Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Leviticus 5:1
And if a soul sin, and hear the voice of swearing, and [is] a witness, whether he hath seen or known [of it]; if he do not utter [it], then he shall bear his iniquity.
Lev 5:1-13 [47] . Three cases in which a Sin-Offering must be brought
[47] For the reasons which have led critics to assign Lev 5:1-6 to a source other than that of 4. see App. 1 ( a).
1 . The first case. A man who has either seen a crime perpetrated (e.g. one stealing another’s property), or heard something that would assist in detecting the criminal, is bound to declare what he knows when a solemn appeal is made in his hearing ( he heareth the voice of adjuration). If he do not utter it (i.e. if he remain silent though capable of bearing witness) then he is guilty and a Sin-Offering is necessary. Note the reply of Jesus to the high priest’s adjuration after having remained silent (Mat 26:63).
bear his iniquity ] incur the punishment due to such transgression.
The mother of Micah (Jdg 17:2 R.V. mg.) uttered an adjuration when eleven hundred pieces of silver were stolen from her. She lifted up her voice (according to the custom of those times which was for a long time preserved among the Arabs) calling in the name of God on anyone who knew anything about the matter to reveal it. This appeal her son heard, and in response acknowledged himself to be the thief. The appeal might be made by the person wronged to the bystanders, or if an appeal were made to a judge, he might utter an adjuration. According to the traditional interpretation, the text refers to a case brought into court. In Pro 29:24 reference is made to one who is silent when thus appealed to: the words of A.V. ‘he heareth cursing, and bewrayeth it not’ should be rendered ‘he heareth the adjuration and uttereth nothing’ (as R.V. with marg. ref. to Lev 5:1).
This is different from the previous and following cases in which the sin is committed unwittingly.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Special occasions are mentioned on which sin-offerings are to be made with a particular confession of the offence for which atonement is sought Lev 5:5.
Lev 5:1
Swearing – Adjuration. The case appears to be that of one who has been put upon his oath as a witness by a magistrate, and fails to utter all he has seen and heard (compare the marginal references. and Pro 29:24; Num 5:21).
Lev 5:2-3
Hid from him – Either through forgetfulness or indifference, so that purification had been neglected. In such a case there had been a guilty negligence, and a sin-offering was required. On the essential connection between impurity and the sin-offering, see Lev 12:1.
Lev 5:4
Pronouncing – Idly speaking Psa 106:33. The reference is to an oath to do something uttered in recklessness or passion and forgotten as soon as uttered.
Lev 5:6
His trespass offering – Rather, as his forfeit, that is, whatever is due for his offence. The term trespass-offering is out of place here, since it has become the current designation for a distinct kind of sin-offering mentioned in the next section (see Lev 5:14 note).
A lamb or a kid of the goats – A sheep Lev 4:32 or a shaggy she-goat Lev 4:23.
Lev 5:7-10
See Lev 1:14-16; Lev 12:8. In the larger offerings of the ox and the sheep, the fat which was burned upon the altar represented, like the burnt-offering, the dedication of the worshipper; in this case, the same meaning was conveyed by one of the birds being treated as a distinct burnt-offering.
Lev 5:7
A lamb – One of the flock, either a sheep or a goat.
For his trespass, which he hath committed – As his forfeit for the sin he hath committed.
Lev 5:11
tenth part of an ephah i. e. – the tenth deal; probably less than half a gallon. See Lev 19:36 note. This sin-offering of meal was distinguished from the ordinary mnchah Lev 2:1 by the absence of oil and frankincense.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Lev 5:1
If he do not utter it.
Of the difference between these laws in the fifth and those in the fourth chapter
1. The former laws seem to concern the Israelites specially, where it said (verse 27), If any people of the land; but these concern all whomsoever they see or know to offend.
2. The sins of ignorance there are propounded generally, here instance is given in some special and particular sins.
3. There sins are mentioned which a man committeth by himself, here such as are done by others whereby one may be defiled.
4. Beside these laws are set forth without any distinction of persons, as in the former chapter of the priest, the congregation, and prince, because the vulgar people are here understood, every law beginning thus, If any soul, as Lev 4:27. If any soul of the people, by this phrase, then, are meant of private persons of the vulgar sort; as for the special persons as of the priest and prince, they must be understood here as in the former laws to make satisfaction for these sins also with the rite proscribed in their privileges.
5. Add hereunto the reason which is yielded by Tostatus that whereas sins of ignorance are incident both unto the priest, prince, and people, and differ in degree according to the quality of their persons, as it is more grievous for the high priest to fall by error or ignorance than the congregation, and for them rather than the prince, yet for sins committed of malice and passion there cannot be the like difference, for the whole multitude cannot offend in passion as of ignorance as a particular person may (Lev 4:1). But I resolve rather with Cajetane, that these laws are specially understood of private persons, and of private offences.
6. And this further difference there is between the sins rehearsed in this chapter and the former–that there the sins of ignorance are by name expressed, here such as proceed of passion; which kind of sins must be understood with some kind of limitation, for there is no sin committed, though of malice, but there is some passion in it, as he which for fear or hope of reward forsweareth himself is led by some passion, yet it cannot properly be called a sin of passion.
(1) It must be a strong and forcible passion which are either wrath or lust–the love of money is none of them.
(2) It must be a passion suddenly rising, not inveterate, as he that is suddenly enraged sinneth of passion, not he which doth any evil of hatred which is a settled, festered, and inveterate passion, for such an one deliberately offendeth, and not of passion. (A. Willet, D. D.)
Sins of silence
The spiritual truth underlying the Mosaic law is that man is under the direct eye of God, and his life is, therefore, lifted into direct responsibility to God. God sees us, and God sees everything about us and within us. Sins of silence and secrecy, sins of public error and notoriety, which go before a man to judgment, are alike open and naked to Him with whom we have to do. Moses taught that the life of the meanest man fulfilled itself under the open eye of heaven. He was no mere atom in the human ant-hill, no insignificant unit of humanity, lost in the vast ebb and flow of universal life, for insignificance is impossible to man, and obscurity is denied him. He was a person, active, powerful, working woe or weal to others; and just as the calling of a mans voice, or the footfall of a childs step, stir the waves of sound which travel onward and ever onward, till they may be said to break upon the shores of the furthest stars, so the influences of a mans life are boundless. This passage is a striking illustration of these principles. It recognises that sin may lie in silence as in speech, that to hear the word of swearing and not rebuke it is to share the guilt of it; that men are responsible to each other because they are responsible to God. There are three forces in human life, the action of which is illustrated by this passage.
I. The first is influence–that intangible personal atmosphere which clothes every man, an invisible belt of magnetism, as it were, which he carries with him. Every human being seems to possess a moral atmosphere quite peculiar to himself, which invests and interprets him, and the presence of which others readily detect. For instance, a pure woman carries a moral and ennobling atmosphere with her. The atmosphere which clothes her seems to flood the room, and the coarse weeds of vicious thought and talk cannot thrive in it. Or look on the other side of the illustration. Picture a type of man but too common–the fast man of society. There is an exhalation of evil which goes before him and spreads around him. That is influence: something subtle, indefinable, yet real; without lips, yet speaking; without visible shape, yet acting with tremendous potency, like the magnetic forces which throb and travel unseen around us, bidden in the dewdrop and uttered in the thunder; influence, which streams out from every human being, and shapes others, and moulds and makes them; influence, which is stronger than action, more eloquent than speech, more enduring than life, which being holy sows the centuries with the seeds of holy life, and being evil multiplies, indeed, transgressors in the earth!
II. The second force is example. Every man sets a copy for his neighbour, and his neighbour is quick to reproduce it. The covetous man has a miser for his son, the light woman has a daughter hastening towards the ways of shame, the drunkard infects a whole neighbourhood with his vices.
III. And then, from influence and example there results responsibility. You can as easily evade the law of gravitation as the law of human responsibility. If you cease to speak that will not rid you of the burden; you must cease to be to do that. Nay, even death itself is powerless to destroy influence. Often it multiplies it a thousandfold. Is the life of the heroes, the patriots, the martyrs really closed? They were never so much alive as now; the fire that slew them freed them, and the steps of their scaffolds were the staircase of immortality. Thus influence and example bring with them responsibility to God and responsibility to man.
IV. Let us mark further the precise way in which these forces work.
1. First, it is clear that personal sin always involves others. If a man hear the voice of swearing, if he even knows of it, he shares the complicity of the sin. There is always some one who hears, who witnesses, who shares. Here is the most tragic and awful aspect of sin–we share our sins! We have involved others in our guilt, and if we forget they will go remembering. It is well that thou shouldest stand in Gods house to-day, clothed with decorous reverence, unsuspected, and with no scar of fire upon thee; but what of the poor soiled body of that other one, the sharer of thy sin and shame? For there is a dreadful comradeship in guilt–often intentional, for men love company in their sins, but often unintentional, for others share what they concealed and know what they did secretly. It is the most appalling aspect sin assumes; it is never sterile, it is always multiplying and prolific, passing like a fever-taint from man to man; till from one sin a world is infected and corrupt.
2. Notice again, that he who sees a sin and does not rebuke it shares the sin and bears its iniquity. The only way to purge ones self of the contaminating complicity of another mans guilt is instantly to witness against it. There is no other course open to a spiritual honesty.
(1) Look, for instance, at this truth personally. No one need go very far for an illustration. You are a youth employed in a warehouse or office where religion is at a discount. In the warehouse there is sure to be a fast set, a group of youths whose habitual talk is seasoned with profanity or impurity, and who are always eager to get an audience for their shameful recitals. You were silent, you blushed, you were indignant, you turned aside full of abhorrence for the sin and contempt for the sinner, and no doubt you flattered yourself you must be very virtuous and good to feel such virtuous anger, and there you were content to rest. But this text puts an entirely new meaning on your conduct; because you did not witness against that sin you shared it. Blushing is one thing, confessing Christ quite another.
(2) Look at this matter nationally. Look at what is going on at the present time in India, Hong Kong, the Barbadoes, wherever the flag of Britain is flying. What is going on, do you ask? This, that wherever that flag goes the shame of British vice follows. And now, mark, who is responsible for all this? According to my text, all who know the facts, and therefore from this hour all who hear these words are responsible for the existence of this licensed infamy. This passage particularly rebukes, then, sins of silence. To be silent when you should speak is as evil as to speak when you should be silent. To be tongue-tied by cowardice when wrong discovers its hideous nakedness to us, is as vile a thing as to praise wrong and sing the coronation song of wickedness. (W. J. Dawson.)
The sin of conniving at wrong-doings
I. That the sins of men cannot evade witnesses. An old writer has forcibly said that to every sin there must be at least two witnesses, viz., a mans own conscience and the great God.
II. That it is the duty of witnesses to give evidence when justice demands it. When a witness heard the words of adjuration he was required at the proper place to give the needed information. It was his duty because–
(1) The law of the Lord commanded it, and
(2) The purity of society demanded it.
III. That in concealing evidence against sin we involve ourselves in serious guilt. The guilt of concealing evidence is seen, in that by so doing we–
1. Dishonour Gods voice, which speaks within us.
2. Disobey Gods published laws.
3. Decrease our own antipathy to sin.
4. Encourage the trespasser in his wrong-doing. All sin ought to be acknowledged and expiated for the sake of the sinner and the wronged. (F. W. Brown.)
Lessons
1. Not to conceal, or consent to other mens sins.
2. Gods dishonour not to be endured.
3. Confession of our sins unto God necessary (Lev 5:5). This is the beginning of amendment.
4. Against negligent hearers of the Word (Lev 5:15).
5. Against sacrilege.
6. To take hold of the sleights and subtle temptations of Satan.
7. To appear before the Lord in sincerity and simplicity of heart. (A. Willet, D. D.)
The voice of swearing repudiated
When the late Rev. Mr. K–was settled in his congregation of S–, they could not furnish him with lodgings. In these circumstances, a Captain P–, in the neighbourhood, though a stranger to religion, took him into his family. But our young clergyman soon found himself in very unpleasant circumstances, owing to the captains practice of swearing. One day at table, after a very liberal volley of oaths from the captain, he observed calmly, Captain, you have certainly made use of a number of very improper terms. The captain, who was rather a choleric man, was instantly in a blaze. Pray, sir, what improper terms have I used? Surely, captain, you must know, replied the clergyman with greater coolness; and having already put me to the pain of hearing them, you cannot be in earnest in imposing upon me the additional pain of repeating them. You are right, sir, resumed the captain, you are right. Support your character, and we will respect you. We have a parcel of clergymen around us here who seem quite uneasy till they get us to understand that we may use any freedom we please before them, and we despise them.
Guilty silence deplored and amended
Kilstein, a pious German minister, once heard a labouring man use the most awful curses and imprecations in a fit of passion, without reproving him for it. This so troubled him that he could scarcely sleep the following night. In the morning he arose early, soon saw the man coming along, and addressed him as follows: My friend, it is you I am waiting to see. You are mistaken, replied the man; you have never seen me before. Yes, I saw you yesterday, said Kilstein, whilst returning from your work, and heard you praying. What! heard me pray? said the man. I am sure now that you are mistaken, for I never prayed in my life. And yet, calmly but earnestly replied the minister, if God had heard your prayer, you would not be here, but in hell; for I heard you beseeching God that He might strike you with blindness and condemn you unto hell fire. The man turned pale, and trembling said: Dear sir, do you call this prayer? Yes, it is true, I did this very thing. Now, my friend, continued Kilstein, as you acknowledge it, it is my duty to beseech you to seek with the same earnestness the salvation of your soul as you have hitherto its damnation, and I will pray to God that He will have mercy upon you. From this time the man regularly attended upon the ministry of Kilstein, and ere long was brought in humble repentance to Christ as a true believer. A word in season how good it is. Be instant in season and out of season; rebuke, reprove, exhort, with all long-suffering and patience.
Sister Doras noble rebuke of swearing
Sister Dora was once travelling, as usual, third class, when a number of half-drunken navvies got in after her, and before she could change her carriage the train was in motion. She recollected that her dress, a black gown and cloak, with a quiet black bonnet and veil, would probably, as on former encounters with half-intoxicated men, protect her from insult. Her fellow-travellers began to talk, and at last one of them swore several blasphemous oaths. Sister Doras whole soul burnt within her, and she thought, Shall I sit and hear this? but then came the reflection, What will they do to me if I interfere? and this dread kept her quiet a moment or two longer. But the language became more and more violent, and it passed through her mind, What must these men think of any woman who can sit by and hear such words unmoved; but, above all, what will they think of a woman in my dress who is afraid to speak to them? At once she stood up her full height in the carriage and called out loudly, I will not hear the Master whom I serve spoken of in this way. Immediately they dragged her down into her seat, with a torrent of oaths, and one of the most violent roared, Hold your jaw, you fool; do you want your face smashed in? They held her down on the seat between them; nor did she attempt to struggle, satisfied with having made her open protest. At the next station they let her go, and she quickly got out of the carriage. A minute after, while she was standing on the platform, she heard a rough voice behind her, Shake hands, mum! youre a good-plucked one, you are! You were right and we were wrong. She gave her hand to the man, who hurried away, for fear, no doubt, that his comrades should jeer at him.
Sins of ignorance classified
If we compare the fourth and the sixth chapters of Leviticus, it is very evident that the first broad distinction between them is that the former treats of sins committed ignorantly, the latter of sins committed knowingly. The division, however, into sins ignorantly, and sins knowingly committed, is not alone sufficient. Sins committed ignorantly, greatly vary, not only in the degree, but also in the kind of ignorance; and for such ignorance, we may be in different degrees responsible. In order, therefore, to mark that such differences are appreciated by God, and that He desires that we, too, should appreciate them, various classifications of sins of ignorance are given in the fifth chapter; in some of which there is so much of self-caused ignorance that they very nearly approach, in the character of their guilt, to sins knowingly committed, Indeed in the first example given in the fifth chapter, there is so much that is voluntary in the action supposed, that we may perhaps wonder how such an action can at all be placed in the same rank with sins of ignorance. The case supposed is that of a person, who having committed a sin, and being adjured to declare it, refuses. It is evident that terror, or forgetfulness, or carelessness, or some plausible sophistry whereby we may deceive ourselves into the belief that our particular case is an exception to the general rule, may prevent such a sin from being committed with the deliberate voluntariness that marks the trespasses of the sixth chapter. But it stands in striking contrast with sins that spring from that deep universal ignorance which characterises the sins of the fourth chapter. The second case is that of unconsciously touching something that is unclean. Here, again, there is evidently no ignorance of any general principle. The ignorance concerns a specific fact, and is, more or less, the result of carelessness or failure in applying the tests which we possess. There are, however, cases in which ignorance of particulars is the immediate result of being imbued with false general principles. He whose mind has been from his youth up trained in the school of error, and thence received principles which have formed his habits of thought and action, will be found very incapable of determining what is clean or unclean in the particulars of action. The eye of his conscience is blinded; his moral sense is paralysed. The wandering or inattentive eye may be recalled to observation; the slumbering eye may be aroused; but how can we gain the attention of an eye, over which the film of thick darkness has firmly formed? Sins committed in such darkness as this would properly be traced to ignorance as their root, and would be classed with the sins of the fifth chapter, requiring the sin-offering as there described. (B. W. Newton.)
Complacent ignorance
Transgression may ensue from lack of knowledge that such conduct is forbidden; or it may be that, knowing the prohibition, disobedience is speciously excused on some vague plea that circumstances warrant it or expediency condones it In such cases ignorance, if it be really ignorance at all, is self-induced, and is therefore the more culpable. Amid such reprehensible forms of ignorance may be placed–
I. Carelessness; the mind too placid to rouse itself to inquiry.
II. Indiscrimination; the habit of ignoring vital principles and conniving at inconsistencies.
III. Self-excusing; finding exceptional circumstances which extenuate faults and condone misconduct.
IV. Neglect of scripture; not coming to the light lest their deeds should be reproved (Joh 3:20).
V. Satisfaction with a state of conscious darkness; indifference to precise regulations of religion, indisposition of heart towards perfect holiness; a loose and easy content over failings and negligence. Ignorance is by some persons consciously cherished: it allows them a covert from the exactions of a lofty and honest piety.
VI. Plausible sophistry; entertaining the delusion that because there is not determined wilfulness in sinning, Or not fullest knowledge of Gods prohibitions of sin, they are less responsible, less to be condemned. Note: Many persons, trained from youth in a school of error, grow up with false principles dominating their judgments and consciences, or with ignorance of the application of right principles to particular incidents and actions. Thus Luther, trained amid the blinding theories of Romanism, groped on till manhood in delusions and dimness. Thus Paul, brought up amid the traditions of Judaism, found his soul clouded with wholly wrong thoughts concerning what was doing God service. It is our duty to undeceive ourselves, to inquire after knowledge, to seek full light, that our dimness may yield to discernment. A complacent ignorance is as the softly gliding stream which flows onwards to the rapids. To be able to rest in such self-satisfied ignorance indicates that self-delusion has began, portending doom. Whom the gods would destroy they first dement.
1. Search the Scriptures.
2. Seek the Spirits illumination.
3. Culture a pure and enlightened conscience.
4. Exercise the judgment and will in efforts to cease from evil and learn to do well. (W. H. Jellie.)
Adjuration
Our translation suggests, if it suggests at all, a very obscure and imperfect meaning. It is not, If a soul hear a person swear, and do not rebuke the swearer, or tell of the swearer, which seems to be suggested by our version; but, If a person summoned to a court of law, under the ancient Jewish economy, adjured by the officiating judge to tell the truth, should not so tell the truth, and all that he knew, then he should be guilty. We have an illustration of this verse in such a passage as that where the high priest came to our blessed Lord, as recorded in Mat 26:63, and said, I adjure thee by the living God, that Thou tell us whether Thou be the Christ, the Son of God. Now, that was the high priest acting upon the first verse of this very chapter. And our Lord then heard what is called the swearing in this verse, or what in that case was the adjuration of the high priest; and as you notice, so obedient was the true Lamb, the true Saviour, to all the requirements of the ceremonial law, that though He had been dumb when asked previously, yet the moment that the high priest adjured Him, that moment, in obedience to the first verse of this chapter, our blessed Lord answered the question addressed to Him; as if it was impossible that He could fail in the observance of the least jot or tittle of the ceremonial law, any more than in the weightiest requirement of Gods moral law. We have in Pro 29:1-27. an allusion to this: He heareth an adjuration, and telleth not,–that is laid down as a sin, or, in other words, the violation of this verse. (J. C. Cumming, D. D.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
CHAPTER V
Concerning witnesses who, being adjured, refuse to tell the
truth, 1.
Of those who contract defilement by touching unclean things
or persons, 2, 3.
Of those who bind themselves by vows or oaths, and do not
fulfil them, 4, 5.
The trespass-offering prescribed in such cases, a lamb or a
kid, 6;
a turtle-dove or two young pigeons, 7-10;
or an ephah of fine flour with oil and frankincense, 11-13.
Other laws relative to trespasses, through ignorance in holy
things, 14-16.
Of trespasses in things unknown, 17-19.
NOTES ON CHAP. V
Verse 1. If a soul sin] It is generally supposed that the case referred to here is that of a person who, being demanded by the civil magistrate to answer upon oath, refuses to tell what he knows concerning the subject; such a one shall bear his iniquity – shall be considered as guilty in the sight of God, of the transgression which he has endeavoured to conceal, and must expect to be punished by him for hiding the iniquity to which he was privy, or suppressing the truth which, being discovered, would have led to the exculpation of the innocent, and the punishment of the guilty.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
And hear; and for that is, as that particle is often used, as Gen 13:15; 1Ch 21:12, compared with 2Sa 24:13; for this declares in particular what the sin was. The voice of swearing; either,
1. Of adjuration upon oath, when the judge adjures a witness to speak the whole truth; of which see Mat 26:63. But this seems too much to narrow the sense; and this and the other laws, both before and after it, speak of private sins committed through ignorance. Or,
2. Of false swearing before a judge. But that is expressly forbidden, Lev 6:3. Or rather,
3. Of cursing, or blasphemy, or execration, as the word commonly signifies; and that either,
1. Against ones neighbour, as 2Sa 16:7; or,
2. Against God, as Lev 24:10,11; which may seem to be principally intended here, because the crime here spoken of is of so high a nature, that he who heard it was obliged to reveal it, and prosecute the guilty. And though God be not here mentioned, yet the general word is here to be understood of the most famous particular, as it is frequently in all authors, of which there are many instances.
Whether he hath seen; being present when it was said.
Or known, by sufficient information from others. He shall bear his iniquity, i.e. the punishment of it, as that word is oft used, as Gen 19:15; Num 18:1. See of this phrase Lev 17:16; 20:20; Isa 53:11.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
1. if a soul . . . hear the voice ofswearingor, according to some, “the words of adjuration.”A proclamation was issued calling any one who could give information,to come before the court and bear testimony to the guilt of acriminal; and the manner in which witnesses were interrogated in theJewish courts of justice was not by swearing them directly, butadjuring them by reading the words of an oath: “the voice ofswearing.” The offense, then, for the expiation of which thislaw provides, was that of a person who neglected or avoided theopportunity of lodging the information which it was in his power tocommunicate.
Lev 5:2;Lev 5:3. TOUCHINGANY THINGUNCLEAN.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And if a soul sin,…. The soul is put for the person, and is particularly mentioned, as Ben Melech says, because possessed of will and desire:
and hear the voice of swearing; or cursing, or adjuration; not of profane swearing, and taking the name of God in vain, but either of false swearing, or perjury, as when a man hears another swear to a thing which he knows is false; or else of adjuration, either the voice of a magistrate or of a neighbour adjuring another, calling upon him with an oath to bear testimony in such a case; this is what the Jews r call the oath of testimony or witness, and which they say s is binding in whatsoever language it is heard:
and is a witness; is able to bear witness to the thing he is adjured about:
whether he hath seen or known of it; what he has seen with his eyes, or knows by any means: of such a case, the Jews observe t, that there may be seeing without knowing, or knowing without seeing, and in either case a man ought to bear witness:
if he do not utter it; tell the truth, declare what he has seen or known:
then he shall bear his iniquity; he shall be charged with sin, and be obliged to acknowledge his offence, and bring a trespass offering for it: it is said u, that the witnesses are not guilty of the oath of the testimony, but in these ten cases; if they are required; if the testimony is concerning goods; if the goods are movable; if he that requires binds himself to pay for their testimony only, in case they bear witness; if they refuse after required; if they refuse in the sanhedrim; if the adjuration or oath is made there by the name of God, or his titles; if knowledge of the testimony goes before the oath; if he particularizes his witnesses in the time of the oath, or at the time of the requirement; and if the oath is in a language they understood.
r Misn. Sotah, c. 7. 1. s Maimon. & Bartenora in ib. T. Bab. Sotah, fol. 33. 1. t T. Bab. Shebuot, fol. 33. 2. & 34. 1. u Maimon. Hilchot, Shebuot, c. 9. sect. 3.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
There follow here three special examples of sin on the part of the common Israelite, all sins of omission and rashness of a lighter kind than the cases mentioned in Lev 4:27.; in which, therefore, if the person for whom expiation was to be made was in needy circumstances, instead of a goat or ewe-sheep, a pair of doves could be received as a sacrificial gift, or, in cases of still greater poverty, the tenth of an ephah of fine flour. The following were the cases. The first (Lev 5:1), when any one had heard the voice of an oath (an oath spoken aloud) and was a witness, i.e., was in a condition to give evidence, whether he had seen what took place or had learned it, that is to say, had come to the knowledge of it in some other way. In this case, if he did not make it known, he was to bear his offence, i.e., to bear the guilt, which he had contracted by omitting to make it known, with all its consequences. does not mean a curse in general, but an oath, as an imprecation upon one’s self (= the “oath of cursing” in Num 5:21); and the sin referred to did not consist in the fact that a person heard a curse, imprecation, or blasphemy, and gave no evidence of it (for neither the expression “and is a witness,” nor the words “hath seen or known of it,” are in harmony with this), but in the fact that one who knew of another’s crime, whether he had seen it, or had come to the certain knowledge of it in any other way, and was therefore qualified to appear in court as a witness for the conviction of the criminal, neglected to do so, and did not state what he had seen or learned, when he heard the solemn adjuration of the judge at the public investigation of the crime, by which all persons present, who knew anything of the matter, were urged to come forward as witnesses (vid., Oehler in Herzog’s Cycl.). , to bear the offence or sin, i.e., to take away and endure its consequences (see Gen 4:13), whether they consisted in chastisements and judgments, by which God punished the sin (Lev 7:18; Lev 17:16; Lev 19:17), such as diseases or distress (Num 5:31; Num 14:33-34), childlessness (Lev 20:20), death (Lev 22:9), or extermination (Lev 19:8; Lev 20:17; Lev 9:13), or in punishment inflicted by men (Lev 24:15), or whether they could be expiated by sin-offerings (as in this passage and Lev 5:17) and other kinds of atonement. In this sense is also sometimes used (see at Lev 19:17).
Lev 5:2-3 The second was, if any one had touched the carcase of an unclean beast, or cattle, or creeping thing, or the uncleanness of a man of any kind whatever (“with regard to all his uncleanness, with which he defiles himself,” i.e., any kind of defilement to which a man is exposed), and “ it is hidden from him, ” sc., the uncleanness or defilement; that is to say, if he had unconsciously defiled himself by touching unclean objects, and had consequently neglected the purification prescribed for such cases. In this case, if he found it out afterwards, he had contracted guilt which needed expiation.
Lev 5:4 The third was, if any one should “ swear to prate with the lips, ” i.e., swear in idle, empty words of the lips, – “ to do good or evil, ” i.e., that he would do anything whatever (Num 24:13; Isa 41:23), – “ with regard to all that he speaks idly with an oath, ” i.e., if it related to something which a man had affirmed with an oath in thoughtless conversation, – “ and it is hidden from him, ” i.e., if he did not reflect that he might commit sin by such thoughtless swearing, and if he perceived it afterwards and discovered his sin, and had incurred guilt with regard to one of the things which he had thoughtlessly sworn.
Lev 5:5-6 If any one therefore (the three cases enumerated are comprehended under the one expression , for the purpose of introducing the apodosis) had contracted guilt with reference to one of these (the things named in Lev 5:1-4), and confessed in what he had sinned, he was to offer as his guilt (trespass) to the Lord, for the sin which he had sinned, a female from the flock-for a sin-offering, that the priest might make atonement for him on account of his sin. (Lev 5:6) does not mean either guilt-offering or debitum ( Knobel), but culpa, delictum, reatus , as in Lev 5:7: “as his guilt,” i.e., for the expiation of his guilt, which he had brought upon himself.
