:3-12. Sin Offering of the High Priest.Inadvertences at the altar, which would, if unatoned for, have the most dangerous consequences for the whole community. The anointed priest is the High Priest (Lev 6:22, Lev 8:12; Lev 8:30, Lev 21:10). He is the representative of the whole people; his guilt or error is therefore theirs. There is no choice of animals here, as in Leviticus 3. The chief part of the rite is the presentation of the blood, the life of the animal, to Yahweh. It is brought to the tent of meeting, i.e. the actual shrine of the sanctuary, where alone Yahweh meets with the priest. The more important the offence and the offerer, the nearer the blood must be brought to Yahweh; hence, in this case, sprinkling on the altar would not be enough. The priest stands with the blood inside the outer compartment of the shrine, and sprinkles the blood upon the curtain that separates the outer from the inner compartmentthe latter being regarded as the special abode of the Shekinah, or glory of Yahweh on earth. (For the seven-fold sprinkling, cf. Jos 6:15, 2Ki 5:10.) The analogy with the special rite of Leviticus 16 is clear; but nothing is said in Leviticus 16 of the altar of incense; in Exo 30:10, the sprinkling on the altar of incense is mentioned in connexion with the Day of Atonement, but its use is restricted to that rite. Probably, therefore, unlike the altar, it was within the shrine. Not even the priests may eat of this sacrifice; they are involved in the sin. The duty of burning the carcase belongs to the High Priest himself; but in the text of the LXX and Sam. it is assigned to the priests. The clean place to which the carcase is taken may possibly be a euphemism.

Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible

4:3 If {b} 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.

(b) Meaning, the high priest.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

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!

Fuente: Expositors Bible Commentary