Lev 5:7-10 “ But if his hand does not reach what is sufficient for a sheep, ” i.e., if he could not afford enough to sacrifice a sheep (“his hand” is put for what his hand acquires), he was to bring two turtle-doves or two young pigeons, one for the sin-offering, the other for the burnt-offering. The pigeon intended for the sin, i.e., for the sin-offering, he was to bring first of all to the priest, who was to offer it in the following manner. The head was to be pinched off from opposite to its neck, i.e., in the nape just below the head, though without entirely severing it, that is to say, it was to be pinched off sufficiently to kill the bird and allow the blood to flow out. He was then to sprinkle of the blood upon the wall of the altar, which could be effected by swinging the bleeding pigeon, and to squeeze out the rest of the blood against the wall of the altar, because it was a sin-offering; for in the burnt-offering he let all the blood flow out against the wall of the altar (Lev 1:15). What more was done with the pigeon is not stated. Hence it cannot be decided with certainty, whether, after the crop and its contents were removed and thrown upon the ash-heap, the whole of the bird was burned upon the altar, or whether it fell to the priest, as the Mishnah affirms (Seb. vi. 4), so that none of it was placed upon the altar. One circumstance which seems to favour the statement in the Talmud is the fact, that in the sin-offering of pigeons, a second pigeon was to be offered as a burnt-offering, and, according to Lev 5:10, for the purpose of making an atonement; probably for no other purpose than to burn it upon the altar, as the dove of the sin-offering was not burned, and the sacrifice was incomplete without some offering upon the altar. In the case of sin-offerings of quadrupeds, the fat portions were laid upon the altar, and the flesh could be eaten by the priest by virtue of his office; but in that of pigeons, it was not possible to separate fat portions from the flesh for the purpose of burning upon the altar by themselves, and it would not do to divide the bird in half, and let one half be burned and the other eaten by the priest, as this would have associated the idea of halfness or incompleteness with the sacrifice. A second pigeon was therefore to be sacrificed as a burnt-offering, , according to the right laid down in Lev 1:14., that the priest might make atonement for the offerer on account of his sin, whereas in the sin-offering of a quadruped one sacrificial animal was sufficient to complete the expiation.
(Note: From the instructions to offer two pigeons in order to obtain expiation, it is perfectly evident that the eating of the flesh of the sin-offering on the part of the priest formed an essential part of the act of expiation, and was not merely a kind of honourable tribute, which God awarded to His servants who officiated at the sacrifice.)
Lev 5:11-13 But if any one could not afford even two pigeons, he was to offer the tenth of an ephah of fine flour as a sin-offering. for (Lev 5:7): his hand reaches to anything, is able to raise it, or with an accusative, obtains, gets anything (used in the same sense in Lev 14:30, Lev 14:31), or else absolutely, acquires, or gets rich (Lev 25:26, Lev 25:47). But it was to be offered without oil and incense, because it was a sin-offering, that is to say, “because it was not to have the character of a minchah ” ( Oehler). But the reason why it was not to have this character was, that only those who were in a state of grace could offer a minchah , and not a man who had fallen from grace through sin. As such a man could not offer to the Lord the fruits of the Spirit of God and of prayer, he was not allowed to add oil and incense, as symbols of the Spirit and praise of God, to the sacrifice with which he sought the forgiveness of sin. The priest was to take a handful of the meal offered, and burn it upon the altar as a memorial, and thus make atonement for the sinner on account of his sin. – On “ his handful ” and “ a memorial ” ( Azcarah), see Lev 2:2. “ In one of these ” (Lev 5:13 as in Lev 5:5): cf. Lev 4:2. “ And let it (the remainder of the meal offered) belong to the priest like the meat-offering: ” i.e., as being most holy (Lev 2:3).
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
| Law of the Sin-Offering. | B. C. 1490. |
1 And if a soul sin, and hear the voice of swearing, and is a witness, whether he hath seen or known of it; if he do not utter it, then he shall bear his iniquity. 2 Or if a soul touch any unclean thing, whether it be a carcase of an unclean beast, or a carcase of unclean cattle, or the carcase of unclean creeping things, and if it be hidden from him; he also shall be unclean, and guilty. 3 Or if he touch the uncleanness of man, whatsoever uncleanness it be that a man shall be defiled withal, and it be hid from him; when he knoweth of it, then he shall be guilty. 4 Or if a soul swear, pronouncing with his lips to do evil, or to do good, whatsoever it be that a man shall pronounce with an oath, and it be hid from him; when he knoweth of it, then he shall be guilty in one of these. 5 And it shall be, when he shall be guilty in one of these things, that he shall confess that he hath sinned in that thing: 6 And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the LORD for his sin which he hath sinned, a female from the flock, a lamb or a kid of the goats, for a sin offering; and the priest shall make an atonement for him concerning his sin.
I. The offences here supposed are, 1. A man’s concealing the truth when he was sworn as a witness to speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Judges among the Jews had power to adjure not only the witnesses, as with us, but the person suspected (contrary to a rule of our law, that no man is bound to accuse himself), as appears by the high priest adjuring our Saviour, who thereupon answered, though before he stood silent, Mat 26:63; Mat 26:64. Now (v. 1), If a soul sin (that is, a person, for the soul is the man), if he hear the voice of swearing (that is, if he be adjured to testify what he knows, by an oath of the Lord upon him, 1 Kings viii. 31), if in such a case, for fear of offending one that either has been his friend or may be his enemy, he refuses to give evidence, or gives it but in part, he shall bear his iniquity. And that is a heavy burden, which, if some course be not taken to get it removed, will sink a man to the lowest hell. He that heareth cursing (that is, that is thus adjured) and betrayeth it not (that is, stifles his evidence, and does not utter it), he is a partner with the sinner, and hateth his own soul; see Prov. xxix. 24. Let all that are called out at any time to bear testimony think of this law, and be free and open in their evidence, and take heed of prevaricating. An oath of the Lord is a sacred thing, and not to be dallied with. 2. A man’s touching any thing that was ceremonially unclean, Lev 5:2; Lev 5:3. If a man, polluted by such touch, came into the sanctuary inconsiderately, or if he neglected to wash himself according to the law, then he was to look upon himself as under guilt, and must bring his offering. Though his touching the unclean thing contracted only a ceremonial defilement, yet his neglect to wash himself according to the law was such an instance either of carelessness or contempt as contracted a moral guilt. If at first it be hidden from him, yet when he knows it he shall be guilty. Note, As soon as ever God by his Spirit convinces our consciences of any sin or duty we must immediately set in with the conviction, and prosecute it, as those that are not ashamed to own our former mistake. 3. Rash swearing. If a man binds himself by an oath that he will do or not do such a thing, and the performance of his oath afterwards proves either unlawful or impracticable, by which he is discharged from the obligation, yet he must bring an offering to atone for his fully in swearing so rashly, as David that he would kill Nabal. And then it was that he must say before the angel that it was an error, Eccl. v. 6. He shall be guilty in one of these (ch. v. 4), guilty if he do not perform his oath, and yet, if the matter of it were evil, guilty if he do. Such wretched dilemmas as these do some men bring themselves into by their own rashness and folly; go which way they will their consciences are wounded, sin stares them in the face, so sadly are they snared in the words of their mouth. A more sad dilemma this is than that of the lepers, “If we sit still, we die; if we stir, we die.” Wisdom and watchfulness beforehand would prevent these straits.
II. Now in these cases, 1. The offender must confess his sin and bring his offering (Lev 5:5; Lev 5:6); and the offering was not accepted unless it was accompanied with a penitential confession and a humble prayer for pardon. Observe, The confession must be particular, that he hath sinned in that thing; such was David’s confession (Ps. li. 4), I have done this evil; and Achan’s (Josh. vii. 20), Thus and thus have I done. Deceit lies in generals; many will own in general they have sinned, for that all must own, so that it is not any particular reproach to them; but that they have sinned in this thing they stand too much upon their honour to acknowledge: but the way to be well assured of pardon, and to be well armed against sin for the future, is to be particular in our penitent confessions. 2. The priest must make atonement for him. As the atonement was not accepted without his repentance, so his repentance would not justify him without the atonement. Thus, in our reconciliation to God, Christ’s part and ours are both needful.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
LEVITICUS-CHAPTER FIVE
Verses 1-6:
The first thirteen verses of Chapter Five continue the theme of the Sin Offering. The first six verses of the text list three specific instances in which the Sin Offering is required. They are:
1. A Witness, in a judicial hearing. “If a soul. . .hear the voice of swearing,” that is, if one were adjured to give testimony under oath after the requirements of the Jewish legal code (2Ch 18:15; Mt 27:63), and did not give evidence of what he had heard and seen, then he must “bear his iniquity,” lit. be regarded as guilty. In this case, the guilty must atone for his sin by offering a ewe lamb, or a female kid, or two turtle-doves, or two pigeons, or a portion of flour as a Sin Offering.
2. Ceremonial uncleanness. If one became ceremonially unclean by coming in contact with either a dead body, or some substance which rendered him unclean, and if this were done unwittingly, or through neglect, he must offer a Sin Offering as provided in verse 1.
3. Failure to fulfill an oath (vow). If one took an oath to do either good or evil, or to do anything whatever, and then neglected to fulfill the oath, he must offer a Sin Offering as provided above.
“Trespass Offering,” asham, could be more accurately translated, “for his trespass,” or in expiation for his guilt. It does not refer to the Trespass Offering, described in Leviticus 5:14 – 7:38.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
1. And if a soul sin. The three kinds of offense, to which Moses refers in the beginning of the chapter, seem to differ much from each other; for the first, when a person concealed a matter which he knew, could not arise from error, yet I include this concealment of which he treats under the head of error, by supposing it to have been when a person should be induced by shame or fear to connive at any crime or offense respecting which he might be interrogated, and so, without any design of perjuring himself, but by blinding himself, should withhold what he would have said, if he had duly examined the matter. Yet these words must be more narrowly discussed, respecting the meaning of which men are not well agreed. Some think that the word אלה, (266) alah, is put for “execration,” as though it were said, if any shall have heard a misdoing or detestable crime worthy of execration; yet their gloss is contradicted by what immediately follows, “Whether he hath seen or known it.” Others indeed interpret it to mean an oath, yet improperly confine it to perjury, as if Moses stated that he was guilty who had heard a man perjuring himself, and had not opposed him, but had rather covered the perjury by his own connivance or silence. I rather subscribe, then, to their opinion who expound it as meaning “adjuration;” for the words will thus combine very well, “If any one, being summoned as a witness, shall have heard the voice of adjuration, whereby he shall be required in God’s name to answer truly as to the matter proposed, and from favor, or good nature, or any other false pretext, as if he were enveloped in a cloud of error, shall conceal what, if he had paid diligent attention, he well knew, he shall be guilty.” We must then here render the disjunctive particle as the conditional. Literally it is, “If any shall have heard the voice of adjuration, and (is) himself a witness.” But wherefore should he say, “if he hath been a witness,” and then add, “or have known it,” as if he referred to different things? What I have said squares very well, that a person becomes himself guilty, who, when summoned as a witness, does not answer to a matter of which he is cognizant. Now, what does hearing the voice of adjuration mean, unless you understand that he is adjured by the mouth of a judge? We must observe, too, that the three kinds of sin which are first enumerated have a connection with each other, since they speak of sinners who are infected by the uncleanness of others; for, after Moses had commanded generally that offenses committed in error should be expiated, he now adds what had not been stated explicitly enough, that those also required atonement who had been polluted by the defilements of others. Thus this first will accord very well with the other two, i.e., that if any should make himself an accomplice in the offense of another, by indirect perjury, he should be unclean until he had offered a propitiation; for this is what the expression “bear his iniquity” conveys; as if Moses had said that he contracts guilt who shall have concealed a crime, respecting which he had been interrogated as a witness.
(266) It was in S. M. that C. found it mentioned that some took אלה to mean execration, blasphemy, or perjury; but S. M. himself held it to be equivalent to שבועה, adjuration, and explains the passage as meaning, “If any person shall be adjured, and will not declare the truth, etc.” — W
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
Trespasses Heedlessly Committed
SUGGESTIVE READINGS
Lev. 5:1.If the soul hear the voice of swearing. Sins may be acted out consciously and defiantly; for such there was no expiation provided. But sins may be committed without realising their sinfulness; of these the preceding chapter deals, and for such there was expiatory sacrifice and assured forgiveness. Yet, also, sins may be contracted where no volition or action occurs, by passive non-resistance, by tacit connivance, by incautious heedlessness: and such are the sins this chapter interdicts while it also prescribes expiation. Sin may come in through the ear: hear the voice of swearing; albeit it is no sin in itself to hear, unless we shut it in wilfully and become accessory thereto. It should be let out through the lips: utter it: give it no harbour, but prompt escape; for it defiles the soul which retains it as a secret. Let no evil thing find a quiet chamber in our thoughts; expose it, and thereby exorcise and condemn it. Impurity must ensue from entertaining secretly what God bids us renounce and denounce.
Lev. 5:2.Touch any unclean thing. God would have His people untainted by uncleanness. With minute care He had defined what were unclean things. From every contagion they must keep free, if they were to remain ceremonially holy. Shall not we also shun contact with forbidden things? For God hath not called us unto uncleanness, but unto holiness. There are institutions in society, companionships and friendships, indulgences and pastimes, recreations and books, which would defile a Christian life and lower the sanctities of existence. Wherefore, come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing (2Co. 6:17).
It be hidden from him. How often do we touch defilement unconsciously! And having by contact derived the contagion (in pure thoughts sullied, our sensitive recoil from evil blunted, elevated aims lowered, and Christward affections decoyed) how do we forget that we have touched! How constantly we argue with our own consciences that the tainted pleasures and pastimes we foster are outside the interdicted list. Yet this self-excusing is vain; he also shall be unclean and guilty.
Lev. 5:4.Whatsoever a man shall pronounce with an oath. Vows which bind us to lines of conduct should never be made in ignorance. It is perilous to society as well as to individual honour for a man to make himself subject to a vow whose issues are hid from him. This reprehensible plan prevails in those secret societies and brotherhoods whose programme is the destruction of civil institutions and State stability. If a man blindly swears away his liberty, and binds himself by oath to any confederation, he is guilty of any and all the deeds done by the associates of such organisations. Oaths should only be taken when their issues are fully discerned; certainly no right-minded man will allow himself to become the dupe of bad associates, or the accomplice of evil designs, under the specious plea that the effects of his oath were hid from him when he bound himself thereby. Prudence and piety will warn us against being thus rash with our mouth. [Compare Ecc. 5:2; Ecc. 5:6; Act. 23:12-14.]
Lev. 5:5.He shall bring his trespass offering. Rash oaths incurred guiltiness, and must be atoned for; the folly of taking an oath to do evil was an offence to be expiated; whereas the neglect of an oath to do good was equally a trespass. Gods requirement of an expiatory offering for both misdemeanours acted beneficially on the community, by restraining persons from taking hasty and inconsiderate oaths. This served very effectually (says Michaelis) to maintain the honour of oaths, inasmuch as every oath, however inconsiderate, or unlawful, or impossible, was regarded so far obligatory that it was necessary to expiate its non-fulfilment by an offering; and it was, at the same time, the best possible means of weaning the people from rash oaths, because a man who had grown addicted to the unbecoming practice would find himself too frequently obliged either to keep his oaths, how great soever the inconvenience, or else to make an offering for their atonement.
Lev. 5:15.Ignorance in the holy things of the Lord. There were dues or debts to the sanctuary of God, and he who failed to bring his tithes and first-fruits, even though unintentionally and through ignorance, was a transgressor. A costly amends (Lev. 5:16) was to be made for this oversight, if his trespass was to be forgiven him. Thus jealous is God that we withhold no duty from Him, that we enter into His presence with thanksgiving, i.e., with gifts as thank offerings. Every soul, spared in the land of the living, succoured by Divine goodness and grace, overshadowed by the Fatherhood of God, shepherded by the patient care of Christ, upheld by the energy of the Spirit, owes offerings to Heaven, and should enter the sanctuary with the acknowledgments of all the mercy received. Our grateful souls should seek to fulfil something of the debt we owe. What shall I render unto the Lord for all His benefits towards me? God asks sanctuary presents from every one of His people.
Lev. 5:17.Forbidden to be done. For the Lord had prohibited the profane use, or the appropriation to personal ends, of holy things dedicated to the sanctuary and its services. If a soul had reason only to suspect his misuse thereof, he must seek forgiveness by trespass offering. All such stern requirements tended to enforce a recognition of the supreme claims of Jehovah and the sanctity of religion. No trifling, no forgetfulness, no error was excusable. Shall not we stand in awe and sin not, guarding ourselves from presumptuous sins and inadvertent negligence by watching unto prayer and by swift fulfilment of our obligations to Heaven!
SECTIONAL HOMILIES
Topic: COMPLACENT IGNORANCE (Lev. 5:1-5)
Sins of ignorance differ greatly in kind and in degree. Transgression may ensue from lack of knowledge that such conduct is forbidden; or it may be that, knowing the prohibition, disobedience is speciously excused on some vague plea that circumstances warrant it or expediency condones it. In such cases ignorance, if it be really ignorance at all, is self-induced, and is therefore the more culpable. Amid such reprehensible forms of ignorance may be placed
I. CARELESSNESS; the mind too placid to rouse itself to inquiry.
II. INDISCRIMINATION; the habit of ignoring vital principles and conniving at inconsistencies.
III. SELF-EXCUSING; finding exceptional circumstances which extenuate faults and condone misconduct.
IV. NEGLECT OF SCRIPTURE; not coming to the light lest their deeds should be reproved (Joh. 3:20).
V. SATISFACTION WITH A STATE OF CONSCIOUS DARKNESS; indifference to precise regulations of religion, indisposition of heart towards perfect holiness; a loose and easy content over failings and negligence. Ignorance is by some persons consciously cherished: it allows them a covert from the exactions of a lofty and honest piety.
VI. PLAUSIBLE SOPHISTRY; entertaining the delusion that because there is not determined wilfulness in sinning, or not fullest knowledge of Gods prohibitions of sin, they are less responsible, loss to be condemned.
Note: Many persons, trained from youth in a school of error, grow up with false principles dominating their judgments and consciences, or with ignorance of the application of right principles to particular incidents and actions. The perception of righteousness is vague and dim, the moral sense is feeble and faltering, darkness in part has happened to them. Thus Luther, trained amid the blinding theories of Romanism, groped on till manhood in delusions and dimness. Thus Paul, brought up amid the traditions of Judaism, found his soul clouded with wholly wrong thoughts concerning what was doing God service.
It is our duty to undeceive ourselves, to inquire after knowledge, to seek full light, that our dimness may yield to discernment.
A complacent ignorance is as the softly gliding stream which flows onwards to the rapids. To be able to rest in such self-satisfied ignorance indicates that self-delusion has begun, portending doom. Whom the gods would destroy they first dement And such contentment, while in error of the very way of godly obedience and acceptance, betokens a demented state ominous of worst issues. Therefore:
1. Search the Scriptures.
2. Seek the Spirits illumination.
3. Culture a pure and enlightened conscience.
4. Exercise the judgment and will in efforts to cease from evil and learn to do well.
Topic: THE SIN OF CONNIVING AT WRONG-DOINGS (Lev. 5:1)
The trespass offering atoned for voluntary offences, thus fitly supplementing the offerings for sins of ignorance. All crimei.e., wrong done to menis sin in the sight of God, and needs to be followed by repentance as well as reparation. Here we are taught that a person committed sin in withholding knowledge when able and judicially commanded to divulge it.
The camp of Israel in the wilderness was not only a Church, but a Commonwealth; the interests of the people were mutual, and their duties reciprocal. It was the duty of the rulers to defend and promote the-right, and to expose and denounce the wrong. When an evil doer was arrested, a proclamation was made calling upon any who could furnish evidence (that the ends of justice might not be defeated) to present themselves as witnesses in the court. If any such person, through fear or neglect, failed to furnish the information in his possession he was a partaker in the sin. The safety and sanctity of society demanded that evidence should not wilfully be withheld. Jehovah here required His people to co-operate with Him in protesting against and exposing sin. Observe
I. THAT THE SINS OF MEN CANNOT EVADE WITNESSES.
An old writer has forcibly said that to every sin there must be at least two witnesses, viz, a mans own conscience and the great God. Wrong-doing so confuses and condemns a man, except he be very degraded and hardened, that even though he was not really observed in the act, he will so betray himself to others that evidence of a presumptive or positive kind, circumstantial or self-evident can be presented.
Living together as the Israelites did in the wilderness, they would be constantly under each others eye, wrong-doing would be easily detected, its guilt easily proved.
We are all daily revealing ourselves more or less to each other, and persons who observe our conduct are tacitly gathering evidence to accuse or excuse, to commend or condemn our conduct and character. This world is a place of trial, a place of judgment. We are not only arraigned before the tribunal of our own consciences, but also before the bar of public observation and opinion.
II. THAT IT IS THE DUTY OF WITNESSES TO GIVE EVIDENCE WHEN JUSTICE DEMANDS IT.
When a witness heard the words of adjuration he was required at the proper place to give the needed information. It was his duty because
(1) the law of the Lord commanded it, and
(2) the purity of society demanded it. It would also be an injustice to a wrong-doer, for the sake of shielding him from present punishment, by conniving at his sin to encourage him in evil ways. Moreover, a witness owes the duty to himself to testify against sin, for if he does not expose it and bring it to condemnation, he may foster even in himself a careless unconcern about wrong. By bearing witness against evil doing we utter our protest against the wrong, and if we do it in the right spirit and speak the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, we are serving righteously and faithfully our day and generation, and we therein discharge a duty we owe to God against whom all sin in a transgression, and who has appointed rulers to administer justice for the praise of those who do well, and to be a terror to evil doers.
III. THAT IN CONCEALING EVIDENCE AGAINST SIN WE INVOLVE OURSELVES IN SERIOUS GUILT.
By withholding evidence we may think to cover over sins, and so we may; but we do not remove them. We may prevent them coming to light and meeting their merited punishment, but the sins remain, and will take deeper root and throw out wider branches. It is a trespass, a breach of the Divine law, when we allow sin to go unaccused and unexposed; we thereby offer an inducement to sin, and tacitly encourage indulgence in transgression. The guilt of concealing evidence is seen, in that by so doing we
1. Dishonour Gods voice, which speaks within us.
2. Disobey Gods published laws.
3. Decrease our own antipathy to sin.
4. Encourage the trespasser in his wrong-doing.
All sin ought to be acknowledged and expiated for the sake of the sinner and the wronged. A person refusing to give evidence makes himself an accessory to a wicked deed after its accomplishment, and becomes an accomplice in its guilt. Divine revelation teaches us that we have duties we owe to ourselves, to society, and to God.F. W. B.
Topic: THE CONTAGIOUSNESS OF SIN (Lev. 5:2-3)
The sin of touching an unclean person or thing is here described. The whole of the directions given respecting ceremonial defilement were to teach most emphatically the holiness of God, and His deep concern for the holiness of His creatures. The children of Israel were not only to obey Him, but also to worship Him, and as their service was to be a sacrament and their work worship, it was necessary that they should be taught the utmost scrupulousness in ceremonial, as well as inward, purity. These regulations and requirements would not only teach the people who were immediately affected by them the most salutary lessons, but would also teach (through them) the world valuable truths. We learn
I. THE IMPORTANCE OF CIRCUMSPECTION IN OUR OUTWARD BEHAVIOUR.
The Israelites would feel that the greatest possible vigilance would be needed as they went in and out the camp and mixed with the congregation, lest they should become defiled by contact with some unclean thing. As we mingle with our fellow-men, and discharge our duties in the world, although we are not under the restrictions and regulations of the Levitical law, yet we are in a world where the moral atmosphere is tainted, and where we are in constant danger of being morally defiled. We are not only ourselves surrounded by a sympathetic moral influence, which affects all with whom we have contact, but we also in turn receive influence, good or ill, from others with whom we associate. We learn that the greatest possible circumspection is essential as we move amid the busy throngs.
II. THE POSSIBILITY OF CONTAMINATION, EVEN THOUGH WE PRACTISE CIRCUMSPECTION IN OUR OUTWARD CONDUCT.
The text shows that it was possible for people to become defiled and be unconscious of it. A man might find even that his extreme caution had ensnared him. He might not always be able to discriminate between the clean and the unclean, especially at first sight. So, as we pass through the world, we are so closely surrounded by morally contaminating influences that sometimes we may acquire infection before we are aware of it. Even the most innocent pleasures and pursuits may be perverted by us, becoming suggestive and ministrant of sin; in our ignorance or simplicity we may get a wrong bias, wicked thoughts may be awakened. For such defilement we shall need to make expiation; also seek forgiveness and cleansing, that the impurity of our heart and conscience may be removed, and the progress of moral depravity and deterioration be arrested.F. W. B.
Topic: THE RESPONSIBILITY OF WORDS (Lev. 5:4-5)
Here is taught the sin of a person making a rash oath. In their conversation with each other the people were to beware of uttering idle words, especially when calling upon God to witness what they said; also, they were to be careful how they committed themselves by solemn engagements to do evil or to do good. The people were at present rude and unpolished, and one of the objects of the ritual was to elevate and refine them. Words are often spoken as if they were of no importance, vows made and oaths uttered as if they were unnoticed by God; but this law shows us that He does take strict notice of them, and that though forgotten by us, they are not forgotten by Him. Though spoken heedlessly and easily forgotten, yet God would hold them responsible. The gospel has not repealed the laws condemnation of rash speaking, for Christ taught that for every idle word that men speak they shall give an account at the day of judgment. And we are taught, moreover, to swear not at all, neither by heaven, for it is Gods throne, nor by earth, for it is His footstool, neither by our heads, for we cannot make one hair black or white. The influence of this Levitical injunction would be to lead the people to make an oath
I. RARELY. There would be no need for oaths if they cultivated veracity, if their simple word was known to be their bond. To employ oaths frequently would be taking Gods name in vain, and incurring danger of frequently transgressing one of the great commandments. God was in their midst as their Law-giver and King; they must not use too frequently and familiarly His holy name in connection with their common, ordinary conversation and conduct.
II. DELIBERATELY. Even when circumstances seemed to require that they should call God to witness and confirm what they affirmed, the act was so solemn that they would need to do so with great caution and deliberateness, pondering what they were about to affirm or deny, and estimating the probability that they could promptly perform their purpose. An oath deliberately made would be impressed upon the memory; if not fulfilled, no excuse could be offered. The nature of an oath, of the pledge with which it is accompanied, should be thoroughly weighed before God is called upon to help and witness.
III. CONDITIONALLY. There may be some cases and instances where an unconditional oath may be safely pronounced; but it is more prudent to associate with it qualifying conditions. Such a course would not make the oath less binding for all reasonable intents, and ought to meet the requirements of any ordinary case. Our proneness to err, the impossibility of our meeting exorbitant demands, the probability of after-thought showing us that what we had engaged to do was impracticable or undesirable, ought to be taken into account. Conditions and circumstances may so change as to relieve us from promises which, at the time, we made in good faith. When wise men make oaths, they will make them cautiously.
1. Cultivate transparency and veracity of speech, so that our communications may require to be simply yea, and nay; for when more is required it indicates that we have become unreliable, so that our word cannot be trusted.
2. If pledges made between man and man are thus solemn and binding, and the breach of them so blameworthy, pledges to God in solemn sacrament must be more solemn and binding, and their non-fulfilment more culpable.F. W. B.
Topic: THE WAY OF PARDON (Lev. 5:6-13)
In the fifth verse it is enjoined that when any person shall be guilty of any of the trespasses specified, he shall confess that he had thus sinned; from which we at once see that confession was to immediately follow conviction, and the next stepas we learn from the succeeding versewould be contrition. The offender was to bring his trespass offering unto the Lord for his sin, and the priest would present it to the Lord as an atonement for the sin. The offering was to be one of the flock, or a fowl, or of flour. From this arrangement we learn that
I. THE WAY OF PARDON WAS MADE EASY. The circumstances of the transgressor were mercifuily considered. The gradation of the offerings from a bullock down to the tenth part of an ephah of fine flour showed that God would allow no difficulty to stand in the way of transgressors seeking expiation. For the various gradations of wrong-doing there was pardon on confession and contrition. The offerings could be easily obtained, and the priest and altar were close at hand, so that at any moment the needed confession and atonement could be made. In the Mosaic, as well as the Christian dispensation, the way of forgiveness is made easy.
II. THE WAY OF PARDON WAS MADE EXPLICIT. Full and clear directions are given, even to minute details, in the way the victim was to be slain, and its various parts disposed of, and each direction (meaningless and useless as some at first sight appeared) had some symbolical or typical import. In every instance assurance was given of forgiveness, if only the required conditions were complied with. The unsavouriness of the offeringfrom the absence of sweet oil and frankincensesuggests the loathsomeness of sin: that it is displeasing to God, ought to be offensive to man, and is to those truly humble and contrite.
(a) The mercy of God displayed in
(1) providing remedy to arrest the course of sin;
(2) providing remedy to arrest the consequences of sin. Mans ignorance of sin proves his utter inability to put it away of himself.
(b) The misery of sin discovered in that it
(1) produces separation from God and all real good;
(2) necessitates suffering and atonement before it can be forgiven. In the rites and ceremonies of the Levitical economy we get Gods provision for mans needa sacrifice appointed for mans sin; a priest to present the sacrifice for mans sin; and a place of worship where the sacrifice may be offered and accepted.F. W. B.
OUTLINES ON VERSES OF CHAPTER Lev. 5:1-13
Lev. 5:2.Theme: CONTRACTION OF DEFILEMENT. If a soul touch an unclean thing he also shall be unclean, and guilty.
Human depravity, inherentuniversalOut of the heart proceed evil thoughts, etc. Depravity may be deepened and developed by outward influences and circumstances. The body and mind may generate or acquire disease; so, with the soul. We are surrounded by a magnetic circle of influence which affects us, and through it we affect others for good or evil. Hence importance of guarding our sympathies, susceptibilities, senses, and every avenue and vehicle of our being. Touch not the unclean thing.
We learn the importance
I. OF ABSENCE FROM EVIL ASSOCIATIONS. Enter not into the path of the wicked, and walk not in the way of evil men. [See Psalms 1]
II. OF ABSTINENCE FROM APPEARANCE OF EVIL. Beware of every infections infectious thing. Taste not, touch not, handle not.
Christ could mix with sinners, could touch lepers and the dead without defilement, because there was nothing in Him to respond to, or to be laid hold on, by temptation or corruption. As the needle leaps to the loadstone, so our hearts leap to meet temptation by the law of attractive affinities. For every stain of defilement we contract, even though as deep as crimson or scarlet, there is a remedy: The blood of Jesus Christ cleanses from all sin, and can make our souls as white as snow.F. W. B.
Lev. 5:7.Theme: WHAT GOD EXPECTS OF US. If he be not able to bring a lamb, then he shall bring for his trespass two turtle doves, or two young pigeons, unto the Lord.
There is nothing exacting or exorbitant in the claims of God upon His creatures. He expects of us only what we can render according to talents, circumstances, opportunity, claims. He regards our purposes, and accepts them as acts performed when performance is impossible, e.g., He said of Davids purpose to erect the Temple, It was well that it was in thine heart. Christ commended the act of the woman in the gospels because she had done what she could.
If God expects of us only what we can render
I. THEN NONE ARE EXEMPT FROM HIS SERVICE. Doves and pigeons were accepted where lambs could not be furnished. The widows two mites were as acceptable as the box of precious ointment and Solomons Temple.
II. THEN HIS SERVICE IS PERFECT FREEDOM. The offerer had to judge and choose what he would offer. God expects voluntary cheerful gifts, not simply from a sense of duty but from impulses of a generous love. If we give ourselves to the Lord, all we have will be laid upon the altar that sanctifies both the giver and the gift.F. W. B.
Lev. 5:8.Theme: MEDIATION. He shall bring them unto the priest, who shall offer, etc.
The sin offering taught that guilt separated between the sinner and his Sovereign Lord:Priest came between to connect, and be medium of communication. Such an arrangement would (a) inspire courage, and (b) impart comfort to the offerer.
The offerer brought his offering to the priest, yet
I. THE VALUE OF THE OBLATION WAS NOT ENHANCED BY ANY MERIT OF THE PRIEST. But the infinite dignity of our High Priest gave infinite dignity to His sacrifice.
II. THE PRIEST OFFERED SACRIFICE PROVIDED BY ANOTHER: our High Priest offered Himself, once for all.
In the hands of the priest the sinners sacrifice was acceptable: through Christ our offerings are well-pleasing to God. The only thing that God hates, and that can separate between Jehovah and His creatures is sin. Its removal restores harmony, holiness, happiness in man, and the universeF.W.B.
Lev. 5:10.Theme: DIVINE FORGIVENESS. The priest shall make atonement for him for his sin which he hath sinned, and it shall be forgiven him.
Nature is unable to show how sin may be forgiven. By an inevitable and almost universal law reaping follows sowing, both in quality and quantity. Retribution follows wrong-doing. Nature is stern, unrelenting; only in revealed religion can we learn how God can be just and yet forgive the sinner. The Bible alone teaches that there is forgiveness with God that He may be feared. The offerer was assured that if he presented the prescribed oblation, his sin would be forgiven him. This arrangement teaches.
I. THAT SATISFACTION MUST BE OFFERED BY THE SINNER HIMSELF, OR BY HIS ACCREDITED SUBSTITUTE. Pardon costs something both to God and man.
II. THAT THE SINNER MUST BE SINCERELY SORRY FOR HIS SINS. The offerings were to be presented in a manner which would denote reverence and repentance. Only forsaken sin is forgiven.
III. THAT IN THE FORGIVENESS OF SIN THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD IS VINDICATED. The demands of His justice were metHis broken law honouredatonement sufficient and satisfactory made.
In the Gospels all these points are exemplified and enforced.F. W. B.
SECTIONAL HOMILIES
Topic: TRESPASSES, DONE IGNORANTLY, AGAINST THE LORD (Lev. 5:14-19)
Scarcely is it possible to accredit absolute ignorance to trespassers in these holy things of the Lord: for Gods declarations respecting. His rights were neither unintelligible nor obscure. They ought to have been known thoroughly, they must have been known to some degree. The ignorance was, therefore, in some sense wilful; certainly it was conscious, and was even preferred to knowledge.
Still, it is noteworthy that ignorance is predicated of these trespassers against the Lord, whereas there is no allowance of ignorance in the trespasses done against men. [Compare chap. 6] This marks a melancholy fact in the conduct of wrong-doers. We defraud God of His due carelessly and without giving it a thought; whereas we are too cautious to trespass against a neighbour without knowing it. For the fear of man is more operative over us than the fear of God.
I. FRAUDULENT CONDUCT AGAINST THE LORD.
1. Israels history for ages illustrates the ready ease with which men could rob God (Mal. 3:8-10). Commanded to appear repeatedly every year before the Lord and celebrate His feasts, yet era upon era passed without their keeping those sacred feasts at alluntil, in the times of Ezra and Nehemiah, they read the Scriptures (long closed and neglected) and discovered their omissions to have been so numerous, so grievous, so long continued, that the people all lifted up their voices and wept.
Fifty years later, again Israel is described as habitually defrauding God of His due, and even justifying themselves in their robbery, asking with effrontery, Wherein have we robbed Thee? (Mal. 3:8).
Such warning incidents Should have aroused the Church of Christ to greater watchfulness in later days. Yet
2. The present conduct of Christians repeats the trespass of the ancient Church. Is there not a defrauding of the holy things of the Lord still rampant? Consider
(a) Doctrines suppressed and truths silenced which ought to be sounded out clearly.
(b) Worship rendered perfunctorily, and void of spirit and truth; the form of godliness without the power thereof.
(c) Open allegiance to Christ withheld; a careless and compromising profession supplanting whole consecration.
(d) The selfish retention of our gains and possessions, spending so freely upon ourselves that we have little or nothing to give God.
II. RESTITUTION DEMANDED AS THE CONDITION OF PARDON.
Unlike the sin offering, the trespass offering must not be presented until reparation had been made.
1. Satisfaction was to precede sacrifice. Man is a debtor, having withheld dues from the Lord. Those dues were not to be set aside by substituting contrition or expiatory offerings. It were easy to trespass if all could be righted by penitential confessions. But God says, Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice. He shall make amends: such is Jehovahs fiat (Lev. 5:16).
2. In Christs obedient life satisfaction did precede sacrifice. Man had nothing to pay; but Jesus paid the debt. In His own career He fulfilled all righteousness on mans behalf. Then, having perfectly satisfied the Divine requirements in His life, He bore mans merited punishment for long disobedience.
3. Divine forgiveness differs essentially from connivance at mans sin. God can pardon all manner of trespasses, but can gloss over not one jot or tittle of iniquity. His grace is perfect, and therefore He can forgive all: His holiness is perfect, and therefore he cannot pass over anything. He cannot sanction iniquity, but He can blot it out.C. H. M.
4. Restitution by obedience is a law which still incites believers to a diligent piety. Not by the merit of their acts to justify themselves with God, but to make such amends as a soul reclaimed from disloyalty naturally desires to make to its gracious Lord and King. The love of Christ constrains us; and by every act of sacrifice and service we aim to set right all wrong we have done, to counteract the follies of past years, to benefit those whom we may have harmed, to redeem the time by diligent use of opportunities remaining, and henceforth to live not unto ourselves, but unto Him who loved us and gave Himself for us. By such earnest efforts to do good as he has opportunity does the Christian seal his salvation, and enjoy the Well done of his Lord. [See Addenda, p. 71, Reparation.]
Topic: AMENDS MADE BY CHRIST FOR MANS FAULTS (Lev. 5:15-16)
Think of all the wrong and all the trespass which have been done against the Lord.
I. GOD HAS BEEN WRONGED OF HIS RIGHTS IN THIS WICKED WORLD.
1. What are the just rights of Jehovah in His creature, man?
2. What are mans returns to Jehovah in actual obedience and righteousness?
3. What amazing outrage and transgression have defrauded God of His due!
4. What shortcomings and blemishes have marred even the best lives of His redeemed people!
II. GOD HAS GAINED MORE BY CHRISTS REDEMPTION THAN HE LOST BY MANS FALL.
The trespass offerer adds a surplus! But who can weigh the surplus Christ brings?
1. Jehovah reaps a richer harvest of glory, honour and praise in the fields of redemption than ever. He could have reaped in those of creation.
2. The sons of God would raise a loftier song of praise around the empty tomb of Jesus than ever they raised in view of the Creators accomplished work.
3. The wrong has not only been perfectly atoned for, but an eternal advantage has been gained by the work of the Cross. God is gainer by the work of Calvary.
III. ALL HONOUR TO JESUS, IN WHOSE CROSS SUCH VAST AMENDS WERE MADE.
1. No wonder that around the Crucified One the affections of patriarchs, prophets, apostles, martyrs, and saints have ever entwined themselves.
2. No marvel that the Holy Ghost should have given forth that solemn but just decree, If any man love not our Lord Jesus Christ, let him be anathema, maranatha (1Co. 16:22). Heaven and earth shall echo forth a loud and eternal amen to this anathema.
3. No marvel that it should be the fixed and immutable purpose of the Divine mind that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow of things in heaven and things on earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father (Php. 2:10-11). [Compare Notes on Leviticus, by C. H. M.]
Topic: TRESPASSERS AND THE TRESPASS PENALTY (Lev. 5:15-16)
(a) Sin has many forms: breaks out into trespasses.
(b) The trespass offerings are manifold: meet with penalty and satisfaction all wrongs done.
I. THE DUES OF HEAVEN ARE WITHHELD: Gods will is transgressed, His law infringed.
1. Creations law makes man Gods sole possession. No faculty of mind or frame, no power of intellect or thought, no talent of influence or time, no opportunity, no gift, no grace, is property of our own. All, then, should serve the cause of one Sovereign Lord. Reason should plan, and eyes should see, and hands should work, and feet should run, to do Him honour and augment His praise. Our every energy should fly abroad with morning light to gather fruits of glory for His name. Each night should prove that faith and love have laboured to advance His Kingdom upon earth.
2. Instead of this, self mounts the great Creators throne. We rise, enter on the day, journey on, as if self-seeking were legitimate employ. Whether we rest or toil it is unto ourselves. Is not this trespass? It robs our God; wastes His dues. It brands us as purloining from a Fathers and a Benefactors store.
3. Judgment must follow upon such trespasses. The fire must consume. Life must be laid on the altar. Blood must flow. Trespass brings death. No soul can sin and escape wrath.
II. MAN CAN MAKE NO TRUE AMENDS.
1. Devotedness cannot repay the debt. That is a vast conceit. If not one thought of any moment ever swerved from a pure effort for the Lord, it would but be that moments due.
2. Surplus of merit there is none. That is a papists dream. Our best acts are only increase of our debt. Hence all our works make bankruptcy more deep. When Justice calls to the white throne, the fairest reckoning is one huge debt. Who, then, can stay arrest?
III. THE TRESPASS OFFERING PRESENTS RELIEF.
1. Jesus is satisfaction to the full. Hence death for sin is not the whole of His grand work. That decks us with no merit; it fills no hand with fruits of righteousness. He pays then a whole lifes homage to the law. He gives compliance to its largest rule. It asked for one undeviating course of love. Jesus was love without one straying step.
2. This pure fulfilment is for those who are Christs. For such Christ wrought it; to their account he puts it. Unsullied righteousness by Him avails for believers.
Such is the Gospel which pervades this rite. It declares in emphatic terms that
(1) Trespass stains your life, your heart, soul, and mind, every day, every hour.
(2) It warns that trespass strengthens Satans claims, places a vast barrier between you and God.
(3) Shows a full recovery. Christs cross and life are both pictured. You see Him dying to pay the trespass penalty: you see His righteousness supplying trespass wrongs.Homiletically arranged from the Dean of Gloucesters Christ is all.
Topic: SACRILEGE (Lev. 5:14-19)
The former offerings may be regarded as both sin and trespass offerings; these in the closing verses of this fifth chapter, and in the opening seven verses of the sixth, are particularly and exclusively trespass offerings. Wrong has been done to God and man; and for that trespass contrition must be shown, an offering made, and restitution given. The trespass here indicated is sacrilegemistake and misappropriation in the use of sacred things: a culpable trespass, whether done wittingly or unwittingly. From this rite we are taught
I. THE JEALOUSY OF JEHOVAH FOR THE HONOUR OF HIS WORSHIP IN THE TABERNACLE.
By the Levitical ritual the people were taught that worship was only rendered acceptable when associated with Divinely prescribed sacrifices. There would be danger of the people becoming formal in their worship; that they would fall short of the full requirements of the ritual. The holy things here spoken of were the tithes, first-fruits, gifts, etc., demanded of the Lord. Such things were His before they were devoted as sacrifices, but they were doubly His when He claimed them as offerings unto Himself in connection with the worship of the tabernacle. To withhold would be to rob and wrong God; the honour of His worship would be insulted, His law outraged. Whether the sacrilege was committed knowingly or unknowingly it mattered not: the worship was marred, and for the trespass an offering must be presented. The trespasser was to bring a ram without blemish out of his flocks, and the priest was to make an atonement for him. Restitution was to accompany his contrition. He must make amends for the wrong he had done in the holy thing; and then his trespass was to be forgiven him.
Worship is a privilege we are permitted to enjoy, a duty we are bound to discharge. When we draw near to God to pay our vows and commune with Him in prayer and praise, we draw near to give to Him the glory that is due to His name. Under the gospel dispensation we have not to erect a material altar and present offerings such as the Israelites did under the law. No definitely prescribed portion of our substance is required of us, as was required under the old economy, but we are expected to give unto the Lord of our means in proportion as He hath prospered us. Yet, however liberal we may be, and conscientious in discharging our trust as stewards of the Kingdom, we constantly fall short of our duty as indicated in the gospel; we trespass, wittingly and unwittingly, and need constantly to seek, in confession and contrition, the pardon of our religious defalcations, and to make, in so far as we are able, some restitution to God, some humble amends, by bringing forth fruits meet for repentance.
II. THE INFLUENCE THIS JEALOUSY WAS CALCULATED TO EXERT UPON THE WORSHIPPERS IN THE TABERNACLE.
Such scrupulous concern on the part of Jehovah about the sanctity of His service would teach the people to cultivate
(1) Sensitiveness of feeling. It would be evident that indifference or carelessness would render the worshipper liable to a breach of trust, to make mistake or misapply the things devoted to the Lord.
(2) Tenderness of conscience. It would be easy for conscience to become perverted and hardened in the midst of so many privileges and in the abundance of blessings.
(3) Scrupulousness of conduct. The worshipper would find that merely good intentions would not suffice; contrition and confession would not be enough: there was to be implicit and complete obediencenothing wanting of all that the Lord commanded. None of the sacrifice kept back, none of the holy things be employed or used for their own gain. If they did, even though they wist it not, they were guilty, and should bear their iniquity.
Watch that we trespass not against God as Achan did, and as Ananias and Sapphira did in the early Christian Church. Beware of trespassing through contempt, carelessness, or presumption. Aim to be suspiciously, as well as scrupulously, sensitive of doing wrong. Pray for pardon of inadvertent and unknown sins. God does not pass over, but forgives trespasses for the sake of our great Trespass Offering. This is the gospel order of blessing to the penitent: repentance, reformation, restitution, then reconciliation to Gods favour, and restoration to His family, here and hereafter.F. W. B.
OUTLINES ON VERSES, CHAPTER Lev. 5:14-19
Lev. 5:16.Theme: REPARATION. And he shall make amends for the harm that he hath done in the holy thing, etc.
In forgiving sins God does not teach that transgression of His law is a trivial matter; for, atonement not only expiates but makes amends. Amends must be made, for
I. SIN IS A WRONG DONE TO GOD.
II. SIN IS A WRONG DONE TO MAN.
Amends must be made by
(1) Appropriate contrition.
(2) Personal sacrifice.
(3) Unreserved consecration:evincing itself in a holy, useful, Christly life..F. W. B. [See Addenda, p. 71, Reparation.]
Lev. 5:17.Theme: ERROR, THOUGH INADVERTENT, IS GUILTY. If a soul sin, and commit things forbidden, though he wist it not, yet is he guilty, and shall bear his iniquity.
God required a trespass offering for the smallest error in relation to any of His ordinances, however unwittingly that error was committed.
Yet so multitudinous were the rights of the ceremonial law, that its requirements wore heavily and anxiously upon the lives and consciences of Gods people. Righteousness by the law, therefore, became a weary a fruitless hope.
By this very weariness and failure, Israel was led to crave and look for release from this yoke, which was promised when Messiah brought in the better covenant.
The gospel age promised release from the oppression of a ritual righteousness, and freedom for a more spiritual service.
I. A SOPHISTRY NEEDING CORRECTION.
This: that invention constitutes the quality of an action; whether conduct is criminal or not. But this declaration of guilt, though in the action he wist it not, testifies against a sweeping and all-inclusive application of that principle, viz., that intention qualifies action.
1. Ignorance may and does extenuate the guilt of an action. Knowledge deepens guilt (Joh. 9:41; Joh. 15:22). Ignorance alleviates it (Luk. 23:34; Act. 3:17; 1Ti. 1:13).
2. Yet ignorance cannot excuse guilt.
A man is not excused for breaking the laws of the land because he was ignorant of them. Nor is a servants ignorance of his masters will, when he might and ought to have known it, a sufficient plea.
Nor is he innocent who trespasses, through error, against any ordinance of the Lord. And, if so in respect of ceremonial observances, much more so in relation to moral duties. Hence the curse stands against every one that continueth not in all things written in the book of the law to do them (Gal. 3:10).
3. God Himself refuses to condone such ignorance. His Word declares that men perish for lack of knowledge (Hos. 4:6); and that though a people be of no understanding, He will not have mercy on them, and will show them no favour (Isa. 27:11). [Comp. Simeons Sermons].
II. MANS UNCOMPUTED GUILT.
1. Reckon up our remembered sins. They are more in number than the hairs of our head.
2. Add the sins realised at the time but now forgotten. Memory lets slip multitudinous trespasses.
3. Yet what can represent the number of our unrecognised sins, done in ignorance, done in error?
4. Deviations and defects also, which Gods eye alone detected, and which we too self-indulgently condoned.
Eliphaz charges the inquiry on Job, and on us, Is not thy wickedness great, and thine iniquities infinite? (Job. 22:5).
Gods Word declares, There is not a just man upon earth that doeth good and sinneth not (Ecc. 7:20), that in many things we all offend (Jas. 3:2; Pro. 24:16).
In estimating our guiltiness we fail: Who can understand his errors? (Psa. 19:12).
To extenuate guilt by saying It is an error (Ecc. 5:6), is to add to sin: rather let us humble ourselves in shame before God.
III. VAST VIRTUE NEEDED IN ATONEMENT.
1. Under the ceremonial arrangements for expiation, how manifold and minute and numerous were the regulations and provisions necessary to make atonement for sin! Without shedding of blood there was no remission. And to that were added costly offerings and exacting observances.
2. When all sin had to be expiated by Christs one offering, what value it must needs possess! Yet by one offering the Saviour purged our sins.
(a) It summons us to faith. Look unto Me and be ye saved. Behold the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world.
(b) It incites us to grateful adoration. Unto Him that loved us and washed us from our sin in His own blood, etc. (Rev. 1:5-6).
(c) It assures us of perfect redemption. There remaineth no more offering for sin, for the blood of Jesus Christ, Gods Son, cleanseth us from all sin (1Jn. 1:7). [See Addenda, p. 71, Redemption).
ILLUSTRATIVE ADDENDA TO CHAPTER 5
TAKING OATHS
The judicial oaths taken in courts of justice are administered variously: The usual practice in England and Ireland is, for the witness, after hearing the oath repeated by the officer of the court, to kiss the four gospels by way of assent: and in Scotland, the witness repeats similar words after the judge, standing and holding up his right hand, swearing by Almighty God, as he shall answer to God at the great day of judgment, but without kissing the book. Jews are sworn on the Pentateuch, keeping on their hats, and the oath ends with the words, So help you, Jehovah. A Mohammedan is sworn on the Koran. A Chinese witness has been sworn by kneeling and breaking a china saucer against the witness-box. Thus, the mere form of taking the oath is immaterial; the witness is allowed to take it in whatever form he considers most binding upon his own consciencethe essential thing being, however, that the witness acknowledge some binding effect derived from his belief in a God and a future state. The objections of Quakers, Moravians, and Separatists to taking an oath have long been respected as not being fundamentally at variance with a due sense of religious feeling, and hence they have been allowed to make an affirmation instead of taking the oath. In 1854 another concession was made to those who, not being Quakers, yet refuse to take the oath for sincere conscientious motives; and these are now also allowed to affirm instead of to swear. But the law remains as before, that atheists and persons who admit that they have no religious belief whatever, are excluded from giving evidence in courts of justice.Chambers Ency.
UNLAWFUL OATHS generally mean oaths taken by members of secret and illegal societies of a treasonable description: and statutes long ago were passed to inflict penalties on all who took or administered such oaths.Ibid.
PROFANE OATHS.Louis the French king was taken prisoner by Meletisaka the Sultan and conditions of peace being concluded between them, for more assurance thereof the Sultan offered to swear, if he failed in performance of anything, to renounce his Mohammed, requiring likewise of the king to swear, if he failed in anything he had promised, to deny his Christ to be God: which profane oath the king detesting, and wishing rather to die than to give the same, the Sultan, wondering at his constancy, took his word without an oath at all, and so published the league.
As, on the other side, King John of England, being overlaid in his barons wars, when he sent ambassadors to the monarch of Morocco for aid, offered to swear fealty to him and to receive the law of Mohammed; and thereby the monarch grew into such dislike of the king that ever after he abhorred the mention of him.Trapp.
It is a great sin to swear unto a sin;
But greater sin to keep a sinful oath.
Henry VI., II. Lev. 5:1.
SINCERE OATHS
His words are bonds, his oaths are oracles;
His love sincere, his thoughts immaculate;
His heart as far from fraud as heaven from earth.Two Gentlemen of Verona, II. 7.
An oath, an oath, I have an oath in heaven:
Shall I lay perjury upon my soul?
No, not for Venice.
Merchant of Venice, IV. 1.
Tis not the many oaths that make the truth:
But the plain single vow, that is vowd true.
Alls well that ends well, IV. 2.
Unheedful vows may heedfully be broken.
Shakespeare.
INDIFFERENCE.Idle swimmers who go floating carelessly down the stream, reckless of the nearing peril until they get beyond reach of the bank.
I asked a young man, Are you in anxiety about yourself and your salvation? He replied, I have little concern or feeling on the subject.
Are you not trying to do what God commands you as well as you are able, and with such light as you have?
Oh no; it would seem absurd for one who feels so little as I do to attempt any religious duty!
Yet, you admit that God does require of you repentance, and faith, and worship, and a holy life; do you not?
Yes, I admit all this, but do not feel interested, or troubled, or concerned, respecting it.
What would you advise a customer to do who had contracted a debt with you, who admits his debt, and that he ought to pay it, but says he knows it all, yet is so void of interest or feeling about it?
In an instant he replied, I would advise him to pay it, not waiting for feeling.
REDEMPTION
Heavenly powers where shall we find such love?
Which of ye will be mortal to redeem
Mans mortal crime; and just th unjust to save?
Paradise Lost, III. 213.
The Cross,
There, and there only (tho the deist rave,
And atheist, if earth bears so base a slave),
There, and there only, is the power to save.
COWPER, Progress of Error, 613.
Why, all the souls that were, were forfeit once;
And he that might the vantage best have took
Found out the remedy.
Measure for Measure, II. 2.
REPARATION
Restore to God His due, in tithe and time;
A tithe purloined cankers the whole estate.
G. HERBERT, The Temple
God is much displeased
That you take with unthankfulness His doing:
In common worldly things tis called ungrateful,
With dull unwillingness to repay a debt
Which with a bounteous hand was kindly lent;
Much more to be thus opposite with heaven:
For it requires the royal debt it lent you.
Richard III., II. 2.
Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell
TEXT 5:113
1
And if any one sin, in that he heareth the voice of adjuration, he being a witness, whether he hath seen or known, if he do not utter it, then he shall bear his iniquity.
2
Or if any one touch any unclean thing, whether it be the carcass of an unclean beast, or the carcass of unclean cattle, or the carcass of unclean creeping things, and it be hidden from him, and he be unclean, then he shall be guilty.
3
Or if he touch the uncleanness of man, whatsoever his uncleanness be wherewith he is unclean, and it be hid from him; when he knoweth of it, then he shall be guilty.
4
Or if any one swear rashly with his lips to do evil, or to do good, whatsoever it be that a man shall utter rashly with an oath, and it be hid from him; when he knoweth of it, then he shall be guilty in one of these things.
5
And it shall be, when he shall be guilty in one of these things, that he shall confess that wherein he hath sinned:
6
and he shall bring his trespass-offering unto Jehovah for his sin which he hath sinned, a female from the flock, a lamb or a goat, for a sin-offering; and the priest shall make atonement for him as concerning his sin.
7
And if his means suffice not for a lamb, then he shall bring his trespass-offering for that wherein he hath sinned, two turtle-doves, or two young pigeons, unto Jehovah; one for a sin-offering, and the other for a burnt-offering.
8
And he shall bring them unto the priest, who shall offer that which is for the sin-offering first, and wring off its head from its neck, but shall not divide it asunder:
9
and he shall sprinkle of the blood of the sin-offering upon the side of the altar; and the rest of the blood shall be drained out at the base of the altar: it is a sin-offering.
10
And he shall offer the second for a burnt-offering, according to the ordinance; and the priest shall make atonement for him as concerning his sin which he hath sinned, and he shall be forgiven.
11
But if his means suffice not for two turtle-doves, or two young pigeons, then he shall bring his oblation for that wherein he hath sinned, the tenth part of an ephah of fine flour for a sin-offering: he shall put no oil upon it, neither shall he put any frankincense thereon; for it is a sin-offering.
12
And he shall bring it to the priest, and the priest shall take his handful of it as the memorial thereof, and burn it on the altar, upon the offerings of Jehovah made by fire: it is a sin-offering.
13.
And the priest shall make atonement for him as touching his sin that he hath sinned in any of these things, and he shall be forgiven: and the remnant shall be the priests, as the meal-offering.
THOUGHT QUESTIONS 5:113
81.
There are some very practical instructions in these verses. Not only in a court of law does verse one relate to us, but in areas of personal relationships. Is it a sin not to inform on someone else? Discuss.
82.
What is it that makes an animal unclean? Are all animals and reptiles unclean under certain conditions?
83.
How would someone know of his guilt if he was unaware that he had sinned?
84.
What is meant by the uncleanness of man? How would he find out about his sin?
85.
There is a strong word in Lev. 5:4. It literally means, If a person swear, blabbing with his lipsrashly uttering a vow. How does this relate to speech today?
86.
To whom and where is the offender to confess his sin?
87.
Why havent we heard of confession of sin in previous sin offerings?
88. Is this instruction for a trespass offering or a sin offering?
89. Is it true that for the less glaring sins a female animal is used? Why?
90.
How is it that we have here two turtle-doves and two pigeons when in Lev. 1:15 only one bird was brought?
91.
Read Lev. 1:14-15 and notice the difference to Lev. 5:8-9. What is the possible significance?
92.
Is the atonement and forgiveness just as full and complete in the offering of the dove as with the bullock? Discuss.
93.
How like the compassion for the poor is the regulation here given. Please notice that the handful of flour was for a sin-offering but not for a burnt-offering. Why?
94.
Why no oil or frankincense?
95.
Why does the priest take a certain portion of such a small offering? What happens to the portion the priest does not take? Why?
PARAPHRASE 5:113
Anyone refusing to give testimony concerning what he knows about a crime is guilty. Anyone touching anything ceremonially uncleansuch as the dead body of an animal forbidden for food, wild or domesticated, or the dead body of some forbidden insectis guilty, even though he wasnt aware of touching it. Or if he touches human discharge of any kind, he becomes guilty as soon as he realizes that he has touched it. If anyone makes a rash vow, whether the vow is good or bad, when he realizes what a foolish vow he has taken, he is guilty. In any of these cases, he shall confess his sin and bring his guilt offering to the Lord, a female lamb or goat, and the priest shall make atonement for him, and he shall be freed from his sin, and need not fulfill the vow. If he is too poor to bring a lamb to the Lord, then he shall bring two turtle doves or two young pigeons as his guilt offering; one of the birds shall be his sin offering and the other his burnt offering. The priest shall offer as the sin sacrifice whichever bird is handed to him first, wringing its neck, but not severing its head from its body. Then he shall sprinkle some of the blood at the side of the altar and the rest shall be drained out at the base of the altar; this is the sin offering. He shall offer the second bird as a burnt offering, following the customary procedures that have been set forth; so the priest shall make atonement for him concerning his sin and he shall be forgiven. If he is too poor to bring turtle doves or young pigeons as his sin offering, then he shall bring a tenth of a bushel of fine flour. He must not mix it with olive oil or put any incense on it, because it is a sin offering. He shall bring it to the priest and the priest shall take out a handful as a representative portion, and burn it on the altar just as any other offering to Jehovah made by fire; this shall be his sin offering. In this way the priest shall make atonement for him for any sin of this kind, and he shall be forgiven. The rest of the flour shall belong to the priest, just as was the case with the grain offering.
THE SIN OFFERING
Special ApplicationThree Specific Sins 5:113
Specific Sin Offerings For Specific Sins
Purpose: Unintentional Specific SinsAtonement
THE GARMENTS OF THE LEVITES
1.
Coat
2.
Drawers
3.
Band
(All white fine linen)
COMMENT 5:113
Lev. 5:1 Someone has called the sins described in these verses as the sins of inadvertencyi.e. when we sinned and hardly knew we did itunintentional. We are reminded of Gal. 6:3 : Brethren, if a man be overtakeni.e. he has hurried into it ere he is well aware, or before he could escapeye which are spiritual, restore such a one in the spirit of meekness. The first circumstance takes us into the court of law: If we hear the judge administer an oath to us and we fail to tell what we know (for whatever cause) we are in our withholding information, sinning! We have several examples of persons who were put under oath and were bound before God to speak or not to speak, to hold or withhold by the power of the oath. We think of Saul in 1Sa. 14:24 as he adjured the people under oath not to eat; of 1Ki. 8:31 and Jdg. 17:2 where an oath is used and persons are bound to speak. The outstanding example is our Lord in the court of Caiaphas. The high priest was exasperated at the strange silence of Jesus. He said, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God (Mat. 26:63). And then it was the Lamb of God no longer kept Himself dumb; but, bowing to the solemn authority of this adjuration, showed the same meekness in replying as before He had done in keeping silence. (Bonar)
We would assume from the circumstances of this verse that the witness in court has omitted information, or has misstated, through negligence of one form or another, and has thus failed to tell the whole truth.
Lev. 5:2 When others observe our sins of omission and we are reminded of it we must bring a sin offering for atonement. In this verse the touching of dead bodies is under consideration. The bodies of the animals used in work are first, next the cattle of the field, then the animals and rodents of the forest, finally the reptiles. Or we could say that such classification was from the greatest to the smallest.
How can such regulations have a relationship to our lives? The principle of abhorrence from anything that would defile is viable for all time. We pray with David, Cleanse thou me from hidden faults (Psa. 19:12). It is not merely when we act contrary to the dictates of conscience that we sin; we may often be sinning when conscience never upbraids us. We all remember that the largest part of our lives before conversion were spent in this type of sin. How glad we are for our sin offering that atones for this large area of need!
Lev. 5:3 The uncleanness of man may be in many formsleprosy being one of the most obvious, an issue of blood, or the period after the birth of a child, are all considered unclean and in need of a sin offering for cleansing. Once again we are to consider such knowledge unknown by us but made known to us by someone else, i.e. we have touched such a person and did not remember it or know it. A friend told us about it. Perhaps we intentionally did not want to know about it. Heb. 3:13 has a word just here: Exhort one another daily, while it is called today, lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin. We do touch mentally and emotionally many things that defile. We think of pornographic literature, atheistic philosophy, humanistic attitudes towards problems of the day. We need to hear our friends who seek and speak to help us. We must claim with them Gods sin offering in the death of our Lord for us.
Lev. 5:4 How glib we sometimes are with our promises to God! It is no light thing to promise God we will or will not do this or that. This almost amounts to taking the name of God in vain. We treat lightly the name, and thus the Person of God, in a flip and casual, if not impulsive manner. We immediately think of the judge Jephthah as a sad example of this practice. We must approach the Holy and Righteous God in reverence and awe! Has it come to our attention that we made a promise to Him that yet remains unfulfilled? Either do it or claim Gods forgivenessbut most of all learn to change your attitude.
Lev. 5:5-6 We have now listed several areas where unconscious sin could be committed: (1) swearing, (2) dead bodies, (3) rash vows. In each of these as the sin offering is brought to the priest a confession of sin is made before God. The act of bringing the offering is a form of confessionbut it is not enough. The personal identification of the offering with the offerer must be made. This is my sacrifice for my sin. How important it is that we see Jesus not only as the Saviour but my Saviour from my sins.
Verse six refers to this offering as a trespass offering. Andrew Bonar has a splendid comment on this expression; Some suppose that there were on this occasion, first the trespass-offering, and then a sin-offering. But not so: it ought to be rendered, He shall bring his offering; the word translated trespass-offering being used not as a specific term, but as a general term for any offering on account of sin, and it is thus that it is used by Isa. 53:10When thou shalt make His soul an offering for sin. (Ibid.)
Please notice the offering is a young female, either a goat or a lamb. This would seem to say that the kind is not nearly as important as the death of the victimthe blood must be shed that atonement might be made.
Lev. 5:7 We begin in this verse the wonderful provisions of God to meet the needs of every man in his particular circumstance. If there is no lamb or goat, two turtle-doves, or two pigeons will suffice. Why two? One was a burnt offering so as to give the poor worshipper assurance that his sin offering would be acceptable.
Lev. 5:8-9 There is something poignant about wringing the neck of the dove or pigeon. When death comes the head of the bird will hang limp upon its plumage. The blood will stain its beautiful feathers. How like another one who bowed His head upon His chest and cried, It is finished! His head was bleeding with the crown of thorns, the blood dropped upon His bosom as the sting of death enter His holy body. Would it be pressing the figure too far to say that as the head of the dove must not be severed from the body, even in death, so the great head of the church went even into the grave for us, i.e. we were in Him and He was joined to us?
There is some distinction in the use of the pigeons or doves here and that mentioned in Lev. 1:15. It would seem that here the use of blood has a large meaning in the purpose of the sacrifice. The fire in chapter one and the blood in chapter five.
Lev. 5:10 The poor saint has full and ample testimony given to the completeness of his offering. The one great oceanChrist once sufferedone sacrifice (Heb. 10:12). He makes the bullock appear as insignificant as the turtle-dove. The waves of the sea cover every shallow pool. (Bonar)
Lev. 5:11 Oh, the depth of His concern for all men! Even for those who have no lamb or no goator, not even a dove or pigeon. There is yet as much hope for them as the rich man with his fine young bull. A handful of flour will be accepted. It is important that we see the flour as a substitute given in anticipation of the day of atonement when this poor offering will be completed in the sacrifice by the high priest. It is so interesting to notice the hidden parallels in the text: an omer or the tenth part of an ephah was just the quantity of manna necessary for the days food. The poor man could appreciate his offering more than any other person: he could bring his daily food to the altar and as he fasted during the day he would have a constant recollection of the meaning and importance of what he had given.
Lev. 5:12-13 There is no frankincense for a sweet savor or oil of consecration upon this fine flour. As small as it is the priest is to take a portion out for himself to eat as food. The rest is to be burned upon the altar of burnt offering. In this act atonement and forgiveness are assured to the worshipper. The act of eating by the priest indicates Gods acceptance of the offering.
FACT QUESTIONS 5:113
110.
What are sins of inadvertency?
111.
Give examples of persons who obeyed the law as related to the taking of an oath.
112.
Does this text uphold informers? Discuss.
113.
When were the bodies of animals considered unclean? Why? All animals?
114.
How can such regulations have any bearing on our lives today?
115.
What is meant by the uncleanness of man in Lev. 5:3?
116.
We do mentally and emotionally touch the uncleanhow does Heb. 3:13 relate here?
117.
There is a form of taking the name of God in vain we do not ordinarily considerwhat is it? What shall we do about it?
118.
In each case here cited a confession of sin must be made. Why? To whom?
119.
Verse six identifies this as a trespass offering. What is meant?
120.
We see the marvelous kindness and thoughtfulness of our Father in the kinds of sacrificeshow so?
121.
Why two turtle-doves or pigeons?
122.
There is a poignant lesson in the way the pigeon was killed. What is it?
123.
Note the distinction in the use of fowls in Lev. 1:15 and Lev. 5:8-9. Why so?
124.
How does the one sacrifice of our Lord relate to all the sacrifices in Leviticus?
125.
Lev. 5:11-13 shows the depth of concern God has for all menin what way?
126.
What possible hidden meaning is there in the measure of fine flour for the offering?
SPECIAL STUDY ON THE SPRINKLING OF BLOOD
By S.H. Kellogg
In the case of the burnt-offering and of the peace-offering, in which the idea of expiation, although not absent, yet occupied a secondary place in their ethical intent, it sufficed that the blood of the victim, by whomsoever brought, be applied to the sides of the altar. But in the sin-offering, the blood must not only be sprinkled on the sides of the altar of burnt-offering, but, even in the case of the common people, be applied to the horns of the altar, its most conspicuous and, in a sense, most sacred part. In the case of a sin committed by the whole congregation, even this is not enough; the blood must be brought even into the Holy Place, be applied to the horns of the altar of incense, and be sprinkled seven times before the Lord before the veil which hung immediately before the mercy seat in the Holy of Holies, the place of the Shekinah glory. And in the great sin-offering of the high priest once a year for the sins of all the people, yet more was required. The blood was to be taken even within the veil, and be sprinkled on the mercy seat itself over the tables of the broken law.
These several cases, according to the symbolism of these several parts of the tabernacle, differ in that atoning blood is brought ever more and more nearly into the immediate presence of God. The horns of the altar had a sacredness above the sides; the altar of the Holy Place before the veil, a sanctity beyond that of the altar in the outer court; while the Most Holy Place, where stood the ark, and the mercy-seat, was the very place of the most immediate and visible manifestation of Jehovah, who is often described in Holy Scripture, with reference to the ark, the mercy-seat, and the over-hanging cherubim, as the God who dwelleth between the cherubim.
From this we may easily understand the significance of the different prescriptions as to the blood in the case of different classes. A sin committed by any private individual or by a ruler, was that of one who had access only to the outer court, where stood the altar of burnt-offering; for this reason, it is there that the blood must be exhibited, and that on the most sacred and conspicuous spot in that court, the horns of the altar where God meets with the people. But when it was the anointed priest that had sinned, the case was different. In that he had a peculiar position of nearer access to God than others, as appointed of God to minister before Him in the Holy Place, his sin is regarded as having defiled the Holy Place itself; and in that Holy Place must Jehovah therefore see atoning blood ere the priests position before God can be re-established.
And the same principle required that also in the Holy Place must the blood be presented for the sin of the whole congregation. For Israel in its corporate unity was a kingdom of priests, a priestly nation; and the priest in the Holy Place represented the nation in that capacity. Thus because of this priestly office of the nation, their collective sin was regarded as defiling the Holy Place in which, through their representatives, the priests, they ideally ministered. Hence, as the law for the priests, so is the law for the nation. For their corporate sin the blood must be applied, as in the case of the priest who represented them, to the horns of the altar in the Holy Place, whence ascended the smoke of the incense which visibly symbolised accepted priestly intercession, and, more than this, before the veil itself; in other words, as near to the very mercy-seat itself as it was permitted to the priest to go; and it must be sprinkled there, not once, nor twice, but seven times, in token of the re-establishment, through the atoning blood, of Gods covenant of mercy, of which, throughout the Scripture, the number seven, the number of sabbatic rest and covenant fellowship with God, is the constant symbol.
And it is not far to seek for the spiritual thought which underlies this part of the ritual. For the tabernacle was represented as the earthly dwelling place, in a sense, of God; and just as the defiling of the house of my fellowman may be regarded as an insult to him who dwells in the house, so the sin of the priest and of the priestly people is regarded as, more than that of those outside of this relation, a special affront to the holy majesty of Jehovah, criminal just in proportion as the defilement approaches more nearly the innermost shrine of Jehovahs manifestation.
But though Israel is at present suspended from its priestly position and function among the nations of the earth, the Apostle Peter (1Pe. 2:5) reminds us that the body of Christian believers now occupies Israels ancient place, being now on earth the royal priesthood, the holy nation. Hence this ritual solemnly reminds us that the sin of a Christian is a far more evil thing than the sin of others; it is as the sin of the priest, and defiles the Holy Place, even though unwittingly committed; and thus, even more imperatively than other sin, demands the exhibition of the atoning blood of the Lamb of God, not now in the Holy Place, but more than that, in the true Holiest of all, where our High Priest is now entered. And thus, in every possible way, with this elaborate ceremonial of sprinkling of blood does the sin-offering emphasize to our own consciences, no less than for ancient Israel, the solemn fact affirmed in the Epistle to the Hebrews (Lev. 9:22), Without shedding of blood there is no remission of sin.
Because of this, we do well to meditate much and deeply on this symbolism of the sin-offering, which, more than any other in the law, has to do with the propitiation of our Lord for sin. Especially does this use of the blood, in which the significance of the sin-offering reached its supreme expression, claim our most reverent attention. For the thought is inseparable from the ritual, that blood of the slain victim must be presented, not before the priest, or before the offerer, but before Jehovah. Can anyone mistake the evident significance of this? Does it not luminously hold forth the thought that atonement by sacrifice has to do, not only with man, but with God?
There is cause enough in our day for insisting on this. Many are teaching that the need for the shedding of blood for the remission of sin, lies only in the nature of man; that, so far as concerns God, sin might as well have been pardoned without it; that it is only because man is so hard and rebellious, so stubbornly distrusts the Divine love, that the death of the Holy Victim of Calvary became a necessity. Nothing less than such a stupendous exhibition of the love of God could suffice to disarm his enmity to God and win him back to loving trust. Hence the need of the atonement. That all this is true, no one will deny; but it is only half the truth, and the less momentous half,which indeed is hinted in no offering, and in the sin-offering least of all. Such a conception of the matter as completely fails to account for this part of the symbolic ritual of the bloody sacrifices, as it fails to agree with other teachings of the Scriptures. If the only need for atonement in order to pardon is in the nature of the sinner, then why this constant insistence that the blood of the sacrifice should always be solemnly presented, not before the sinner, but before Jehovah? We see in this fact most unmistakably set forth, the very solemn truth that expiation by blood as a condition of forgiveness of sin is necessary, not merely because man is what he is, but most of all because God is what He is. Let us then not forget that the presentation unto God of an expiation for sin, accomplished by the death of an appointed substitutionary victim, was in Israel made an indispensable condition of the pardon of sin. Is this, as many urge, against the love of God? By no means! Least of all will it so appear, when we remember who appointed the great Sacrifice, and, above all, who came to fulfill this type. God does not love us because atonement has been made, but atonement has been made because the Father loved us, and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins.
God is none the less just, that He is love; and none the less holy, that He is merciful: and in His nature as the Most Just and Holy One, lies this necessity of the shedding of blood in order to the forgiveness of sin, which is impressively symbolized in the unvarying ordinance of the Levitical law, that as a condition of the remission of sin, the blood of the sacrifice must be presented, not before the sinner, but before Jehovah. To this generation of ours, with its so exalted notions of the greatness and dignity of man, and its correspondingly low conceptions of the ineffable greatness and majesty of the Most Holy God, this altar truth may be most distasteful, so greatly does it magnify the evil of sin; but just in that degree it is necessary to the humiliation of mans proud self-complacency, that, whether pleasing or not, this truth be faithfully held forth.
Very instructive and helpful to our faith are the allusions to this sprinkling of Blood in the New Testament. Thus, in the Epistle to the Hebrews (Heb. 12:24), believers are reminded that they are come unto the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better than that of Abel. The meaning is plain. For we are told (Gen. 4:10), that the blood of Abel cried out against Cain from the ground; and that its cry for vengeance was prevailing; for God came down, arraigned the murderer, and visited him with instant judgment. But in these words we are told that the sprinkled blood of the holy Victim of Calvary, sprinkled on the heavenly altar, also has a voice, and a voice which speaketh better than that of Abel; better, in that it speaks, not for vengeance, but for pardoning mercy; better, in that it procures the remission even of a penitent murderers guilt; so that, being now justified through His blood we may all be saved from wrath through Him (Rom. 5:9). And, if we are truly Christs, it is our blessed comfort to remember also that we are said (1Pe. 1:2) to have been chosen of God unto the sprinkling of this precious blood of Jesus Christ; words which remind us, not only that the blood of a Lamb without blemish and without spot has been presented unto God for us, but also that the reason for this distinguishing mercy is found, not in us, but in the free love of God, who chose us in Christ Jesus to this grace.
And as in the burnt-offering, so in the sin-offering, the blood was to be sprinkled by the priest. The teaching is the same in both cases. To present Christ before God, laying the hand of faith upon His head as our sin-offering, this is all we can do or are required to do. With the sprinkling of the blood we have nothing to do. In other words, the effective presentation of the blood before God is not to be secured by some act of our own; it is not something to be procured through some subjective experience, other or in addition to the faith which brings the Victim. As in the type, so in the Antitype, the sprinkling of the atoning bloodthat is, its application Godward as a propitiationis the work of our heavenly Priest. And our part in regard to it is simply and only this, that we entrust this work to Him. He will not disappoint us; He is appointed of God to this end, and He will see that it is done.
In a sacrifice in which the sprinkling of the blood occupies such a central and essential place in the symbolism, one would anticipate that this ceremony would never be dispensed with. Very strange it thus appears, at first sight, to find that to this law an exception was made. For it was ordained (Lev. 5:11) that a man so poor that his means suffice not to bring even two doves or young pigeons, might bring, as a substitute, an offering of fine flour. From this, some have hastened to infer that the shedding of the blood, and therewith the idea of substituted life, was not essential to the idea of reconciliation with God; but with little reason. Most illogical and unreasonable it is to determine a principle, not from the general rule, but from an exception; especially when, as in this case, for the exception a reason can be shown, which is not inconsistent with the rule. For had no such exceptional offering been permitted in the case of the extremely poor man, it would have followed that there would have remained a class of persons in Israel whom God had excluded from the provision of the sin-offering, which He had made the inseparable condition of forgiveness. But two truths were to be set forth in the ritual; the one, atonement by means of a life surrendered in expiation of guilt; the other,as in a similar way in the burnt-offering,the sufficiency of Gods gracious provision for even the neediest of sinners. Evidently, here was a case in which something must be sacrificed in the symbolism. One of these truths may be perfectly set forth; both cannot be, with equal perfectness; a choice must therefore be made, and is made in this exceptional regulation, so as to hold up clearly, even though at the expense of some distinctness in the other thought of expiation, the unlimited sufficiency of Gods provision of forgiving grace.
And yet the prescriptions in this form of the offering were such as to prevent any one from confounding it with the meal-offering, which typified consecrated and accepted service. The oil and the frankincense which belonged to the latter are to be left out (Lev. 5:11); incense, which typifies accepted prayer,thus reminding us of the unanswered prayer of the Holy Victim when He cried upon the cross, My God! My God! why hast Thou forsaken Me? and oil, which typifies the Holy Ghost,reminding us, again, how from the soul of the Son of God was mysteriously withdrawn in that same hour all the conscious presence and comfort of the Holy Spirit, which withdrawment alone could have wrung from His lips that unanswered prayer. And, again, whereas the meal for the meal-offering had no limit fixed as to quantity, in this case the amount is prescribedthe tenth part of an ephah (Lev. 5:11); an amount which, from the story of the manna, appears to have represented the sustenance of one full day. Thus it was ordained that if, in the nature of the case, this sin-offering could not set forth the sacrifice of life by means of the shedding of blood, it should at least point in the same direction, by requiring that, so to speak, the support of life for one day shall be given up, as forfeited by sin.
All the other parts of the ceremonial are in this ordinance made to take a secondary place, or are omitted altogether. Not all of the offering is burnt upon the altar, but only a part; that part, however, the fat, the choicest; for the same reason as in the peace-offering. There is, indeed, a peculiar variation in the case of the offering of the two young pigeons, in that, of the one, the blood only was used in the sacrifice, while the other was wholly burnt like a burnt-offering. But for this variation the reason is evident enough in the nature of the victims. For in the case of a small creature like a bird, the fat would be so insignificant in quantity, and so difficult to separate with thoroughness from the flesh, that the ordinance must needs be varied, and a second bird be taken for the burning, as a substitute for the separated fat of larger animals. The symbolism is not essentially affected by the variation. What the burning of the fat means in other offerings, that also means the burning of the second bird in this case.
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
V
(1) And hear the voice of swearing.Better, because he heard the voice of adjuration, and might be a witness, whether he hath seen the offence or known of it, if he doth not tell it. Having laid dawn in the former chapter the regulations about the sin offering, and having shown how these regulations are to be carried out when the offence against the Divine law is inadvertently committed by the spiritual head of the people, by the whole congregation, by the sovereign ruler of the nation, and by the individual members of the community, the lawgiver now proceeds to set forth in Lev. 5:1-13 of this chapter the trespass offering which every Israelite is to bring when he has violated certain precepts here specified. The first instance adduced is that of failing to come forward as witness after the judicial adjuration has been uttered. It was the duty of every member of the community to aid the authorities in maintaining the integrity of the Divine law. Hence, when an offence was committed which the constituted tribunals were unable to bring home to the offender for want of evidence, a solemn adjuration was addressed by the judge to individual members, to a district, or to the whole community. If after such an adjuration, anyone who was cognizant of the offence failed to come forward to testify what he knew, he was considered in the sight of God as participating in the transgression which he had thus concealed. It is with reference to this law that we are told, whoso is partner with a thief, hateth his own soul, he heareth cursing and betrayeth it not, i.e., he hears the adjuration of the judges, and yet stifles his evidence, and thus becomes a partner with the culprit. An instance of this adjuration is recorded in Mat. 26:63, where the high priest said to Jesus, I adjure thee by the living God that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the son of God, and it was in recognition of the solemn obligation of this adjuration that Jesus answered the question.
Then he shall bear his iniquity.Better, and he beareth his iniquity; that is, he is sensible that he bears the load of this guilt, he has become conscious of his sin, without which he could not bring the sacrifice here prescribed. The phrase, and he beareth his guilt, has the same meaning as and he, or they are guilty in Lev. 4:13; Lev. 4:22, &c. Unlike the sins committed inadvertently, spoken of in the preceding chapter, where the sin offering is prescribed, the guilt here described is that of designed and culpable silence, and of deliberately concealing a crime.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
SIN AGAINST JUSTICE CONCEALING TESTIMONY, Lev 5:1.
1. Hear the voice of swearing This does not refer to profaning the Divine name, but to the case of a witness who hears the magistrate adjuring the people to utter the truth for the promotion of justice.
If he do not utter If he refuses to testify. This is not perjury, but a suppressio veri, a withholding of the truth, which in law is regarded as culpable as the suggestion of a falsehood. Since justice depends on evidence, concealment of evidence is indicative of a sympathy with injustice.
Bear his iniquity The right word is used; it is iniquity in-equity a crime against right, the primordial basis of human society, which would be subverted by the universal practice of keeping back evidence. The iniquity which he shall bear is that which he screens from punishment by his silence. He has made himself a partaker of the crime.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
The Guilt Or Trespass Offering – ’asam ( Lev 5:1-11 ).
The essence of the Guilt Offering is that it appears to be in respect of fixed types of sins which make the person guilty in the eyes of others who may have suffered because of their failures, or guilty in the eyes of the sanctuary. In both cases recompense is usually needed. But it is not a case here of either a purification for sin offering or a guilt offering. This Guilt Offering is also a purification for sin offering, in one case also combined with a whole burnt offering.
This final offering in this whole section from Lev 4:1 to Lev 5:11 is with respect to very specific offences committed in ignorance; 1) failing to give witness in official courts under adjuration, 2) the touching of what is unclean because its uncleanness results from death, or because it is the uncleanness of Man 1:3 ) or the making of a rash oath by a man when not in possession of his full senses (and therefore presumably drunk) which he cannot keep. They are grave matters, but ameliorated in the last two cases by the doing of them in ignorance. Yet nevertheless they have brought impurity on Israel and must be publicly confessed and atoned for.
It should be noted that this is the first mention of public confession of sin, and the confession is clearly seen as an important part of the process of making the offering. These are sins that have directly affected others. They have thus made the perpetrators guilty, not only before God, but before each other.
The Sins For Which This Guilt Offering Is Required ( Lev 5:1-4 ).
Lev 5:1
‘ And if any one sin, in that he hears the voice of adjuration, he being a witness, whether he has seen or known, if he does not utter it, then he shall bear his iniquity.’
The voice of adjuration here meant a witness being put under a charge by the courts as to whether they had heard or seen anything with regard to the case in hand, with the indication that they must speak the truth under pain of blasphemy. Here the person has not lied. They have simply failed to declare the truth. But in a position like this, silence is a sin. Once it is known, they will bear as their punishment whatever the courts decide (bear their iniquity), but they are also guilty before God and require atonement, and must make public confession. They have sinned against both man and God. This is in order to bring out the seriousness of the offence. In this case silence is not golden. It is an offence against God and His justice. Unless true men are willing to assist the courts and see justice done, justice will be continually perverted. See Pro 29:24.
Lev 5:2
‘Or if any one touch any unclean thing, whether it be the carcase of an unclean beast, or the carcase of unclean cattle, or the carcase of unclean creeping things, and it be hidden from him, and he be unclean, then he shall be guilty.’
In this case the person has unknowingly touched something that was dead, either the carcase of a wild animal, or of a domestic animal, or of a small creature. He or she had not realised it, possibly through carelessness, but they have been rendered unclean by it. Yet because they did not realise it or think about it they have not undergone ‘cleansing’, and may well even have approached the sanctuary, entering the court of the tabernacle, while unclean. Once they know of it they must confess it and seek purification and atonement. This could especially come about through picking up a bone without realising what it was, or something similar. Or it may have happened while out hunting or fighting and have been forgotten for a while. Later all contact with death is seen as unclean, but this is the early foundation teaching concerning this.
The avoidance of dead animals was a sensible precaution for they may have died of some disease, or have been infected by carrion. The only safe way was not to touch them but to leave them to the scavengers. ‘Unclean’ wild animals would include the camel, the coney, the hare, and the swine (Lev 11:2-3), ‘unclean’ domestic animals would include the horse and especially the ass (Lev 11:26-28). For unclean creeping things see Lev 11:29-31. Their dead carcases were not to be touched. The idea of clean and unclean animals went back as far as Noah (Gen 7:2) where it was seemingly in regard to animals that could be offered as offerings to God. This law would later be expanded in some detail. By being made a religious ordinance that came between man and God it ensured that it was mainly observed.
For it was not only a sensible precaution, it was a command of Yahweh. The dead of these creatures must be left to Him. By coming in physical contact with the carcase of these unclean creatures and not taking action to obtain the appropriate cleansing they have sinned against God either through carelessness or ignorance. It is therefore necessary to seek forgiveness.
Lev 5:3
‘Or if he touch the uncleanness of man, whatever his uncleanness be wherewith he is unclean, and it be hidden from him; when he knows of it, then he shall be guilty.’
In this case the person has touched man’s uncleanness in one way or another. This could include among other things touching their grave, or a man’s waste left in the wilderness, or a menstruating woman. The first could occur where he learned afterwards that it was a grave, the second if he discovered it on his clothes or his skin on returning from the field or the wilderness, and the third could happen anywhere.
In both of these last two examples of ‘uncleanness’ in Lev 5:2-3 the point is that they have only discovered it too late to go through the process of ritual cleansing. Thus they have mixed freely with others and may even have gone to the tabernacle.
Lev 5:4
‘Or if any one swear rashly with his lips to do evil, or to do good, whatever it be that a man shall utter rashly with an oath, and it be hid from him; when he knows of it, then he shall be guilty in one of these things.’
“To do evil or to do good” is a phrase meaning ‘to do anything over a wide range of things’ looking from one extreme to the other, the two opposites signalling the bounds not the content. Clearly an oath to do evil would not be binding, even though the swearing of it would be a sin in itself. The swearing rashly and not knowing about it must suggest that the person was under the influence of alcohol. The point, of course, is that he has not fulfilled his vow because he has forgotten it, and then learns it from someone and finds that it is beyond him, or is something that he feels he cannot do. The purpose here is to bring out the seriousness of a vow. It cannot just be dismissed, even when made in a drunken state. It must be publicly confessed, and atoned for.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Special Cases of Sin-offerings.
v. 1. And if a soul sin, and hear the voice of swearing, and is a witness, whether he hath seen or known of it; if he do not utter it, then he shall bear his iniquity. v. 2. Or if a soul touch any unclean thing, whether it be a carcass of an unclean beast, v. 3. Or if he touch the uncleanness of man, v. 4. Or if a soul swear, pronouncing with his lips to do evil, or to do good, whatsoever it be that a man shall pronounce with an oath, and it be hid from him; v. 5. And it shall be, when he shall be guilty in one of these things, that he shall confess that he hath sinned in that thing, v. 6. And he shall bring his trespass-offering v. 7. And if he be not able to bring a lamb, v. 8. And he shall bring them unto the priest, who shall offer that which is for the sin-offering first, and wring off his head from his neck, v. 9. and he shall sprinkle of the blood of the sin-offering upon the side of the altar, v. 10. And he shall offer the second for a burnt offering, according to the manner, v. 11. But if he be not able to bring two turtle-doves or two young pigeons, v. 12. Then shall he bring it to the priest, and the priest shall take his handful of it, even a memorial thereof, and burn it on the altar, v. 13. And the priest shall make an atonement for him as touching his sin that he hath sinned in one of these,
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
EXPOSITION
THE SIN OFFERINGcontinued (Lev 5:1-13). The subject of the next thirteen verses is still the sin offering, not the trespass offering, as has been supposed by some. The first six verses state three specific cases for which sin offerings are required, and the remaining seven verses detail the concessions made to poverty in respect to the offerings required. The cases are those of a witness, of one ceremonially defiled, and of one who had sworn thoughtlessly. The concessions granted are two: two turtledoves or young pigeons are allowed instead of a lamb, and the tenth part of an ephah of fine flour, without oil or frankincense, is allowed instead of the two turtle-doves or young pigeons. The latter concession is the more remarkable as the sacrifice by its means changes its character from a bloody to an unbloody offering.
Lev 5:1
The case of a witness on oath. If a man hear the voice of swearing, that is, if he was one of a number of persons adjured to speak according to the manner in which oaths were administered in Jewish courts of justice (see Mat 26:63; 2Ch 18:15), and he did not give evidence of what he had seen or heard, he had to bear his iniquity, that is, he was regarded as guilty; and as this was an offense which could be atoned for by a sacrifice, he was to offer as a sin offering a ewe lamb, or a female kid, or two turtle-doves, or two pigeons, or the tenth part of an ephah of flour. This injunction is a direct condemnation of the approved teaching of Italian moral theologians of paramount authority throughout the Roman Church, who maintain that, in case a crime is not known to others, a witness in a court of justice “may, nay, he is bound to, say that the accused has not committed it” (St. Alfonso de’ Liguori, ‘Theol. Mor.,’ 4:154).
Lev 5:2, Lev 5:3
Two eases of a man ceremonially defiled. If he had touched a dead body or any other substance conveying uncleanness, and it were hidden from him, that is, if he had done it unwittingly, or from forgetfulness or neglect, had failed to purify himself immediately, he must offer his sin offering, as above.
Lev 5:4
The ease of a man who had neglected to fulfill a thoughtless oath. If he sware to do evil, or to do good, that is, to do anything whatever, good or bad (see Num 24:13), and failed to fulfill his oath from carelessness or negligence, he too must bring his offering, as above.
Lev 5:5, Lev 5:6
In the four cases last mentioned there is first to be an acknowledgment of guilt, he shall confess that he hath sinned in that thing, and then the sin offering is to be made. Confession of sin probably preceded or accompanied all sin offerings. The use of the word asham, translated trespass offering in Lev 5:6, and the character of the four cases have led many commentators to regard Lev 5:1-13 as dealing with the trespass offering rather than the sin offering. But if this were so, the words trespass offering and sin offering would be used synonymously in this verse, which is very unlikely, when they are immediately afterwards carefully distinguished. It is best to render asham “for his trespass,” that is, in expiation of his guilt, as in the next verse, in place of a trespass offering.
Lev 5:7-13
If he be not able to bring a lamb. Sin offerings being not voluntary sacrifices but required of all that were guilty, and the four last-named cases being of common occurrence amongst the poor and ignorant, two concessions are made to poverty: two birds (one to be offered with the ritual of the sin offering, the other with that of the burnt offering), or even some flour (either three pints and a half or three quarts and a half, according as we adopt the larger or smaller estimate of the amount of the ephah), are allowed when the offerer cannot provide a lamb or a kid. There is thus typically set forth the freedom with which acceptance through the great propitiation is offered to all without respect of persons. The non-bloody substitute, being permitted only as an exception for the benefit of the very poor and only in the four cases above specified, does not invalidate the general rule that without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin.
HOMILETICS
Lev 5:5
Confession of the sin committed
is required of the man who is allowed to offer a sin offering. It is likewise required before a trespass offering is accepted, as appears from Num 5:6, Num 5:7. “When a man or woman shall commit any sin that men commit, to do a trespass against the Lord, and that person be guilty, then they shall confess their sin that they have done.”
I. TRADITIONAL FORM OF CONFESSION. “The sacrifice was so set, as that the offerer, standing with his face towards the west, laid his two hands between his horns and confessed his sin over a sin offering and his trespass over a trespass offering; and his confession was on this wise: ‘ I have sinned, I have done grievously, I have rebelled and done thus and thus; but I return by repentance before thee, and let this be my expiation ‘” (Lightfoot, ‘Temple Service,’ Num 8:1-26). “I beseech thee, O Lord; I have sinned, I have transgressed, I have rebelled, I have (here the person specified the particular sin which he had committed, and for which he wanted expiation); hut now I repent, and let this be my expiation” (Outram, ‘De Sacrificiis,’ I. Num 15:9). That some such form as this was used, according to the universal tradition of the Jews, we may conclude with tolerable certainty from the present passage in Leviticus and that in Num 5:6, Num 5:7.
II. THIS CONFESSION WAS INTENDED TO SPRING FROM FEELINGS OF REPENTANCE. All that could be enforced as a common and public discipline was the open confession of the sin. But no Israelite could have believed that the confession would be acceptable unless it proceeded from a penitent heart. This was left, as it must be left, to the individual conscience, but it was suggested and morally demanded by the injunction to confess.
III. THE OFFERING OF THE SIN OFFERING AND TRESPASS OFFERING WAS NOT THEREFORE AN EXTERNAL CEREMONY ONLY, BUT A SPIRITUAL PENITENTIAL ACT. As the offering of the burnt offering implied the spiritual act of self-surrender, and of the meat offering the spiritual act of submission, and of the peace offering the spiritual act of holy joy, so the offering of the sin and trespass offering implies the spiritual act of repentance, None of these sacrifices perform their work as opera operata, without reference to the religious state of the offerer’s mind and soul.
Lev 5:7-13
The sacrifices to be offered as sin offerings are specified, nor may they be multiplied. They do not differ according to the heinousness of the offense which they are to atone for, but according to the means of the offerer. The moral reason of this was probably to prevent the idea arising that the costliness of the sacrifice might compensate for the greater sin, and that men might sin the more if they were willing to Fay for it by more sacrifices. The difference in the sacrifice appointed for each class might serve to point out that a sin is greater in a man of prominent position than in a man of less influence, owing to its effects upon a larger circle. The concession made to the poor shows that none are to be shut out from communion with God for their want of worldly means. The expiation must be made, that the sinner may recover his covenant relations with God; but it shall be of such a nature that none shall be prevented from making it by their poverty. Here then is a foreshadowing of the free grace of God in the gospel dispensation. “Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money; come ye, buy and eat; yea, come, buy wine and. milk without money and without price” (Isa 55:1). “Let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely” (Rev 22:17).
HOMILIES BY S.R. ALDRIDGE
Lev 5:1-13
Guilt removed.
The Psalmist cried out, “Who can understand his errors? cleanse thou me from secret faults.” To dwell upon the manner in which sin may be committed, and to try to deepen our sense of its flagrancy, is not a pleasant employment, but it is highly necessary. And, blessed be God! a rainbow of cheerful hope spans the dark cloud of transgression; the same page that speaks of sin tells also of forgiveness.
I. This chapter reminds the Israelites of several ways in which, without having been resolutely determined upon, sin might result. Through silence and concealment of knowledge (Lev 5:1), through defilement by contact with uncleanness of man or beast (Lev 5:2), or through rash declarations (Lev 5:4), it was possible inadvertently to transgress the laws of God. SIN ASSUMES MANY FORMS. It may be of the voice or the finger, by word or deed. It may be by forcible repression of the truth or by careless voluble utterance. It may be incurred in connection with the noblest or the lowest parts of God’s creation. This thought should beget constant watchfulness in speaking and acting. We can never be sure of preserving ourselves from contamination with evil. “Let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.” The abolition by the gospel of ceremonial restrictions has rather increased than diminished the strictness of the universally obligatory precepts, making them more searching in character. Our Lord taught that there may be adultery in a look, murder in a thought.
II. We find one law applicable to these different cases, one sentence pronounced, one ordinance appointed. THE IMPORTANT FACT COMMON TO ALL FORMS OF SIN IS THAT THEY INVOLVE THE OFFENDER IN GUILT. About the particular sin we need not trouble so much as about the fact of transgression and consequent demerit. “He shall bear his iniquity” (Lev 5:1). “He shall be unclean and guilty” (Lev 5:2). Jehovah can no longer look upon his subject with favour; sin places him under a cloud, mars him in the sight of God. Only ignorance can keep a man at ease under such circumstances. The awakened soul exclaims, “I have sinned: for I have transgressed the commandment of the Lord.” The peace of the wicked is like the calm that often precedes the tempest. It is the office of the Word of God to convince the ungodly of their hard speeches and ungodly deeds, and the question the preacher loves to hear is that which shows that the arrow has reached its mark, when the agonized sinner inquires, “What must I do to be saved?”
III. “By the Law is the knowledge of sin,” but to leave the matter here would be to subject the transgressor to intolerable anguish. THERE IS A TWOFOLD METHOD OF EXPIATION, to restore communion with God. There must be confession of blameworthiness. “I have sinned against heaven and before thee.” “He shall confess that he hath sinned in that thing” (Lev 5:5). This acknowledgment by the individual is due to the majesty of God, and is the first step towards obliterating the injury caused by sin. The forces of government have not henceforth to fear assault by the criminal; once arrayed against him in hostile phalanx, they now wear a milder look. The rebel has voluntarily put the yoke of submission upon his neck, and this public token goes far to countervail the damage suffered by the king’s honour. And, secondly, there must be the presentation of an atonement by the priest. The transgressor is not holy enough to appease offended Deity himself; an unblemished offering is demanded, which must be slaughtered by God’s servant and its blood sprinkled upon the altar, and the other rites of a sin offering duly performed. It is not sufficient to acknowledge and repent of our misdeeds; we want a sin offering, the Lamb of God, so that we can make mention of his righteousness and enjoy the atoning virtue of his precious blood. It is not the offender but the priest who makes atonement (Lev 5:6). Apart from our great High Priest, our prayers, confessions, vows, and. gifts are of no avail. “No man cometh unto the Father but by me.”
IV. Either a lamb or a kid, two turtle-doves or pigeons, or a homer of fine flour would be accepted as a propitiatory offering. No CLASS OF THE COMMUNITY IS DEBARRED FROM AN ATONEMENT BY LACK OF MEANS. Regard is here paid to the resources of the humblest ranks. The same end is attained under the gospel by providing a way of salvation accessible to all, suited to the illiterate and the learned, the men of substance and the poor. And in each case the forgiveness is complete. “It shall be forgiven him.” The deed done cannot be undone, but its consequences may be averted. God treats the believer as if he had never sinned; his iniquities are cast behind the back of Deity and remembered no more. Fears are banished, fellowship is resumed. With every subsequent transgression the same course must be adopted. Whilst in the world stains are frequent, and frequent must be our resort to the crimson tide that flows from the cross of Christ. What unity of plan and procedure is visible in the Law and the gospel!S.R.A.
HOMILIES BY J.A. MACDONALD
Lev 5:1-13
The trespass offering.
This was very much of the nature of the sin offering. Julius Bate translates the word (, asham) “guilt offering.” Possibly the “sin offering” and the “burnt offering” may be here comprehended under the general expression, “trespass offering” (see Lev 5:7). We have here brought under our notice
I. EXAMPLES OF the TRESPASS. Lev 5:1-4, Taken in order these are:
1. Concealing the truth when adjured.
(1) The Hebrew law recognized a power of adjuration. This is assumed in the words “And if a soul sin,” etc. (Lev 5:1). The adjuration in such a case is called the “oath of the Lord” (see Exo 22:11). Paul refers to this law when he says, “An oath for confirmation is the end of all strife” (Heb 6:16).
(2) The Hebrew history furnishes notable examples of adjuration. Saul, pursuing the Philistines, “adjured the people, saying, Cursed be the man that eateth food until the evening, that I may be avenged on mine enemies” (1Sa 14:24). Caiaphas said to Jesus, “I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell me whether thou he the Christ, the Son of God” (Mat 26:63).
(3) To conceal the truth when adjured was a crime meriting death. Achan and his family perished in the valley of Achor for his crime in concealing the” accursed thing “(see Jos 6:17-19; Jos 7:11, Jos 7:23-26). Jonathan, in unwittingly trespassing in the adjuration of Saul, was in danger of losing his life (1Sa 14:43).
2. Touching an unclean thing.
(1) The law of the case was that whoever touched any unclean thing, the carcass of an unclean animal, a living person who was leprous or otherwise unclean, or the corpse of a man, became unclean. The purpose was to show how scrupulously we should avoid social contact with those whose influence would be demoralizing (see Jas 4:4).
(2) Being thus unclean, before he can appear in the sanctuary, he must “wash his clothes, and be unclean until the even,” viz. when the daily sacrifice was offered. This shows how we must be purified by the washing of regeneration before we can mingle in the congregation of the heavenly temple.
(3) But if a person had inconsiderately entered the sanctuary unclean, not knowing that he was polluted, he has trespassed against the Law, and is guilty. As soon as he becomes aware of his guilt he must bring a trespass offering or bear his sin.
3. Swearing rashly.
(1) Lev 5:4 is somewhat obscure, but this appears to be the meaning: If a man swear to do something without knowing whether it be good or evil, but afterwards it becomes evident that to carry out his oath would be evil; now he is in a dilemma: If he perform his oath he is guilty of doing evil; if he refrain he is guilty of violating his oath.
(2) In either case, then, he has to bring a trespass offering with an humble confession of his sin. If he fail in this then his guilt is upon him. The lesson is that we should be slow to swear, lest our oaths should prove rash and involve us in humiliation or ruin.
II. PROVISIONS OF MERCY.
1. Confession must be made.
(1) Not of sin in general. There is comparatively little humiliation in general confession. Individuality loses itself in the multitude.
(2) But in particular, “that he hath sinned in this thing.” Sin thus carried home humbles us into the dust. Such was the confession of Achan (Jos 7:20), who, though his sin was “unto death,” may yet have found the mercy of God to his soul. Such was the confession of David (Psa 51:4).
2. It must be accompanied with sacrifice.
(1) “And he shall bring,” etc. (Lev 5:6). Here the “trespass offering” is also called a “sin offering.” It is in this case specified to be “a female from the flock, a lamb or kid of the goats.” This was the sin offering for any of the common people. The presumption therefore is that for a ruler a male kid should be brought for a trespass as for a sin offering; and for a priest, a bullock (Lev 4:4, Lev 4:23, Lev 4:28).
(2) Confession without atonement will not be accepted. If Achan found acceptance with God in the spirit it must have been immediately through the atonement of Calvary. Atonement without confession will not avail. We have to “work out our own salvation;” meanwhile “God worketh in us both to will and to do.”
3. The poor have special consideration.
(1) Those who may not be able to furnish a lamb may bring either a pair of turtle-doves or a brace of young pigeons. The alternative here appears to be because in certain seasons pigeons in the East are hard and unfit for eating. Turtle-doves are then very good. That must not be given to God which would not be acceptable to man.
(2) Two are specified, which are to be thus disposed of: one is offered for a sin offering, the other for a burnt offering; and they are offered in this order. The sin offering goes first to make an atonement; then follows the burnt offering, which is a sacrifice of adoration. Before we can properly praise God we must be at peace with him.
(3) Those so very poor as not to be able to bring a brace of pigeons may bring a tenth part of an ephah (about three quarts) of flour. A memorial of this is burnt upon the altar. There must be no oil in the flour to render it tasteful; no frankincense with it to give it fragrance: “it is a sin offering,” and sin is distasteful and odious. The remnant is the priest’s as a “meat offering.”
The interchanging of these offerings, sin and trespass, sin and burnt, sin and meat, shows how they are intended to represent the same great subject under its various aspects. No one typical sacrifice could sufficiently body forth all the merits of that blessed Person who “made his soul a (, asham) trespass offering” (Isa 53:10).J.A.M.
HOMILIES BY W. CLARKSON
Lev 5:1
Fidelity in bearing witness.
The sinfulness of withholding evidence in a court of law is here formally and solemnly incorporated in the divine statutes. We may remind ourselves
I. THAT WE SPEND OUR LIFE IN THE SIGHT OF MAN AS WELL AS UNDER THE EYE OF GOD. That we do everything in God’s view is a truth the fullness and the greatness of which we cannot exaggerate. “Thou God seest me” should be as a frontlet for every man to wear between the eyes of his soul. But not unimportant is the truth that we act daily and hourly in the sight of man.
1. A very large proportion of our deeds is done obviously and consciously before man.
2. Many that we think are wrought in secret are seen by some unknown witness.
3. Many leave traces which point unmistakably to our agency. “Be sure your sin will find you out.” Sooner or later, in unsuspected ways, our evil doings come under the eye of human observation, and under the ban of human condemnation.
III. THAT IT IS OFTEN OUR DUTY TO SCREEN AN OFFENDER FROM PUBLIC NOTICE. This is not in the text, but it belongs to the subject. He who would “do what wrong and sorrow claim” must sometimes “conquer sin and cover shame.” There are many cases in which public justice does not demand inquiry and reprobation, but private consideration does call for tenderness and mercy (Joh 8:7). “Of some have compassion, making a difference” (Jud 1:22).
III. THAT IT IS OFTEN OUR DUTY TO BEAR WITNESS AGAINST A WRONG–DOER.
1. It is our duty to God, for he has ordained human justice. “The powers that be are ordained of God” (Rom 13:1-4). The Jewish judges had the right to adjure a witness to speak the truth in the name of the Supreme Judge (“hear the voice of swearing:” see 1Ki 8:31; Mat 26:63, Mat 26:64). If, therefore, under an oath we withhold what we know, we are disregarding a demand that comes indirectly and ultimately from God himself.
2. It is also our duty to society. The commonwealth of which we are members has a right to expect that we shall take our share in the necessary conviction and punishment of crime. When solemnly summoned to state what we know, and especially when an oath of the Lord is upon us, we are not free to keep back evidence, but are bound to disclose it.
3. It may be our duty to the offender himself. For it is better for him that he should bear the penalty due to his crime than that he should elude justice and be encouraged in transgression.
4. It is further our duty to ourselves, for if we are called on to bear witness, and if we undertake, or are even supposed to undertake, to speak all we know, and if then we suppress important testimony, we are consciously misleading those who hear; we are not “doing the truth,” but are acting falsely, and are injuring our own soul thereby.
IV. THAT NEGLIGENCE IN SUCH SOCIAL OBLIGATIONS IS A SERIOUS OFFENSE IN the SIGHT OF GOD. It is sin. It is a thing to be repented of and to be forgiven.C.
Lev 5:2, Lev 5:3
Shunning the impure.
We naturally ask, Why such stringent regulations as to everything of man or beast that was “unclean”? We may understand
I. THE EXPLANATION (THE RATIONALE) OF THESE REQUIREMENTS.
1. The two main truths God was teaching his people were the divine unity, and purity of heart and life. The state of surrounding heathendom made these two lessons emphatically and particularly necessary.
2. God’s method of teaching was pictorial: it was by rite, symbol, illustration. The world was in its religious childhood.
3. Under this method bodily ills naturally stood for spiritual evils; as wholeness of the body stood for health of the soul, so the sickness of the body answered to the malady of the soul, and the uncleanness of the one to the impurity of the other.
4. Hence would result the fact that the careful avoidance of the one would be an instructive lesson in the shunning of the other. Associating the two things so closely in their minds, commanded to shun most scrupulously all bodily uncleanness, taught to look at the least defilement as a transgression of the law, they would necessarily feel, with all desirable intensity, that every moral and spiritual impurity must be most sensitively avoided. Therefore such enactments as those of the text.
II. THEIR MORAL SIGNIFICANCE. They say to us:
1. That we should avoid all that is suggestive of impurity..
2. That we should shun everything which can, in any way or in the least degree, be communicative of spiritual evil.
3. That a stain upon the soul may be contracted without our own knowledge; “if it be hidden from him.” This may be through books, friends, habits of speech.
4. That we should point out to the unwary their danger or their error.
5. That on the first intimation of error we should penitently return on our way.C.
Lev 5:4
Redeeming promises.
The reference in the text is to inconsiderate oaths: the hasty undertaking, before God, to do some act of piety or kindness on the one hand (swearing “to do good”), or of retribution and permissible punishment on the other (swearing “to do evil”). It is contemplated that such pledges into which the Divine Being is introduced, rashly and thoughtlessly taken, may be overlooked and remain unfulfilled. We learn
I. THAT THE FORMAL ASSOCIATION OF THE DIVINE BEING WITH ANY ACT LENDS TO IT AN INVIOLABLE SACREDNESS. That which is done before God, or with which his holy name is intentionally associated, must be regarded as peculiarly sacred: even if done impulsively and without due deliberation, an obligation is thereby incurred: “God’s vows are upon us.”
II. THAT IT IS WISE ON ORDINARY OCCASIONS NOT TO INCUR SUCH MULTIPLIED RESPONSIBILITY. Better to use the yea, yea, or nay, nay; the simple affirmation or denial with the lesser obligation than to strengthen our utterance with an oath, and so run the risk of more serious sin in non-fulfillment. Calm, quiet, unimpassioned words are Best for daily use. Reserve oaths for large occasions.
III. THAT SUCH RESPONSIBILITY AS WE DO INCUR WE MUST RELIGIOUSLY DISCHARGE. If we only affirm in our own name, but far more if we introduce the Divine name, we must see to it that we redeem our word. Negligence, on whatever grounds, though it be through sheer inadvertenceif “it he hid” from usis culpable in the sight of God. Wherefore:
1. Study to avoid promising without a due sense of the bond that is entered into.
2. Take the earliest opportunity of redeeming your word, for good or evil.
3. Make an opportunity, if one does not soon offer.
4. Take necessary means of keeping the promise in remembrance; by natural, or (if necessary) by artificial means. We may infer
IV. THAT IF SPECIAL RESPONSIBILITY ATTACHES TO A PROMISE WITH WHICH GOD‘S NAME IS ASSOCIATED, SO DOES IT TO ONE IN CONNECTION WITH HIS CAUSE. If we cannot vow, before him, to do any humblest thing without incurring added liability, neither can we undertake to serve in the affairs of his kingdom without similar obligation. A promise made to take any post or fill any office in the Church of Christ should be regarded as exceptionally sacred and. binding; neglect by inadvertence is wrong, sinful. We are bound to keep before our mind and on our heart anything with which God’s name and cause are immediately connected.C.
Lev 5:5-13
Pardon possible to all.
The requirements of the Law, as stated in these verses, speak of the possibility of pardon for every offender, if he be willing to submit himself to the wilt of God. We have
I. CONFESSION OF SIX. “He shall confess that he hath sinned” (Lev 5:5). It is believed that confession was always required from the offerer when he laid his hand on the victim’s head. It was a marked feature in the ceremonies of the Day of Atonement; it is expressly enjoined here. This was not only necessary from all, but possible to all; within every one’s power: none would be unable, and none would be unwilling, but the impenitent who were unprepared for pardon.
II. AN OFFERING WHICH EVERY ONE COULD PRESENT. He that could do so was to bring a lamb or kid (Lev 5:6); he that could not might bring “two turtle-doves, or two young pigeons” (Lev 5:7); if this were beyond his means, he might bring a portion of “fine flour” (Lev 5:11). The costliness of the offering was thus graciously graduated to the circumstances of the offerer. And of so much importance did it appear to the Divine Legislator that the sacrifice should be within the reach of all, that he allowed a deviation from the otherwise unalterable rule that there must be the shedding of blood for the remission of sins (Lev 17:11; Heb 9:22). The very poor might bring flour (Lev 5:11), though, in order that there might be no mistake as to the import of it, it was specially prohibited to mix oil or frankincense with it (Lev 5:11).
III. A PLACE OF APPROACH OPEN TO ALL. The transgressor, convinced of his error, was to take his offering “unto the Lord,” by taking it “to the priest.” The priest at the door of the tabernacle was always approachable; never a day when he might not be found.
IV. INSTRUCTIONS THAT ALL COULD UNDERSTAND. There could be no’ doubt or difficulty as to what precise things were to be done. What offering should be presented, whither it should be taken, what should be done with it,all this was so explicitly and clearly laid down in the Law (Lev 5:6-12), that every Israelite who had the burden of conscious sin upon his soul, knew what he should do that the guilt might be removed, and that he himself might stand clear and pure in the sight of God.
In the gospel of Christ we have analogous but fuller advantages. We have
1. Confession of sin. We must all say, as we all can say, “Father, I have sinned” (Luk 15:21). (See Rom 10:10; Joh 1:9.)
2. One offering that all can plead. No need of lamb, or goat, or turtle-dove, or even the humble measure of flour. The rich and the poor of the land may say, “Nothing in my hand I bring;” for they have but to plead the one Great and All-sufficient ,Sacrifice that has been presented, once for all (Rom 6:10; Heb 9:28; 1Pe 3:18), and they will find mercy of the Lord. The richest can do no more; the poorest need do no less.
3. An open throne of grace. “In Christ Jesus our Lord we have boldness and access with confidence” (Eph 3:11, Eph 3:12). No day nor hour when the way to the mercy-seat is barred; from every home and chamber the sin-laden, struggling soul finds its way thither: one earnest thought, and it is there!
4. Familiar knowledge of the will of God. Every unlettered man and untutored child may know what is “the will of God in Christ Jesus concerning us.” Our statute-book, our New Testament, makes it clear as the day that, if we would find forgiveness of our sin, we must not only confess our transgression, but have faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, and by faith we shall be saved.C.
HOMILIES BY R.A. REDFORD
Lev 5:1-13
Cases of concealment of knowledge and ceremonial uncleanness.
They are in some sense trespasses, although not properly under the head of trespass offerings. The ground of guilt is covenant relation violated. We may take this in its twofold aspect
I. As revealing THE POSITIVE VALUE OF THAT COVENANT RELATION.
1. It separated from the unclean, and therefore enforced holiness.
2. It maintained society. Man’s duty to his fellows was exalted. He must speak the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth; for we are members one of another.
3. It promoted vigilance and circumspection in conduct, both personal and relative. See that you are pure both in your intentional acts and in your circumstances; walk in wisdom towards them that are without.
II. The offering provided and the atonement possible in all cases, even the most minute, plainly said, GOD WILL ABUNDANTLY PARDON; HIS LAW is LIBERTY.” The covenant was not intended to be bondage; it was salvation, not destruction. If any man sin, there is forgiveness. But this waited to be gloriously illustrated when the perfect fulfillment of the Law was set forth in him who offered himself without spot, “able to save unto the uttermost all who come unto God through him.”R.
Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary
Lev 5:1. And if a soul sin, &c. This verse maybe translated in the following manner, which clearly explains it: If any person, being adjured as a witness, shall offend in not discovering what he has seen or known, he shall bear his iniquity. Houbigant, however, is of opinion, that this is not a just interpretation; and, accordingly, he translates it thus: If any man shall sin, using words of execration, and if any one shall hear him using them, or shall be a proper witness, whether he himself hath heard, or hath certainly known, and shall not discover the matter, he shall be esteemed guilty of the iniquity; see Mat 26:63.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
D.SIN OFFERINGS
Lev 4:1 to Lev 5:13
1And the Lord, spake unto Moses, saying, 2Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a soul shall sin through ignorance [inadvertence1] against any of the commandments of the Lord concerning things which ought not to be done, and shall do [omit against2] any of them:
3If the priest that is anointed do sin according to the sin of the people [to the guilt of the people3]; then let him bring for his sin, which he hath sinned, a young bullock without blemish unto the Lord for a sin offering. 4And he shall bring the bullock unto the door of the tabernacle of the [omit the] congregation before the Lord; and shall lay his hand upon the bullocks head, and kill the bullock before the Lord. 5And the priest that is anointed4 shall take of the bullocks blood, and bring it to the tabernacle of the [omit the] congregation: 6and the priest shall dip his finger in the blood, and sprinkle of the blood seven times before the Lord, before the vail of the sanctuary. 7And the priest shall put some of the blood5 upon the horns of the altar of sweet incense before the Lord, which is in the tabernacle of the [omit the] congregation; and shall pour all the [other] blood of the bullock at the bottom of the altar of the burnt offering, which is at the door of the tabernacle of the [omit the] congregation. 8And he shall take off from it all the fat of the bullock for the sin offering; the fat that covereth the6 inwards, and all the fat that is upon the inwards, 9and the two kidneys, and the fat that is upon them, which is by the flanks, and the caul above the liver, with [on7] the kidneys, it shall hetake away, 10as it was taken off from the bullock of the sacrifice of peace offerings; and the priest shall burn them upon the altar of the burnt offering. 11And the skin of the bullock, and all his flesh, with his head, and with his legs, and his inwards, and his dung, 12even the whole bullock shall Hebrews 8 carry forth without the camp unto a clean place, where the ashes are poured out, and burn him on the wood with fire: where the ashes are poured out shall he be burnt.
13And if the whole congregation9 of Israel sin [err10] through ignorance [inadvertence1], and the thing be hid11 from the eyes of the assembly,8 and they have done somewhat against any of the commandments of the Lord concerning things which should not be done, and are guilty; 14when the sin, which they have sinned against it, is known, then the congregation shall offer a young bullock12 for the sin [a sin offering13] and bring him before the14 tabernacle of the [omit the] congregation. 15And the elders of the congregation shall lay their hands upon the head of the bullock before the Lord: and the bullock shall be killed [one shall kill the bullock15] before the Lord. 16And the priest that is anointed shall bring of the bullocks blood to the tabernacle of the [omit the] congregation: 17and the priest shall dip his finger in some of the blood, and sprinkle it16 seven times before the Lord even before the vail. 18And he shall put some of the blood upon the horns of the altar17 which is before the Lord, that is in the tabernacle of the [omit the] congregation, and shall pour out all the [other] blood at the bottom of the altar of the burnt offering, which is at the door of the tabernacle of the [omit the] congregation. 19And he shall take all his fat from him, and burn it upon the altar. 20And he shall do with the bullock as he did with the bullock for a [the18] sin offering, so shall he do with this: and the priest shall make an atonement for them, and it shall be forgiven them. 21And he shall carry forth the bullock without the camp, and burn him as he burned the first bullock: it19 is a sin offering for the congregation.
22When a ruler [prince20] hath sinned, and done somewhat through ignorance [inadvertence21] against any of the commandments of the Lord his God concerning 23 things which should not be done, and is guilty; or if [if perhaps22] his sin, wherein he hath sinned, come to his knowledge; he shall bring his offering, a kid [a buck23] of the goats, a male without blemish: 24and he shall lay his hand upon the head of the goat, and kill24 it in the place where they kill the burnt offering before the Lord: it is a sin-offering. 25And the priest shall take of the blood of the sin offering with his finger, and put it upon the horns of the altar of burnt offering, and shall pour out25 his blood at the bottom of the altar of burnt offering. 26And he shall burn all his fat upon the altar, as the fat of the sacrifice of peace offerings: and the priest shall make an atonement for him as concerning his sin, and it shall be forgiven him.
27And if any one of the common people [any soul of the people of the land26] sin through ignorance [inadvertence1] while he doeth somewhat against any of the commandments 28of the Lord concerning things which ought not to be done, and be guilty; or if [if perhaps20] his sin, which he hath sinned, come to his knowledge: then he shall bring his offering, a kid of the goats [a she-goat27] a female without blemish, for his sin which he hath sinned. 29And he shall lay his hand upon the head of the sin offering, and slay the sin offering in the place of the burnt offering. 30And the priest shall take of the blood thereof with his finger, and put it upon the horns of the altar of burnt offering, and shall pour out all the [other] blood thereof at the bottom of the altar.28 31And he shall take away all the fat thereof, as the fat is taken away from off the sacrifice of peace offerings; and the priest shall burn it upon the altar for a sweet savour unto the Lord; and the priest shall make an atonement for him, and it shall be forgiven him.
32And if he bring a lamb [a sheep29] for a sin offering, he shall bring it a female without blemish. 33And he shall lay his hand upon the head of the sin-offering, and slay it for a sin offering in the place where they kill the burnt offering. 34And the priest shall take of the blood of the sin offering with his finger, and put it upon the horns of the altar of burnt offering, and shall pour out all the [other] blood thereof at the bottom of the altar: 35and he shall take away all the fat thereof, as the fat of the lamb [sheep30] is taken away from the sacrifice of the peace offerings; and the priest shall burn them upon the altar, according to [upon28] the offerings made by fire unto the Lord: and the priest shall make an atonement for his sin that he hath committed, and it shall be forgiven him.
Gen 5:1. And if a soul sin, and hear [in that he hear31] the voice of swearing [adjuration32], and is a witness, whether he hath seen or known of it; if he do not 2utter it, then he shall bear his iniquity. Or if33 a soul touch any unclean thing, whether it be a carcase of an unclean beast,34 or a carcase of unclean cattle, or the carcase of unclean creeping things, and if it be hidden from him; he also shall be unclean, and guilty. 3Or if he touch the uncleanness of man, whatsoever uncleanness it be that a man shall be defiled withal, and it be hid from him; when he knoweth of it, then he shall be guilty. 4Or if a soul swear, pronouncing [speaking idly35] with his lips to do evil, or to do good, whatsoever it be that a man shall pronounce [speak idly32] with an oath, and it be hid from him; when he knoweth of it, then he shall be guilty in one of these. 5And it shall be, when he shall be guilty36 in one of these things, that he shall confess that he hath sinned in that thing: 6and he shall bring his trespass offering [bring for his trespass37] unto the Lord, for his sin which he hath sinned, a female from the flock, a lamb or a kid of the goats [a sheep27or a she-goat38], for a sin offering; and the priest shall make an atonement for him concerning his sin.
7And if he be not able39 to bring a lamb [sheep27], then he shall bring for his trespass, which he hath committed, two turtledoves, or two young pigeons, unto the Lord; one for a sin offering, and the other for a burnt offering. 8And he shall bring them unto the priest, who shall offer that which is for the sin offering first, and wring [pinch] off his head from his neck, but shall not divide it asunder: 9and he shall sprinkle of the blood of the sin offering upon the side of the altar; and the rest of the blood shall be wrung [pressed40] out at the bottom of the altar: it is a sin offering.41 10And he shall offer the second for a burnt offering, according to the manner [ordinance]: and the priest shall make an atonement for him for his sin which he hath sinned, and it shall be forgiven him.
11But if he be not able to bring two turtledoves, or two young pigeons, then he that sinned shall bring for his offering the tenth part of an ephah of fine flour for a sin offering: he shall put no oil upon it, neither shall he put any frankincense thereon: for it is a sin offering.37 12Then shall he bring it to the priest, and the priest shall take his handful of it, even a memorial thereof, and burn it on the altar, according to [upon42] the offerings made by fire unto the Lord: it is a sin offering.37 13And the priest shall make an atonement for him as touching his sin that he hath sinned in one of these, and it shall be forgiven him: and the remnant shall be the priests, as a meat offering [an oblation43].
TEXTUAL AND GRAMMATICAL
Lev 4:2. from = = = to totter to and fro, to wander, to go wrong. It includes not only sinning unawares, through ignorance (Lev 4:13; Lev 4:22; Lev 4:27; Lev 5:17), or carelessness, and want of consideration (Lev 5:1; Lev 5:4); but also unintentional sins (like that of manslaughter without malice, Num 35:11; Num 35:15; Num 35:22), and therefore sins arising from human infirmity in contradistinction to intentional and defiant sinssins with a high handfor which no sacrifice was allowable (Num 15:27-31). The LXX. , the Targ. Onk. (also Ben Uz. and Jerus.) = through error, so also the Syr. The old Italic has imprudenter. Aquila reads , and it was perhaps by a literal translation of this that the Vulg. came to read per ignorantiam, which has been perpetuated in the A. V.; but in Hellenistic Greek and . (Heb 9:7) bear rather the sense given above. See Schleus. Lex. in LXX. Through going astray might better express the meaning, except that it does not sufficiently bring out the distinction as in the animus of the sinner.
Lev 4:2. . The A. V. has supplied against, as in the former clause, where the construction is the same; but there it is required, and here worse than useless to the sense. It should be omitted as in nearly all the ancient versions. The in both clauses is to be taken partitively.
Lev 4:3. Prop. inf. const. Kal., and there used as a noun = to bring guilt upon. So most of the ancient versions and the modern expositors generally.
Lev 4:5. To anointed the LXX. and Sam. Vers. add whose hand is consecrated. The Sam. text has a similar addition.
Lev 4:7. The Sam. and 8 MSS. prefix the article to , while the Sam., 3 MSS., and Vulg., omit the bullock.
Lev 4:8. . This is translated in the A. V. and in the ancient versions as if it were as in Lev 3:14. So it must be translated, and such is actually the reading in the Sam. and many MSS.
Lev 4:12. The Sam. and LXX. here have the plural. Of course the high-priest did not do this with his own hands, but is said to do that which he caused to be done, according to common usage of all languages.
Lev 4:9. On. See Lev 3:4, Textual Note 3.
Lev 4:13. (congregation) (assembly) the two words used here, and Num 16:2 and freq. have no difference in signification which can be recognized in translation. They are used in apposition.
Lev 4:13. . In the A. V. sin always in Lev. is the translation of . This being the only exception, should be changed.
Lev 4:13. has dagesh in the here and in Lev 5:2; Lev 5:4. According to Delitzsch it is an old rule of pointing that every consonant which followed a syllable terminating with a guttural should be pointed with dagesh, if the guttural was to be read with a quiescent sheva and not with chateph. Comp. Gen 46:29; Exo 14:6, (according to some copies) Psa 10:1.
Lev 4:14. The Sam. and LXX. here add the without blemish so frequently expressed, and always to be understood.
Lev 4:14. . The word is used in both sensesa sin, and a sin-offering. The context requires the latter here. It has no article.
Lev 4:14. The LXX. and Vulg. add the door of, which is implied.
Lev 4:2. from = = = to totter to and fro, to wander, to go wrong. It includes not only sinning unawares, through ignorance (Lev 4:13; Lev 4:22; Lev 4:27; Lev 5:17), or carelessness, and want of consideration (Lev 5:1; Lev 5:4); but also unintentional sins (like that of manslaughter without malice, Num 35:11; Num 35:15; Num 35:22), and therefore sins arising from human infirmity in contradistinction to intentional and defiant sinssins with a high handfor which no sacrifice was allowable (Num 15:27-31). The LXX. , the Targ. Onk. (also Ben Uz. and Jerus.) = through error, so also the Syr. The old Italic has imprudenter. Aquila reads , and it was perhaps by a literal translation of this that the Vulg. came to read per ignorantiam, which has been perpetuated in the A. V.; but in Hellenistic Greek and . (Heb 9:7) bear rather the sense given above. See Schleus. Lex. in LXX. Through going astray might better express the meaning, except that it does not sufficiently bring out the distinction as in the animus of the sinner.
Lev 4:15. The subject of is one of the elders.
Lev 4:17. The ellipsis supplied by it in the A. V. is filled out in the Sam., in one MS., and in the Syr., by of the blood, comp. Lev 4:6. Several other words are filled out in the same version in the following verses from the preceding paragraph.
Lev 4:18. The Sam. and LXX. unnecessarily specify altar of incense.
Lev 4:20. The article of the original should be retained as the reference is to the sin-offering of the high-priest.
Lev 4:21. The Sam. and many MSS. have here again the later feminine form .
Lev 4:22. . This word variously rendered in the A. V. captain, chief, governor, prince, and ruler, occurs in Lev. only here, but very frequently in Num., where it is translated captain in Leviticus 2 (12 times), chief in chs. 3, 4 (5 times), once ruler, Lev 13:2, and prince throughout the rest of the book (42 times) as well as throughout Gen. and Josh. In Ex. it occurs four times uniformly translated ruler. In nearly all these places it refers to persons of substantially the same rank, and it would be better therefore that its translation should be uniform. It means literally, an exalted person, and is applied to the head of a tribe, or other large division of the people, whether of Israel or of other nations. Lange interprets it of the tribe chieftain, referring to Num 3:24. As prince is on the whole the most common rendering of the A. V., and expresses very well the sense, it is retained here.
Lev 4:23. The conjunction should be rendered if perhaps, Fuerst, Gesenius. The Syr. renders by if, the LXX. , Vulg. et postea.
Lev 4:23. = a he-goat, generally understood of one older than the or young he-goat used in the burnt and peace-offerings (Fuerst, Knobel). It is often rendered kid in the A. V. It is also rendered devil Lev 17:7; 2Ch 11:15, where the reference is to the idolatrous worship of the goat, (or goat-like deity) and twice satyr in Isa. (Lev 13:21; Leviticus 34:14). It is the kind of goat used in the sin-offering generally. Bochart supposes it to mean a goat of a peculiar breed; so Keil.
Lev 4:24. The Sam. puts the verb in the plural; so also in Lev 4:33.
Lev 4:25. The LXX. and 4 MSS. have all his blood, as in the other places.
Lev 4:27. There seems no occasion here to deviate from the literal translation which is retained so far as people of the land is concerned, in Lev 20:2; Lev 20:4; 2Ki 11:18-19; 2Ki 16:15. It was the common name of the whole people as distinguished from the priests (in this case probably from the high-priest) and the rulers.
Lev 4:28. is simply the feminine of the word discussed under Lev 4:23.
Lev 4:28. is simply the feminine of the word discussed under Lev 4:23.
Lev 4:30. Two MSS., the Sam., and the Syr., unnecessarily add of burnt-offering. The Sam. and the LXX. make the same addition at the end of Lev 4:34.
Lev 4:32. = a sheep, see Text. note 5 under Lev 3:7.
Lev 4:35. . The sense is here as in Lev 3:5 upon. These being special offerings, the daily burnt-offering would always have been upon the altar before them, and even if that were already wholly consumed, the expression upon it could still be naturally used.
Lev 5:1. Particula ante hic usurpatur , estque vertenda quia, eo quod, ut Gen 26:12; Deu 17:16. Rosenmueller.
Lev 5:1. . Commentators are generally agreed that this should be translated adjuration. The verb in the Hiph. is translated adjure in 1Sa 14:24. See Exeg. Com. The Heb. has no word for adjuration as distinct from swearing. It is expressed in the LXX. by .
Lev 5:2. The full form would be ; accordingly the Sam. and some MSS. prefix here and add in Lev 5:4
Lev 5:2. See note1 on Lev 11:2.
Lev 5:4. ,, speak idly, or ill-advisedly. Comp. , Mat 6:7.
Lev 5:5. For the Sam. and 20 MSS. here substitute .
Lev 5:6. , like , is used in the sense both of trespass and trespass-offering. The ancient versions leave the question between them open. The Vulg. has simply agat, penitentiam, LXX. , while the Semitic versions leave the same doubt as the Hebrew. Modern commentators are divided, but the weight of opinion accords with the Exeg. Com. At the end of the verse the Sam. and the LXX. have the fuller form, and the priest shall make an atonement for him, for his sin which he hath sinned, and it shall be forgiven him.
Lev 5:7. lit. If his hand cannot acquire. The sense is well expressed by the A. V.
Lev 5:9. the translation of the A. V. wrung might answer here, but as the same word must be translated pressed in Lev 1:15, it seems better to preserve uniformity.
Lev 5:9; Lev 5:11-12. The Sam. and many MSS. have the later feminine form of the pronoun .
Lev 5:12. = upon, as Lev 3:5; Lev 4:35.
Lev 5:13. Oblation. Comp. Lev 2:1, Textual Note 2, and Exeg. at beginning of Leviticus 2.
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
The formula by which this chapter is introducedAnd the LORD spake unto Mosesanswering to Lev 1:1-2; Lev 5:14; Lev 6:1; Lev 6:8, etc., marks this passage as a distinct portion of the law. The offerings of chaps. 13, when brought by individuals, were all voluntary, and are recognized as already familiar; but in chaps, 4, 5. sacrifices are appointed (no longer voluntary) for certain offences, and these sacrifices now for the first time receive names from the purposes for which they were commandedSin and Trespass offerings. These specialized sacrifices were a creation of the Mosaic law, and are therefore naturally placed after the more general sacrifices of chaps 13. Lange says also: The former class of sacrifices refer to innate sinfulness, and in so far forth to the general participation in guilt of the offerer (on which account throughout a , a covering of the offerer, takes place); but does not have reference to peculiar personal transgressions to be atoned for by the sin and trespass offerings. In the present section we have to do only with the sin offering (Lev 4:1 to Lev 5:13); yet this and the trespass offering are closely related, and are distinguished only as the sin or the trespass comes into the foreground, so that the line of separation is not always strongly marked, and in particular cases might even be difficult to trace. Sin is the transgression of the law, and may involve no further harm, and requires expiation only for its own guilt; while trespass is wrong done to another (whether God or man), and involves not only sacrifice for its sin, but also amends for its harm. With neither were oblations or drink-offerings allowed; and when, in case of extreme poverty, flour was permitted as a sin-offering, it must be without oil or frankincense (Lev 5:11).
Lange takes a somewhat different view of the relation of these two offerings, and consequently of the proper analysis of this whole passage, Lev 4:1 to Lev 6:7. The substance of his views may be gathered from the headings of his several subdivisions as follows: The Sin offering and the Trespass offering (46:7). (a) The Sin-offering and the little Sin and Trespass offering (45:13). 1. The Sin offering (Lev 4:1-21). 2. The little Sin offering (Lev 4:22-35). (b) The Trespass offering. 1. The little Sin and Trespass offering, or the uncleanness of the common people (Lev 5:1-13). 2. The great Trespass offering, or guilt offering (Lev 5:14 to Lev 6:7). Accordingly he says: The following considerations may serve somewhat to disentangle the question how the sections of the sin offering and the trespass offering are to be separated from one another, and whether Lev 5:1-13 treats of the sin offering or of the trespass offering. There is, certainly, no question that all sin is at the same time guilt, a deed which has made itself into an actual state of things which must be atoned for, or has become liable to punishment. And there is also no question that guilt in general is also sin, although as participation in guilt, it may be widely separated from the centre of sinfulness, as far as the disappearing minimum, even until it is said of the guiltless Messiah in Isaiah 53. that He would give his life as a trespass offeringAsham; and from this arises also the possibility that two classes may be formed in which the one emphasizes sin as such, while the other emphasizes more the state of guilt. The state of guilt may be very trifling, as being accessory to a guilty principal, or very evil as an original offence; in all cases it requires a proportionate penance (not expiation) or satisfaction. From the indeterminate character of the antithesis, it also comes that there may be a transitional form between the sin and the trespass offeringsa form of sin offerings which, at the same time, becomes elevated as a trespass offering. There are forms of the predominating participation in guilt, and one such we find in the section Lev 5:1-13. On the other hand, in the strict trespass offerings which follow further on, we shall take up all cases in which the offence against the holy places and rights of Jehovah, or in regard to the property of a neighbor, amount to an offence that is a violation of right, which must be atoned for by restitution, punishment and sacrifice.
In Lev 4:3 the sin of the High Priest brings guilt on the peoplethat is, the guilt of participation in guilt. Luther translates that he scandalizes the peoplea conception not very different from our ownviz.: that he brings upon them liability of penalty and punishment. So it is also with the congregation of Israel: it becomes guilty through its sin (Lev 4:13). So also with the noble (Lev 4:22). So too, at last, with the common Israelite (Lev 4:27). Ought now the section Lev 5:1-13 to be (as Knobel) only an example to illustrate the foregoing transaction in the case of the sin offering of the common Israelite? Lev 5:6 says: And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the lord for his sin. [This is probably the key to the whole view of Lange. If, however, be here considered as standing not for trespass offering, but for trespass (see Text. note 34 on verse 6), the view before given seems preferable.] It is true that both Lev 5:11-12 repeat the statement that his offering is a sin offering. But according to the context, the meaning of this is that this sacrifice must be treated entirely after the analogy of the sin offering. No incense nor oil are to be added to this sacrifice. The same rule is applied to the great trespass offerings that follow, Lev 5:14 sq. The first instance, Lev 5:1, has peculiarly the character of participation in guilt. The properly guilty person in this case is the blasphemer; the participation in guilt comes from a soul hearing the curse and not cleansing itself from defilement by giving information. The view of the Heidelberg Catechism, that by silence and looking on one may become a participant in such fearful sins, appears here. So the touching a corpse is set with the unclean states of men by its natural connection, and the rash swearing, by traditional and common custom. That which is spoken of in the special greater crimes, as they are raised into a class by themselves by the introduction in Lev 5:14, is the gross violation of the law. Here, then, rightly appear the actions in which a man is guilty against Jehovah, i.e., against His holy things or His law. The fraud of which the sinner has at last become conscious must be atoned for in most cases by a restitution which was increased by one-fifth of the whole amount. But legal restitution alone was not enough; it must be preceded (without mentioning the trespass offering elsewhere prescribed) by a costly sacrifice of a ram worth two shekels. As religious atonement was of little value alone, when social restitution was directed, so also restitution, as a supplementary payment, was of little worth without religious atonement.
Now, on the one hand, we must not mistake the fact that the section Lev 5:14 sq. draws a distinction between those faults which at the same time have become debts or relate to customs (mostly legal transgressions of right, as violations of the rights of property), and the purely religious faults in which throughout (with the exception of the case in Lev 5:17-19) the sinner has only to deal with God. and so far the newer division must be considered right, as in Knobel and Keil (and so also in Kurtz and others). But, on the other hand, it must not be overlooked that the subject has already been about the offering of the Asham in the section v. 1 sq. [?], and this is in favor of the older opinion which may be found in the headings of Stiers translation. There is also no question that to reduce the whole guilt-idea to legal transgressions will obscure very much the guilt-idea in the present case, as when Knobel wishes to leave out of consideration the passage Isa 53:10, when he says can be no actual trespass offering. According to Knobel, the Asham arises from the rights of neighbors. But here evidently it arises from the rights of Jehovah, which Keil also emphasizes, and Knobel states indirectly. But we should rather say that it arises from the absolute right which is considered to be under Jehovahs protection, in heaven and earth, and which has been completely confused with the guilt-idea itself in the theology of the day, in which justice in its many forms is travestied by Good disposition (the substantive and the adjective are allowed to evaporate into the adverb). It would have been better to have found the key to the conception of guilt in Isaiah 53. For just as the guilt of a sinner can extend over a community, so also the exculpation wrought by the Redeemer. The expresses that man has become guilty, liable to punishment, towards Jehovah or towards his fellow-man; and the emphasis lies so strongly on the liability to punishment that the same word denotes at the same time satisfaction; and conversely, the Hiphil means not merely to give satisfaction, but also to bring over others the ban of guilt as a penalty. As concerns the varying distinction between the respective sections, we must especially notice that one must proceed from the distinction between the universal guilt idea and the conception of a legal fault, falling into the theocratic judicial sphere. If this difference be held to, we can certainly establish the newer division; for in the ritual of sacrifice the distinction between the sin and trespass offerings is not to be mistaken. Knobel has stated this difference accurately, p. 394 sq. It is properly made prominent that the trespass-offeringas a religious offence makes the forgiveness of God necessarymay also be a sin-offering, so that it is frequently cited as a sin-offering The trespass-offering, it may then be said, was always available only for the single Israelite, and was the same for all; while the sin-offering served also for the whole people, and varied according to the standing of the sinner in the Theocracy; the trespass-offering consisted always of sheep, while in the sin-offering all sacrificial animals were allowed; the trespass-offering must be worth a definite price, and was not modified, in the case of those who were unable to offer it, to a pair of doves or a meat-offering, as was the sin-offering; in the trespass-offering, as in the burnt-offering and thank-offering, the blood was sprinkled on the side of the altar of burnt offering (Lev 7:2); in the sin-offering, on the other hand, departing from the custom in all other sacrifices, it was brought before God (Lev 4:5); the flesh in the trespass-offering always belonged to the priest (Lev 7:6), while in the more especial sin-offerings it was burned. Then the distinction of the occasions may be expressed as follows: 1) Dishonesty against the revenues of the priests, as against the holy things of Jehovah. 2) Dishonesty in the due fidelity towards a neighbor (in a trust, in a deposit, in property found). 3) Dishonestuse of authority over a maid betrothed to another man (Lev 19:20). 4) Defrauding in regard to the preference of the daughters of Israel over heathen women (Ezr 10:19). Besides these, the Violation of the Ark of the Covenant by the Philistines (1Sa 6:3); imperilling the congregation by the contagious leprosy (Lev 14:12); Defilement of the Nazarite, as weakening the inviolability of his vow (Num 6:12). According to these examples the trespass-offering is distinguished from the sin-offering in the following manner: it arises from the right of a neighbor, and rests upon a violation of this right. But Jehovah too claims satisfaction, since He has fixed the rights of those pertaining to Him. Or also the right simply claims satisfaction: a particular instance is the case of a guilty person who has gone astray, through oversight or heedlessness, in a way that is known to no one but himself; who afterwards has an uneasy conscience, and then feels himself burdened by his misdeed, and becomes conscious of his guilt (Lev 5:17-18). Otherwise indeed, he would be unable to atone, for instance, for his false oath. With the former division one could with propriety reverse the designations, and term the sin-offering the trespass-offering, and the trespass-offering for the most part the sin-offering, the offering for real and ideal transgressions of right. In this confusion of ideas the manifold differences are not too prominent as they are cited in Knobel, p. 396, Keil, p. (53) 316, Winer (Schuld und Sndopfer) and others. If we go back briefly to the ideal distinctions: sin, as sin, is indeed guilt, , the particular evil deed; guilt, as such on the contrary, is the entire effect of sin in its cosmic sphere from the bad conscience even to death, to Sheol, to Hell. Guilt, as such, falls within the circle of evil, although the axiom guilt is the greatest of evils refers to sin. The sinfulness in guilt is the temptation to further sinfulness; it has, however, also a natural influence, according to which it reacts upon sin. See the article Schuld in Herzogs Realencyclopdie. Guilt rests in the legal effect, there must be satisfaction for it; in the ethical effect, evil conscience, false position towards God, temptation to new sin; in the social effect, it lies as a burden upon the sphere of life that surrounds the sinner, whether he be high or low; in the generic effect, it is visited upon the children of the fathers, and becomes a universal might, a cosmic evil. Sin is solitary, guilt is common (forgive us our trespasses). It is obvious that sin in all cases is originally guilt; but guilt in distinction from sin is, in many cases, only participation in sinaccessoriness. Even in the section of the great trespass-offering, the force of participation in guilt may not be entirely wanting, for the severity of the Levitical relations, the temptations which adhered to the church goods and lands, to property, come into consideration. Under the law the ignorant man is touched on all sides, and is thus constituted in some measure a sinner, an accessory through greater sinners who made the law necessary. Sin is like a stone cast into a lake; guilt like the wave-circles which go out from it, the circumference of that evil centre. Sin, in its consequences, is ideally an infinitum, enmity against God; guilt, in itself considered, is a self-consuming finitum, so far as it is not changed into a curse by its constant reciprocity with sin. Sin can only be done away through the reconciliation of person to person; it requires repentance. Guilt is to be done away by means of atonement (voluntary penance, not expiation), personal or vicarious restitution; for, on the one hand, this of course is preliminary to the completed reconciliation, and, on the other hand, that breaks the way for expiation. See the history of Jacob: the vision of the heavenly ladder preceded the wrestling at the Jabbok. Keil says somewhat differently: As in the sin-offering the idea of expiation or atonement for sin, indicated in the sprinkling of blood, comes forward, so in the trespass-offering we find the idea of satisfaction for the purpose of restoring the violated rightful order.
In what follows, the views previously presented will be followed, since the rendering of by trespass rather than by trespass-offering in Lev 5:6 renders it unnecessary to enter upon much of the nice distinctions here drawn by Lange, and enables us clearly to separate the sections of the sin and the trespass-offering.
Lange continues: Lev 4:1. Sin, , as missing, is in Leviticus more particularly missing in regard to the holy fellowship with the holy God through transgression of His command or violation of the reverence due Him. It must, as debt, be paid for by punishment. It makes the sinner unclean, so that he cannot appear in Gods fellowship, and hence uncleanness is a symbolic representation of sin, and the unclean needs, when cleansed, a sin-offering for a token and sign of his cleanness. It is understood that the sin offering that was introduced into the law by Moses preceded the given law; and so it is easily to be supposed that voluntary sin-offerings from compulsion of conscience most probably must be as old as the sacrifice in general, as certainly in the Passover the force of the sin offering may be plainly recognized.[Lange must mean that the more general sacrifices of old often included within them the idea of the sin offering, as they did of every other sacrifice; but the specialized sin offering itself, as already pointed out, is not mentioned before Exo 29:14, nor is there any evidence that it was used or known at an earlier date.]On the extra-theocratic sin offering see Knobel, p. 386. But it is not correct to see with Knobel in the death of the sacrificial animal an actual satisfactio vicaria of the sinner, or to find in the death of the animal the expression that the offerer had already deserved death. In regard to the first point, the sacrificial animal furnishes only in the symbolical sense what the offerer ought to furnish personally, but cannot. And as to the second point, the death-punishment, in the peace-offering, it is self-evident, that the reference could not be to the punishment of death, and also in the sin-offering the difference between the Cherem [=a curse, a thing devoted to destruction] and the propitiation through the sacrifice must be considered. That the divine Justice should have punished an inadvertence, , with death is an overstraining of the confession (with which the sacrificer appeared before God), that by this oversight or going astray he had entered the paths of death,44 as this idea indeed belongs to pardonable sin. Otherwise an arbitrary distinction would have to be drawn between sin with uplifted hand, and sin from inadvertence, under which head must be understood not only sins of ignorance and precipitation, but also natural weakness and heedlessness. The turning point of these sins lay in contrition. But the sacrificer could in reality hardly satisfy the theocratic order by his sacrifice; on the religious side his sacrifice was thus a confession of his inability to satisfy, an appeal for mercy; and hence the sacrifice became a typical prophetic movement towards the future satisfaction.
The sins for which sin offerings were to be presented were offences against the Divine law much more in its moral than in its ceremonial aspect. Great offences against civil society, such as involuntary manslaughter (Num 35:10-15; Deu 19:1-10), did not come within the scope of these sacrifices; and minor breaches of the ceremonial law, such as uncleanness from contact with the dead bodies of animals (Lev 11:24; Lev 11:28) or men (Num 19:11; Num 19:19-20), were otherwise provided for. The sin offering had relation much more to the individual conscience than to the theocratic state or the peculiar Hebrew polity. In Num 15:29 its privileges are expressly extended to the stranger. But it was not allowed to be offered in cases where no true penitence could be supposed to exist, and it was therefore not permitted in the case of presumptuous or defiant sins (Num 15:30-31).
The idea of vicarious satisfaction necessarily appears more clearly in this specialized offering for sin than in other sacrifices which were either more general in their character, or specialized for other purposes. (The word occurs several times in Genesis in the sense of sin, but never in the sense of sin offering, before Exo 29:14). Hence, in view of the intrinsic insufficiency of animal victims to atone for moral offences, this sacrifice was emphatically typical of the true Sacrifice for sin to come. The object of all the divine dealings with man has been his restoration to communion with God by the restoration of his holiness; and the first step to this end was necessarily the putting away of his sin. Under the old dispensation, therefore, the typical sin offering was the culmination of its whole system, presented in the most emphatic form on the great day of atonement (chap. 16); just as under the new dispensation the culmination of Christs work for the redemption of His people was His atoning sacrifice of Himself upon the Cross of Calvary.
Unlike the preceding sacrifices, the victim in the sin offering varied according to the offenders rank in the theocracy. The ground of this is to be sought in the conspicuousness of the offence, not at all in its grossness. Here, as elsewhere, there was no correlation between the value of the victim and the magnitude of the sin. Every sin, great or small, of the same class of persons was expiated by the same means; a victim of higher value was only required in consequence of official responsibility and position, and the consequently greater strain which offences brought upon the theocracy. There was no such gradation in the Trespass offering, which was related more to the harm done than to the sin committed. Four grades are prescribed: for the sin(1) of the high-priest (Lev 4:3-12); (2) of the whole congregation (Lev 4:13-21); (3) of a prince (Lev 4:22-26); (4) of any of the people of the land (Lev 4:27-35). After this follows an enumeration of special sins for which confession should be made and sin offerings offered (Lev 5:1-6), with the allowance of inferior offerings in case of poverty (Lev 4:7-13).
Lev 4:1-2. The general condition of the sin offering.
Lev 4:2. Speak unto the children of Israel.It is always to be remembered that these laws are given to a people already in covenant relation to God, and the essential point of that covenant was the promise of the final victory over sin in the person of the seed of the woman. The laws given until He should come are therefore necessarily based upon His coming, and look forward to Him.
Any of the commandments. in a partitive sense. At the close of this verse must be understood some such clause as he shall bring an offering for his sin. The actual apodosis of the verse is the whole following chapter, and not Lev 4:3, which relates only to the high-priest.
Lev 4:3-12. The sin offering of the high-priest. Lange here says: It must be noticed that the high-priest could become the most guilty of all, which the haughtiness of the hierarchy never thought of enough; that the whole congregation was rated as one personality equal in rank to him; that the prince was only considered slightly greater than the common man (the difference is he goats, she goats, or an ewe); and that for the poor, in the section Lev 5:1-13, there were two more peculiar modifications.
Lev 4:3. The priest that is anointed.LXX.: , = high-priest, Targums. The high-priest is so called by reason of the peculiar authority by which he alone was consecrated to his office (Exo 29:7; Lev 8:12). The anointing of all the priests was indeed expressly commanded (Exo 28:41; Exo 40:15), and is recognized as having taken place Lev 7:36; Lev 10:7; Num 3:3; yet in the account of the consecration, chap, 8, no other anointing of the common priests is mentioned than that Moses sprinkled both them and Aaron with the anointing oil and the blood from the altar. According to the best Jewish authorities, however, the priests were anointed with the finger upon the forehead. Outram places the distinction in the fact that each successive high-priest was personally anointed, while the others were only anointed once for all in the persons of Aarons immediate sons. Whatever may be the truth in regard to these things, the high-priest is evidently regarded in a peculiar sense as anointed, and is generally designated in Lev. (Lev 4:5; Lev 4:16; Lev 6:22; Lev 16:32) as the anointed priest. He is also called the = great priest (Lev 21:10; Num 35:25; Num 35:28 bis:Jos 20:6), and in later times the head or chief priest (2Ki 25:18; 2Ch 19:11), or simply the priest, (1Ki 2:35, etc.).
Do sin.Origen (Horn. II. in Lev. 1) observes that inadvertence is not specified in the case of the high-priest. It must, of course, be supposed in view of the general principles on which sacrifices were allowed at all; but it probably was not written in the law that the infirmity of the high-priest might not be made too prominent.
To the guilt of the people, i.e., to bring upon the people the guilt of his own transgression. It is an undue restriction of the sense of these words to limit them to the sins committed by the high-priest in his official capacity. Such sins, of course, did bring guilt upon the people (Lev 10:17; Mal 2:7-8); but over and above this, nothing can be clearer in history, both under the old covenant and in the world at large, than that God had so constituted men with a federal as well as individual relation, that the sins of the head, whether of the nation, the community, or the family, entail suffering upon its members. The high-priest as the head of the theocracy could not sin, but that the whole body of Israel should feel its effects. The distinction may indeed be made between natural and moral consequences, between earthly and future punishments; still the two things are so intimately connected, a debasing of the moral sense of the community is so much the effect of the unfaithfulness of its head that the spiritual condition of the Israelites, following the general law, was largely affected by that of their high-priest, so that his sins did indeed bring guilt upon the people.
A young bullock without blemish.The high-priests sin offering was the same as that of the whole congregation (Lev 4:14), not merely because of the conspicuousness of his position and of the gravity of sin in one who should be the leader to all holiness; but especially (see Lev 4:3) because of his representative character and his federal headship mentioned above. According to Jewish tradition, if the bullock of the high-priest and the bullock of the congregation stood together ready for sin offerings, the former had the preference in every way. There was a careful gradation of the victims for the sin offering: the high priest and the whole congregation offered a malea young bullock; the prince offered also a male, but of the goats (Lev 4:23); the people offered a female of either the goats (Lev 4:28) or the sheep (Lev 4:32). There was also a corresponding gradation, but with fewer steps, in the ritual in regard to the blood, and also in the disposition of the flesh. See below.
Lev 4:4. The presentation, laying on of hands, and slaughtering, were the same (Lev 4:14-15; Lev 4:23-24), as in the case of other sacrifices (Lev 1:3-5).
Lev 4:5-7. And the priest that is anointed shall take.At the point of the treatment of the blood the difference between the ritual of the sin offerings and the other sacrifices begins, and this treatment differs somewhat in the several sin offerings themselves. In this case, the high-priest, who was himself the offerer, brought some of the blood to the tabernacle of the congregation; afterwards the person officiating is designated simply the priest. From this it has been argued that, as the high-priest was the one whose sin was to be atoned for, the service was here taken up on his behalf by another priest; but there is precisely the same change at the same point in the following offering for the whole congregation (Lev 4:16-17), and the high-priest certainly officiated throughout on the great day of atonement (chap. 16); moreover, the fact of his offering the sin offering for himself as well as for the people is established by Heb 5:3.
Lev 4:6. Sprinkle of the blood.The word is different from used for sprinkle in chaps. 1 and 3 in view of the much smaller quantity of blood used here. It is difficult to express this in English translation, though the difference is observed in the LXX. and Vulg.
Seven times.The seven-fold sprinkling of blood is frequently commanded (Lev 4:17; Lev 16:17; Lev 16:19; Num 19:4) always in connection with sin offering, or (Lev 14:7; Lev 14:27) with the purification of leprosy. In consecrations, too, there was a seven-fold sprinkling of oil (Lev 8:11; Lev 14:16), and frequently the number seven is designated for the victims in sacrifice (Lev 23:18; Num 23:1; Num 23:4; Num 23:14; Num 23:29; Num 28:11; Num 28:19; Num 28:27; Num 29:2; Num 29:8; Num 29:13; Num 29:36). The same number also appears in many other particulars connected with the divine service, and has always been considered as symbolical of completeness and perfection. The number is so frequent in the divine word, as well as in the ordering of nature, that it must be thought to have its foundation in some unfathomable heavenly relations. Its use in connection with the sin offering is plainly to give emphasis to the typical completeness of the propitiation.
Before the veil of the sanctuary.There is a variety of opinion as to precisely where the blood was sprinkled. The LXX: , and the Vulg.: contra velum, seem to have supposed it was upon the veil itself. It is more probable that the high-priest, dipping his finger in the blood at the entrance of the sanctuary, sprinkled it before him towards the veil as he advanced to the altar of incense. The object was plainly the presenting of the blood before Jehovah, the manifestation of whose presence was on the ark just within the veil. The objective point was not the veil, but the ark of the covenant. Lange.
Lev 4:7. Upon the horns of the altar of sweet incensethe golden altar which stood immediately before the veil. It was only in the case of the sin-offerings for the high-priest and for the whole people (Lev 4:18) that the blood was brought to this altardoubtless on account of the especial gravity of the sins to be atoned for; in case of the other sin offerings the blood was put on the horns of the altar of burnt-offering, (Lev 4:25; Lev 4:30; Lev 4:34) which stood in the court without. It was to be put in either case upon the horns of the altar because in these the significance of the altar culminated, and in the sin offering, as has already appeared, and will still more fully appear, the utmost emphasis was to be given to every part of the ritual of propitiation.
Shall pour all the blood.But very little of the blood had thus far been used; the remainderall the bloodwas to be poured out at the foot of the altar of burnt-offering, the place to which all blood of the sacrifices not otherwise required was to be brought; it had no sacrificial significance. During the life in the wilderness the blood of the comparatively small number of sacrifices was here absorbed by the earth; later, in the temple conduits were arranged by which it was carried off into the valley of the Kedron.
Lev 4:8-10. The fat of the sin offering was to be treated in the same way as that of the peace offering, only that it is not said that it shall be burned upon the burnt offering since when both were offered the sin offering came first (Lev 16:11; Lev 16:15; Lev 16:24); neither is the burning of the fat described as an offering made by fire, of a sweet savor unto the Lord.
Lev 4:11-12. The disposition of the rest of the victim, i.e., of the whole animal except the blood and the fat, was the same in the sin offering of the high-priest and of the whole congregation (Lev 4:20-21). The difference in the treatment of the flesh of these from that of other sin offerings is determined by the treatment of the blood (Lev 6:30). When the blood had been brought within the sanctuary, the flesh must be wholly burned; yet not burned as a sacrifice, the word being never used in that sense.
Without the camp.No flesh of a sin-offering might be burned upon the altar, because the nature of the offering was purely propitiatory, and it did not admit of being so used as to be called the food of the offering made by fire unto the Lord (see on Lev 3:11). It is described as most holy (Lev 6:25), and unlike the flesh of any other sacrifice, affected everything with which it came in contact (Lev 6:26-28); whatever it touched must either be destroyed or specially purified. This was the law for all sin-offerings, and a further law comes into play in regard to those sacrifices (that of the high-priest and that of the whole congregation) whose blood was brought within the sanctuary (Lev 6:30). Their flesh was strictly forbidden to be eaten; and it remained that it must be destroyed in some other way. Hence the command that it should be burned without the camp. Yet this was not a mere convenience, resorted to because there was nothing else to be done with it. The burning without the camp had a deep symbolical teaching of sufficient prominence to be referred to in Heb 13:11-12, and applied to Christ. The ground of the law seems to be that the flesh of all sin offerings was in a peculiar sense holydevoted, under the banbecause they were for the propitiation for sin; yet a gradation was to be observed between them in this as in other respects. Their blood had been offered before the Lord, but when the blood had been offered in a more peculiar and emphatic way by bringing it within the sanctuary itself; a corresponding emphasis must mark the treatment of the flesh by carrying it forth to burn without the camp. The red heifer, whose ashes were to be used for purification, (Numbers 19) was to be burned in the same way. The sinfulness of sin and the importance and sacredness of everything connected with its propitiation were thus set before the people in the strongest light.
Unto a clean placenot carelessly anywhere, lest it might happen to be to an unclean place (Lev 14:40); but where the ashes are poured out, which was not merely clean, but being used only in connection with sacred things, had itself acquired a certain sacred association. The word , as already noted, indicates that the burning itself was not sacrificial. The same word is used for the burning of the red heifer, Num 19:5. No especial sin offering is provided for the ordinary priest. It was the spirit of the law to have as little as possible of the caste relation about the priests, and in all matters in which they were not necessarily separated by their official functions, to treat them as ordinary citizens. Their sin-offering was doubtless the same with that of any one of the people of the land.
Lev 4:13-21. The sin-offering of the whole congregation.
If the whole congregation of Israel sin.Prominent among the ways in which a whole congregation might sin are these: The civil ruler might do that which involved the nation in sin, and brought down punishment upon it, as in Sauls slaughter of the Gibeonites, or Davids numbering of the people; a single individual by an act which caused a breach of the divine commands given to the whole people, might bring sin upon them all, as in the case of Achan, Jos 7:1; or the people generally might commit some special sin, as in 1Sa 14:32, or fall into some habitual neglect of the divine commands, as in regard to the Sabbatical year (2Ch 36:21), and the neglect of tithes and offerings for which they are so frequently reproved by the later prophets.
Through inadvertence.There were two kinds of such sin: first, inadvertence of conduct, where the sinfulness of the act would be acknowledged when attention was called to it; and secondly, inadvertence of the law, when the act would not be known to be sinful until the law had been explained. In either case there would be no consciousness or intention of sin, and the thing would be hid from the eyes of the assembly.
And are guilty.Every transgression of the divine law brought guilt, whether through a faulty heedlessness of conduct, or a criminal ignorance of the law which had been given. This principle is abundantly recognized in the New Testament.
Lev 4:14-21. The ritual of the sin offering for the whole congregation is the same as that for the high-priest. The victim prescribed here is a bullock; in Num 15:24 a kid in addition is required for sins of inadvertence of the congregation. Either the law was modified, which seems unlikely, or else the two requirements have reference to some distinction in the occasion or character of the sin, such as in one case sins of omission, in the other of commission. There was also another and very peculiar sin-offering for the congregation prescribed on the especial occasion of the great day of atonement (Lev 16:5). The high-priests sin offering is there unchanged; but that for the people is highly altered in view of the especial purpose of the day.
Lev 4:15. The elderssince the congregation could only perform the acts required of the offerer by means of their representatives.
Lev 4:20. And the priest shall make an atonement for them, and it shall be forgiven them.This naturally was not said in regard to the high-priests own sin offering, but is repeated in connection with those that follow (Lev 4:26; Lev 4:31; Lev 4:35; Lev 5:6; Lev 5:10; Lev 5:13), and elsewhere in the same connection (Num 15:25; Num 15:28); also in connection with the trespass offering (Lev 5:16; Lev 5:18; Lev 6:7; Lev 19:22). It is also used in connection with the purificatory offerings, the change being made from forgiveness to cleansing as the result of the atonement (Lev 12:7-8; Lev 14:20; Lev 14:53; Num 8:21). The use of the simpler form make atonement for him in connection with the burnt-offering has already been noticed. The priest in these cases unquestionably acted, and was understood by the people to act, in a mediatorial capacity. , as noticed under Lev 1:4, means literally, to cover, to put out of sight, to hide. What is promised here is of course not that God will cause to be undone the wrong that has been done; but that He will so put it out of His sight that the sinner may stand without fault in His presence. See the various expressions to this effect in the prophets, e. g., Psa 85:2; Psa 103:12; Psa 38:17; Psa 44:22; Jer 31:34; Eze 18:22; Eze 33:16; Mic 7:18-19, etc. This atonement was thus effectual in removing the guilt of all transgression (other than wilful) against the divine law. Hence the efficacy of the sin-offering could only have been derived from its typical relation to Him who was the Propitiation for the sins of the whole world. (1Jn 2:2).
Lev 4:22-26. The sin offering for a Prince.
The ritual in this case differs from that in the previous cases, first in the selection of the victim, which must now be a he-goat instead of a bullock; and secondly, in that the blood was not presented within the sanctuary, which involved consequently a difference in the disposition of the flesh.
Lev 4:24. In the place where they kill the burnt offeringi.e., the burnt-offering of the flock, on the north side of the altar, Lev 1:11.
Lev 4:25. The horns of the altar of burnt offering.In this and the following cases, as the sin was less extensive in its effects, so the ritual was far more simple. There was no sprinkling of blood before the veil, and the great altar in the court was substituted for the altar of incense within the sanctuary. The fat was burned as before; on the disposition of the flesh, see Lev 6:26-29.
Lev 4:27-35. The sin offering for one of the people.
In this case the victim is changed to a female, but the ritual remains the same in all respects as in the sin offering of the prince. An option was allowed as to the victim whether it should be of the goats, which seems to have been preferred (Lev 4:28-31), or of the sheep (Lev 4:32-35).
Lev 5:1-13. Certain specified sins and the sin-offering for them.
There is a difference of opinion among commentators as to whether this section should be connected with the sin-offerings which precede, or with the trespass offerings which follow. See Langes discussion under Lev 4:1. The chief argument for the latter is from the use of the word , Lev 5:6 (see below), which, however, rightly understood, does not bear out the inference. On the other hand, these verses are distinctly a part of the same divine communication begun Lev 4:1, while another begins at Lev 5:14; the word sin-offering is expressly used throughout (Lev 5:6-7; Lev 5:9; Lev 5:11); and the idea of compensation for the harm done, prominent in the trespass offering (especially Lev 5:16), only slightly appears (Lev 5:6) in these offerings. They are reckoned with the sin offerings by Knobel and Keil. They may perhaps be considered as somewhat intermediate between the ordinary sin offering and the trespass offering, yet belonging in the category of the former. The sins for which they were to be offered were of a less flagrant character than those of Leviticus 4.
Four particular cases of inadvertent sins are first mentioned, Lev 5:1-4 (for Lev 5:2-3 are clearly to be distinguished); and then confession (Lev 5:5) and an offering (Lev 5:6-13) is required for each. The normal offering is prescribed in Lev 5:6, a substitute allowed in case of poverty, Lev 5:7-10, and a further substitute in case of extreme poverty, Lev 5:11-13. Only in regard to these substitutes is the ritual given, that for the normal sin offering having been already described in Leviticus 4
Lev 5:1. The case here specified is that of a witness put upon oath who withholds testimony as to that which is within his own certain knowledge . It is the omission, according to our phraseology, to tell the whole truth. It may cover also the case of neglect to testify when a public demand for information has been made with an adjuration; St. Augustine (Quest. in Lev. I.) and Theodoret extend it also to the case of hearing testimony, known to be false, given under oath. The case of giving positive false witness is quite a different one, and is treated in Deu 19:16-19.
Adjuration.In the forms of Jewish trial, the witness did not himself utter the oath, or express his assent to it, but was adjured by the magistrate. Comp. Mat 26:63; 2Ch 18:15.
Whether he hath seen or known.This covers both the cases of eye-witness and of knowledge derived from any other source.
Bear his iniquity.Until purged in the way herein provided. The expression is a very common one in the law (Lev 7:18; Lev 17:16; Lev 19:8; Lev 20:17; Lev 24:15; Num 5:31; Num 9:13; Num 14:33-34, etc.), and means that he shall endure the punishment of the sin, whether in its natural consequences or in positive inflictions. It is used both with reference to capital sins and also to those which might be expiated by sacrifice. If the sacrifice were not offered, the sinner must bear the consequences of his sin. In this case confession (Lev 5:5) was a necessary condition of the sin-offering; therefore if he do not utter it, for without this there could be no desire to be again at one with God, and hence no place for the offering of sacrifice.
Lev 5:2. The second case is that of uncleanness from touching the carcase of any unclean animal, and was a sin of a ceremonial character.
It be hidden from him.For the uncleanness of this and the following verse simple and speedy forms of purification were provided in case immediate action were taken (Lev 11:24-25; Lev 11:28; Lev 11:39-40; Lev 15:5; Lev 15:8; Lev 15:21; Num 19:22); but if it were neglected or unobserved, the defilement still actually existed, and as the offender was in danger of communicating his own uncleanness to others, and also of constant violation of the precepts of the law, it must be expiated by sacrifice. On the connection between uncleanness and sin, see preliminary note to Leviticus 11.
Lev 5:3. Or if he touch the uncleanness of man.A special case is made of this in order, as everywhere in the law, to emphasize the distinction between man and the lower animals. Thus while observed impurity from contact with the carcase of an unclean animal was removed at even after washing the clothes (Lev 11:24, etc.), and neglected might be expiated by the sin-offering, the impurity from contact with the human dead body continued seven days, and required repeated purifications (Num 19:11-16); and neglected, the offender defiled the tabernacle, and must be cut off from Israel. The various kinds of uncleanness in man are detailed in Leviticus 11-15.
When he knoweth of it.This expression is to be taken in connection with the it be hidden from him of Lev 5:2. Of course while the defilement was hidden there could be no consciousness of guilt, nor of moral sin; yet the transgression of the law was an existing fact, and entailed its consequences. When it was brought to the offenders knowledge, then he was guilty in the further sense that he was bound to remove the already existing guilt by confession and sacrifice.
Lev 5:4. The fourth and last case specified is that of careless or forgotten oaths, not embracing the breach of the third commandment; but the neglect or forgetfulness to perform an oath (such as might be uttered in recklessness or passion).To do evil, or to do good.That is to do anything whatever. Comp. Num 24:13; Isa 41:23.
Lev 5:5. And it shall be, when.A form to introduce the apodosis to each of the previous verses.
He shall confess.This applies to the particular sins mentioned in the foregoing verses, not to the sin-offering in general. It is also required in the case of the trespass offering, Num 5:6-7. According to Jewish tradition a prayer and confession accompanied the laying on of the hand in all offerings. This is a distinct acknowledgment of the particular fault, apparently before presenting the victim.
Lev 5:6. Bring for his trespass.The Hebrew being exactly the same as in the following verse, it seems better to give the same translation. The A. V. has also the same translation in Lev 5:15, 25 (Lev 6:6). The phrase is thus parallel to, and in apposition with, for his sin which he hath sinned. The sacrifice for this is expressly called a sin offering in this verse and Lev 5:7; Lev 5:11-12. By this rendering the sin and the trespass offerings are kept distinct as they were certainly intended to be.
A female from the flock.The victim and the ritual are precisely the same as in the sin offering for one of the people of the land, and probably Lev 5:1-4 are intended to apply only to sins committed by them.
Lev 5:7-10. The alternative offering of the poor.
As in the case of the voluntary burnt offering (Lev 1:14-17), so in this of the required sin offering, the poor are allowed to bring pigeons or turtledoves.
One for a sin offering, and the other for a burnt offering.The two together evidently constitute the full sin-offering; but they are called by these names because the treatment of the two birds was different, and each after the analogy of the offering from which it is named. The bird being too small to admit of its parts being disposed of as a sin offering, two were required, one of which was undoubtedly (although this is not expressed) to be eaten by the priest, as is stated in the Mishna, after the fashion of the flesh of the sin offering (Lev 6:26; Lev 6:29; Lev 7:7); the other was to be burned on the altar like the fat of that sacrifice.
Lev 5:8. Pinch off the head.See under Lev 1:15. In this case the head was not to be entirely separated, but pinched off enough to allow the blood to flow and to kill the bird.
Lev 5:9. Sprinkle of the blood.This was not done in the case of the bird for the burnt-offering. It could easily be accomplished by swinging the bleeding bird against the side of the altar.
Pressed out at the bottom.Where the blood of the other sin offerings was poured. In the burnt offering this blood (Lev 1:15) was pressed out against the side of the altar.
Lev 5:10. The ritual of the second bird was to be the same as when birds were offered for a burnt offering (Lev 1:15-17). The two birds together constituted a complete sin offering. From the fact, however, that two were required, it is plain that the part of the offering not required to be consumed upon the altar was still essential to the sacrifice.
Lev 5:11-13. The second alternative for the extremely poor.
This was allowed, on account of the absolute necessity of the sin offering, in order to put it within the reach of all. Lange notes that the sins specified in this section are, for the most part, sins arising from the lowness and rudeness of the inferior people: the law seeks to refine them. Still it is to be remembered that this alternative offering was not only for the sins mentioned Lev 5:1-13, but for all sins reached by the sin offering. The fact that it was unbloody is not opposed to the general significance of the shedding of blood in connection with the remission of sin (Heb 9:22), since this alternative was altogether of an exceptional character and allowed only in case of necessity. It was also supplemented by the general sin offering on the great day of atonement.
The tenth part of an Ephah.The Ephah according to Josephus was about Lev 1:1-9 bushels; according to the Rabbins, rather less than half that amount. The tenth of an Ephah (called an Omer, Exo 16:36) was therefore, according to the lower and more probable estimate, very nearly three pints and a half.
He shall put no oil upon it.The sin-offering of flour was sharply distinguished from the oblation of the same (Lev 2:5) by the absence of the oil and frankincense, just as the other gin offerings were marked by the absence of the oblations. In both cases, the difference indicates that the offerer stood in a different relation toward God, not that of one in communion with Him, but of one seeking atonement for the sin which separated from Him.
Lev 5:12. On the handful and memorial see on Lev 2:2.
Lev 5:13. In one of these.As in Lev 5:5, one of the sins specified, Lev 5:1-4.
As an oblation,i.e. as most holy. Comp. under Lev 2:3. The character of the sin offering in its two parts is still preserved in this its humblest form.
DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL
I. One of the plainest teachings of the sin offering is that everything opposed to the revealed will of God is sin, whether done with the purpose of transgressing it or not. Butler has shown that this is in perfect accordance with the divine law in nature. St. Paul considered himself the chief of sinners, because he persecuted the Church of God; yet as he obtained mercy because he did it ignorantly in unbelief (1Ti 1:13-15), so the sin-offering was provided for those who put themselves in opposition to the divine will without intending to do so. It was on this principle that Jesus could pray for those who nailed Him to the cross: Father, forgive them for they know not what they do (Luk 23:34). The great mass of human sin is incurred not for the sake of sinning, but in heedlessness, or through wrong judgment, or under the impulse of passion. It comes under the head of sins of inadvertence; but, as of old, needs the intervention of the blood of the atonement before the sinner can be restored to communion with God.
II. In the law of the sin offering it appears clearly that under the old dispensation as well as the new the character of the sin was determined by the animus of the sinner. For high-handed and defiant sin no sacrifice was allowable; he who committed this put himself out of the pale of reconciliation. But he who committed sinswhich might in themselves be far worsethrough inadvertence might bring his offering and have an atonement made for him. An excellent historical illustration may be found in comparing the stories of the lives of Saul and of David; and the distinction between the two kinds of sin is expressed in the psalm of David (Lev 19:12).
III. In the sin offering the offerer must have already been in a state of mind which led him to desire the forgiveness of his sin, as is shown by his very act of bringing his victim to the priest; he was also ready to confess his sin; yet still the offering was required. By this was taught in outward symbol to the people of the old dispensation what is so clearly proclaimed in the Gospel, that for the forgiveness of sin there must be some propitiation outside and beyond the sinner himself; mere penitence, though an essential prerequisite, cannot alone avail to restore the disturbed relations to God of one who has transgressed His law.
IV. The inherent inefficacy of these sacrifices to atone for sin has been already repeatedly noticed; moreover, this inefficacy was constantly brought to the mind of the worshipper by the repetition of the sin offerings, as is especially noted in regard to the sacrifices of the day of atonement in the Ep. to the Heb. (Lev 9:6-8); still the sin offering is insisted upon in the law with an emphasis greater than belongs to any other sacrifice. Most clearly, therefore, does it point to the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world.
V. In the extension of the privileges of the sin-offering in Num 15:29 to the stranger one of those many intimations is given, scattered everywhere throughout the Old Test., which the Israelites were so slow to understand, that the blessings of forgiveness and of approach to God were intended for all people, and that the narrowness of restriction to the children of Abraham after the flesh was only a temporary provision because of transgressions until the promised Seed should come. But even while the restriction continued the stranger in Israel might present his sin offering, and Israels priests must make atonement for him.
VI. The sacramental value of the sin offering is happily expressed by Calvin in Lev 4:22. In truth they hold not the first rudiments of the faith who do not recognize that the legal ceremonies were sacraments. But in all sacraments, at least those which are regular in the church, there is a spiritual promise annexed. It follows therefore that forgiveness was truly promised to the Fathers who reconciled themselves to God by the victims offered; not that the slaughter of sheep could expiate sins, but because this was a symbol, certain and impossible to deceive, in which pious souls might rest so that they could dare to appear before God in calm confidence. In fine, as sins are now sacramentally washed away by baptism, so under the law also sacrifices were expiations, although in a different fashion; since baptism sets before us Christ immediately, who was only obscurely shadowed forth under the law. Improperly indeed is that transferred to the signs which belongs to Christ alone, in whom is set forth to us the truth of all spiritual good, and who finally did away sin by His single and perpetual sacrifice. But since the question is not what the sacrifices availed in themselves, let it suffice that they testified of the grace of God of which they were figures.
VII. The ritual of the sin offering was the most solemn of all the sacrifices, and the blood of this (except in case of the alternative doves) was always to be placed at least on the horns of the altar, while that of the greatest burnt or peace-offering was only sprinkled on its sides; thus the forgiveness of sin is shown to be the most fundamental and necessary part of the whole approach to God.
VIII. No sin offerings, although some of them were burned without the camp, were ever wholly burned upon the altar, and the common expression in regard to other sacrifices, the food of the Lord is never applied to these. Frankincense and oil were not allowed with the vegetable, nor an oblation with the animal sin offering. The whole ritual was stern and severe, until by the sacrifice itself propitiation had been made. By this symbolism is set forth the attitude of the Infinite in holiness towards sin; and thus is seen what must have been the consequences to the sinner, except for the Propitiation that is in Christ Jesus.
HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL
The exceeding sinfulness of sin is shown in every possible symbolical way by this offering. It has in it nothing of the oil of gladness, or the fragrance of frankincense; it has nothing of festive joy, or of communion between the worshipper and God. Yet dark as the shadow of sin is hereby shown to be, it appears on all occasions when man comes into the presence of God. The sin offering was presented for the people, on all the great festivals and days of solemn convocation, on Passover, the Feast of Weeks, and the Feast of Tabernacles, on the Day of Memorial, on the first day of the seventh month, and on the Day of Atonement (Kalisch) and on many other public occasions. Besides all these, it was offered continually by individuals as the sins of their own lives were brought to their consciousness. So must mans approach to God ever be with the plea, Have mercy upon me, a sinner. Coming in this temper, propitiation is provided for all. There was none so poor but that a sin offering was within his reach. And so the word of the great Propitiation is, Him that cometh to me, I will in no wise cast out. He is able to save unto the uttermost them that come unto God by Him.
Yet for high-handed and defiant sin, for sin that sets itself in opposition to the Divine way of salvation, there is no other way of forgiveness, there remains no more sacrifice. Comp. Heb 10:26.
For the sin of the high-priest a higher victim was commanded, and with a higher ritual, because he sinned to the guilt of the people. Only for the sin of the whole people collectively the same offering was required. So it must ever be with those in positions of influence and authority; when they sin, they drag others with them into guiltiness. There is ever a federal, as well as an individual relation between man and God, and though the latter may determine his final condition, yet his individual relation itself is largely affected by his federal.
Sins of omission are regarded as sins equally with those of commission.
No one is so humble that the means of propitiation is not provided for him. Under the law this could only be symbolized by alternative offerings of different degrees, showing forth the freeness under the Gospel of the offer of the waters of life to all that are athirst.
Footnotes:
[1]Lev 4:2. from = = = to totter to and fro, to wander, to go wrong. It includes not only sinning unawares, through ignorance (Lev 4:13; Lev 4:22; Lev 4:27; Lev 5:17), or carelessness, and want of consideration (Lev 5:1; Lev 5:4); but also unintentional sins (like that of manslaughter without malice, Num 35:11; Num 35:15; Num 35:22), and therefore sins arising from human infirmity in contradistinction to intentional and defiant sinssins with a high handfor which no sacrifice was allowable (Num 15:27-31). The LXX. , the Targ. Onk. (also Ben Uz. and Jerus.) = through error, so also the Syr. The old Italic has imprudenter. Aquila reads , and it was perhaps by a literal translation of this that the Vulg. came to read per ignorantiam, which has been perpetuated in the A. V.; but in Hellenistic Greek and . (Heb 9:7) bear rather the sense given above. See Schleus. Lex. in LXX. Through going astray might better express the meaning, except that it does not sufficiently bring out the distinction as in the animus of the sinner.
[2]Lev 4:2. . The A. V. has supplied against, as in the former clause, where the construction is the same; but there it is required, and here worse than useless to the sense. It should be omitted as in nearly all the ancient versions. The in both clauses is to be taken partitively.
[3]Lev 4:3. Prop. inf. const. Kal., and there used as a noun = to bring guilt upon. So most of the ancient versions and the modern expositors generally.
[4]Lev 4:5. To anointed the LXX. and Sam. Vers. add whose hand is consecrated. The Sam. text has a similar addition.
[5]Lev 4:7. The Sam. and 8 MSS. prefix the article to , while the Sam., 3 MSS., and Vulg., omit the bullock.
[6]Lev 4:8. . This is translated in the A. V. and in the ancient versions as if it were as in Lev 3:14. So it must be translated, and such is actually the reading in the Sam. and many MSS.
[7]Lev 4:9. On. See Lev 3:4, Textual Note 3.
[8]Lev 4:12. The Sam. and LXX. here have the plural. Of course the high-priest did not do this with his own hands, but is said to do that which he caused to be done, according to common usage of all languages.
[9]Lev 4:13. (congregation) (assembly) the two words used here, and Num 16:2 and freq. have no difference in signification which can be recognized in translation. They are used in apposition.
[10]Lev 4:13. . In the A. V. sin always in Lev. is the translation of . This being the only exception, should be changed.
[11]Lev 4:13. has dagesh in the here and in Lev 5:2; Lev 5:4. According to Delitzsch it is an old rule of pointing that every consonant which followed a syllable terminating with a guttural should be pointed with dagesh, if the guttural was to be read with a quiescent sheva and not with chateph. Comp. Gen 46:29; Exo 14:6, (according to some copies) Psa 10:1.
[12]Lev 4:14. The Sam. and LXX. here add the without blemish so frequently expressed, and always to be understood.
[13]Lev 4:14. . The word is used in both sensesa sin, and a sin-offering. The context requires the latter here. It has no article.
[14]Lev 4:14. The LXX. and Vulg. add the door of, which is implied.
[15]Lev 4:15. The subject of is one of the elders.
[16]Lev 4:17. The ellipsis supplied by it in the A. V. is filled out in the Sam., in one MS., and in the Syr., by of the blood, comp. Lev 4:6. Several other words are filled out in the same version in the following verses from the preceding paragraph.
[17]Lev 4:18. The Sam. and LXX. unnecessarily specify altar of incense.
[18]Lev 4:20. The article of the original should be retained as the reference is to the sin-offering of the high-priest.
[19]Lev 4:21. The Sam. and many MSS. have here again the later feminine form .
[20]Lev 4:22. . This word variously rendered in the A. V. captain, chief, governor, prince, and ruler, occurs in Lev. only here, but very frequently in Num., where it is translated captain in Leviticus 2 (12 times), chief in chs. 3, 4 (5 times), once ruler, Lev 13:2, and prince throughout the rest of the book (42 times) as well as throughout Gen. and Josh. In Ex. it occurs four times uniformly translated ruler. In nearly all these places it refers to persons of substantially the same rank, and it would be better therefore that its translation should be uniform. It means literally, an exalted person, and is applied to the head of a tribe, or other large division of the people, whether of Israel or of other nations. Lange interprets it of the tribe chieftain, referring to Num 3:24. As prince is on the whole the most common rendering of the A. V., and expresses very well the sense, it is retained here.
[21]Lev 4:2. from = = = to totter to and fro, to wander, to go wrong. It includes not only sinning unawares, through ignorance (Lev 4:13; Lev 4:22; Lev 4:27; Lev 5:17), or carelessness, and want of consideration (Lev 5:1; Lev 5:4); but also unintentional sins (like that of manslaughter without malice, Num 35:11; Num 35:15; Num 35:22), and therefore sins arising from human infirmity in contradistinction to intentional and defiant sinssins with a high handfor which no sacrifice was allowable (Num 15:27-31). The LXX. , the Targ. Onk. (also Ben Uz. and Jerus.) = through error, so also the Syr. The old Italic has imprudenter. Aquila reads , and it was perhaps by a literal translation of this that the Vulg. came to read per ignorantiam, which has been perpetuated in the A. V.; but in Hellenistic Greek and . (Heb 9:7) bear rather the sense given above. See Schleus. Lex. in LXX. Through going astray might better express the meaning, except that it does not sufficiently bring out the distinction as in the animus of the sinner.
[22]Lev 4:23. The conjunction should be rendered if perhaps, Fuerst, Gesenius. The Syr. renders by if, the LXX. , Vulg. et postea.
[23]Lev 4:23. = a he-goat, generally understood of one older than the or young he-goat used in the burnt and peace-offerings (Fuerst, Knobel). It is often rendered kid in the A. V. It is also rendered devil Lev 17:7; 2Ch 11:15, where the reference is to the idolatrous worship of the goat, (or goat-like deity) and twice satyr in Isa. (Isa 13:21; Isa 34:14). It is the kind of goat used in the sin-offering generally. Bochart supposes it to mean a goat of a peculiar breed; so Keil.
[24]Lev 4:24. The Sam. puts the verb in the plural; so also in Lev 4:33.
[25]Lev 4:25. The LXX. and 4 MSS. have all his blood, as in the other places.
[26]Lev 4:27. There seems no occasion here to deviate from the literal translation which is retained so far as people of the land is concerned, in Lev 20:2; Lev 20:4; 2Ki 11:18-19; 2Ki 16:15. It was the common name of the whole people as distinguished from the priests (in this case probably from the high-priest) and the rulers.
[27]Lev 4:28. is simply the feminine of the word discussed under Lev 4:23.
[28]Lev 4:30. Two MSS., the Sam., and the Syr., unnecessarily add of burnt-offering. The Sam. and the LXX. make the same addition at the end of Lev 4:34.
[29]Lev 4:32. = a sheep, see Text. note 5 under Lev 3:7.
[30]Lev 4:35. . The sense is here as in Lev 3:5 upon. These being special offerings, the daily burnt-offering would always have been upon the altar before them, and even if that were already wholly consumed, the expression upon it could still be naturally used. [31] Lev 5:1. Particula ante hic usurpatur , estque vertenda quia, eo quod, ut Gen 26:12; Deu 17:16. Rosenmueller.
[32]Lev 5:1. . Commentators are generally agreed that this should be translated adjuration. The verb in the Hiph. is translated adjure in 1Sa 14:24. See Exeg. Com. The Heb. has no word for adjuration as distinct from swearing. It is expressed in the LXX. by .
[33]Lev 5:2. The full form would be ; accordingly the Sam. and some MSS. prefix here and add in Lev 5:4
[34]Lev 5:2. See note1 on Lev 11:2.
[35]Lev 5:4. ,, speak idly, or ill-advisedly. Comp. , Mat 6:7.
[36]Lev 5:5. For the Sam. and 20 MSS. here substitute .
[37]Lev 5:6. , like , is used in the sense both of trespass and trespass-offering. The ancient versions leave the question between them open. The Vulg. has simply agat, penitentiam, LXX. , while the Semitic versions leave the same doubt as the Hebrew. Modern commentators are divided, but the weight of opinion accords with the Exeg. Com. At the end of the verse the Sam. and the LXX. have the fuller form, and the priest shall make an atonement for him, for his sin which he hath sinned, and it shall be forgiven him.
[38]Lev 5:27. is simply the feminine of the word discussed under Lev 5:23.
[39]Lev 5:7. lit. If his hand cannot acquire. The sense is well expressed by the A. V.
[40]Lev 5:9. the translation of the A. V. wrung might answer here, but as the same word must be translated pressed in Lev 1:15, it seems better to preserve uniformity.
[41]Lev 5:9; Lev 5:11-12. The Sam. and many MSS. have the later feminine form of the pronoun .
[42]Lev 5:12. = upon, as Lev 3:5; Lev 4:35.
[43]Lev 5:13. Oblation. Comp. Lev 2:1, Textual Note 2, and Exeg. at beginning of Leviticus 2.
[44]It is also a straining of the text to render the words: in the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die, as meaning thou shalt actually die the death. Religiomoral death realizes itself gradually. Indeed, the principle of death is the germ of death itself.
Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange
CONTENTS
In continuation of the same subject, of ordinances, this Chapter relates the rite concerning the trespass-offering. The cases are particularized to which this religious ordinance had reference, and the offering itself stated; whether of a lamb, or kid; or in poorer circumstances, two; or if very poor, an omer of flour.
Lev 5:1
It were very much to be wished, that this law was paid attention to among those who profess themselves to be Christians, both in discountenancing idle and profane oaths, and putting a check to false swearing. Pro 29:24 . It should seem, that it was by virtue of this law, the high priest adjured the LORD JESUS. Mat 26:63 .
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
“Handfuls of Purpose”
For All Gleaners
“… the holy things of the Lord.” Lev 5:15
Are we not told that “the earth is the Lord’s, and the fulness thereof”? Do not all things belong to Heaven? Has not God himself said “All souls are mine”? Has he not also said the “silver and the gold are mine,” and “the cattle upon a thousand hills?” To these inquiries there can be but one reply. Still, the separation of things into special relations to the Most High is perfectly compatible with the universal proprietorship of God. It is not always implied that one thing is holy and another sinful. The term holy often means separated; that is to say, set apart for special and exclusive purposes. Taken in this sense, the Lord has from the beginning made special claims in his own name. He has claimed one day in the week for rest and worship. He has claimed offerings from the flock upon the field in acknowledgment of divine ownership. He has set apart occasions for fast or festival, that the soul might address itself properly to the heavenly mercy. Self-deception upon all such matters is very easy. There is a piety which is void by generality. When men say they give all they have to God, and, therefore, need not set aside particular sums, they confuse things that differ. The man who lays claim to this entire consecration without having gone through a period of education shows the insidious nature of self-conceit. Where is the man who has been enabled all at once, without training and without experience, to give all his time and store to the service of God? No such man has yet been discovered in history. To claim to be such a man is to set up a claim for idolatry. To regard all things, times, and places as holy is a leap of the imagination which is likely to involve impiety. It is well for us to begin with one day in seven; one pound in ten; one church in a town, or a district of a town; from these partial appointments and sacrifices we may rise into the higher consecration. To say that we have found some other way to that consecration than the way which God himself has marked out, is to have anticipated Omniscience and invented a new theory of human nature. We are called upon to begin at distinct points, and to contribute of time, money, and influence, according to a measure; not, indeed, that we may stop there, but that, having tasted of the goodness of God’s dispensation, we may go forward steadily and loyally to perfection and rest. Even with regard to the body and the mind, as they are known to us, some portions of them may be spoken of as being more peculiarly holy unto the Lord than are others. Specially should we guard the conscience: the imagination, too, should be bent in worship at the holy altar: the will should be watched as fire is guarded. Errors of judgment may be venial, but when the conscience is bribed or stupefied who can prophesy good of the whole life? To have some things marked as holy things of the Lord is to show at least the beginning of religious character and aspiration.
Fuente: The People’s Bible by Joseph Parker
Moral Contagion
Lev 5
In reading this chapter take notice of the expression, “if a soul touch any unclean thing, whether it be a carcase of an unclean beast, or a carcase of unclean cattle, or the carcase of unclean creeping things, and if it be hidden from him; he also shall be unclean, and guilty.” Why this continual dread of uncleanness? Call these, if you please, merely sanitary arrangements, yet why this early care about matters connected with human health? Is not the provision totally in excess of the occasion? Is not this an instance of much ado about nothing? Do men require all these instructions and the continual supervision of all this judgment in matters connected with the health and purity of the body? Let that be granted, and nothing whatever is taken from the urgency and solemnity of the spiritual appeal; on the contrary, the very circumstance that so much ado is made about fleshly cleanliness increases the poignancy of the appeal dealing with spiritual health and vigour. Those who suppose that the whole ritual of the Jews related to sanitation must not imagine that even if their position could be proved which from my point of view is impossible they have at all impaired the cogency and completeness of any appeal which may be addressed to the moral sense. The fact is, that man could not be made apart from the moral sense to comprehend even such an appeal were it restricted to the body. In other words, we could not be really cleanly in body and soundly in earnest about physical sanitation except through the medium of the conscience as well as through the action of the judgment The judgment is often but an impotent director of human conduct. We may say with the ancient poet, “We see the right, and yet the wrong pursue.” It is really only when the moral sense is thoroughly aroused and inspired that the judgment itself is lifted to its right level and brought into complete action in all practical matters. We will not, therefore, be turned aside from the spiritual appeal which may be founded upon these exhortations by being told that in the first instance the exhortation was related to matters that were purely sanitary. This avoidance of unclean animals and places is not without practical illustration in our own personal experience and action. To-day, for example, we avoid places that are known to be fever-stricken. We are alarmed lest we should bring ourselves within the influence of contagion. The strongest man might fear if he knew that a letter were put into his hand which had come from a house where fever was fatally raging. However heroic he might be in sentiment, and however inclined to boast of the solidity of his nervous system, it is not impossible that even the strongest man might shrink from taking the hand of a fever-stricken friend. All this is natural and all this is justifiable, and, in fact, any defiance of this would be unnatural and unjustifiable. Is there, then, no suggestion in all such rational caution that there may be moral danger from moral contagion? Can a body emit pestilence and a soul dwell in all evil and riot in all wantonness without giving out an effluvium fatal to moral vigour and to spiritual health? The suggestion is preposterous. They are the unwise and most reprehensible men who being afraid of a fever have no fear of a moral pestilence; who running away in moral terror from influences leading towards small-pox, cholera, and other fatal diseases, rush into companionships, and actions, and servitudes which are positively steeped and saturated with moral pollution. That we are more affected by the one than by the other only shows that we are more body than soul. The man who is careful about his body and careless about his soul does not prove the littleness of the soul in itself or in the purpose of God: he simply proves that in his case the flesh is overgrown and has acquired excessive importance. It would be the merest conceit did it not also involve deep moral injury to imagine that human life can be lived without any exposure to moral contagion. This is a mystery which has no words. The temptation does not always come to us in some violent form which can be measured, estimated, and physically or substantially resisted either in action or in argument The elements which poison the air are of the subtlest kind, and can only be detected by the most advanced chemistry. This is true in the moral atmosphere. What a suggestion may do it is impossible always to foretell. At first it may seem to be of little weight, or it may actually appear to be forgotten, to sink wholly out of memory and consciousness; but it is impossible to tell how long it may lie in the soul latently and under what circumstances it may begin to bear evil fruit in the spirit and the life. Strange, indeed, if such things are possible in nature and impossible in morals! A truly wonderful thing if after all it should be found that physical conditions involve greater mysteries than spiritual possibilities and destinies! This would be an inversion of thought a turning upside down of all that has been customary in intellectual conception and representation. The Christian whilst protesting against such inversion as irrational and unnatural will accept every mystery that is hidden in nature as indicating a still greater mystery that is to be found in the kingdom of thought and of spiritual activity. It seems to be impossible to escape contagion of a moral kind. All contagion is so wide-sweeping in its influence, that is to say, it operates at points so far distant from any visible and tangible centre, that we easily dissociate the effect from the cause and imagine harmlessness in the very centres of most active and pestilent mischief. It is of the nature of moral contagion that it operates with equal vigour at every point along the line over which it stretches. It loses nothing by distance; it loses nothing by time. The evil book written a century ago may be bearing fruit to-day, though its author is not only dead but forgotten. Sometimes evil lies a hundred years or more without showing signs of vitality or effectiveness, and then under peculiar conditions is awakened and becomes most active and disastrous. As we grow in moral capacity and in the sensitiveness which accompanies spiritual culture we shall come to acknowledge that stains may be worse than wounds; that one speck upon the honour is infinitely worse than the deepest gash that could be inflicted by the cruellest sword upon the flesh. This is a matter which cannot be taught abstractly or in a moment; it comes after long years of study, thought, experience, and those reciprocal actions which make up the mystery of social life. At first we are affected by a crime; then we are unsettled by the suggestion of an offence; then, still advancing in spiritual culture and sensitiveness, we come to see that though the crime itself may never be done, yet the motive which even for a moment suggested it is a deadlier thing than the crime itself: for the crime is a mere vulgarity which might be partially excused by passion, but the motive is a condition of the heart which indicates the apostasy and utter badness of the soul. A singular thing this, that unclean things may be touched by the soul itself. Literally, the text does not refer in all probability to a purely spiritual action, yet not the less is the suggestion justified by experience that even the soul considered in its most spiritual sense may touch things that are unclean and may be defiled by them. A poor thing indeed that the hand has kept itself away from pollution and defilement if the mind has opened wide all the points of access to the influence of evil. Sin may not only be in the hand, it may be rolled as a sweet morsel under the tongue. There may be a chamber of imagery in the heart. A man may be utterly without offence in any social acceptation of that term actually a friend of magistrates and judges, and himself a high interpreter of the law of social morality and honour, and yet all the while may be hiding a very perdition in his heart. It is the characteristic mystery of the salvation of Jesus Christ that it does not come to remove stains upon the flesh or spots upon the garments, but to work out an utter and eternal cleansing in the secret places of the soul, so that the heart itself may in the event be without “spot or wrinkle or any such thing,” pure, holy, radiant, even dazzling with light, fit to be looked upon by the very eye of God.
This is the ideal of Christ: how far we may be from its accomplishment is not the immediate question. It is of the highest consequence to remember what the ultimate purpose of the Son of God is, and then to bring to bear upon that purpose all the instruments and methods, all the ministries and influences which are utilised by the living Spirit. Between the one and the other the happiest harmony will be seen to exist. It is by his own precious blood that Jesus Christ seeks to remove the stain, not of crime but of sin, not of the hand but of the soul. The adoption of such means to such ends involves an inscrutable philosophy No wonder that eternity gone and eternity to come are both charged with this sacred mystery. The Lamb was slain from before the foundation of the world, and the song which celebrates his praise is to be continued long after the earth and all its tragedies have passed away. This mystery is not confined within the bounds of time; those bounds, in fact, do but show one aspect of the mystery; it belongs to eternity on both sides of time, and we shall require eternity for its elucidation, and our comprehension of its gracious meaning. The one thing to be borne in mind at present is that the soul is still exposed to the contagion of uncleanness. We fight against the prince of the power of the air; we fight with ourselves; sometimes we seem to be our own tempters, and to have within us all the mystery of hell. A wonderful thing is this matter of touch. Who can touch pitch and not be defiled? It has not been given to us so to encase ourselves, even so far as the body is concerned, that we shall be impervious to evil influences working in the air. Where, then, is our defence against the evil that is in the world? Jesus Christ does not pray that we may be taken out of the world, but that we may be kept from the evil that is in the world; he will have us here as the light of the world, as the salt of the earth, as a city set upon a hill; he will not operate in any spirit of cowardice and fear, withdrawing us from temporal regions and temporal activities lest the wind should be too cold for us, or the enemy should surprise us into some new lapse, and so spoil our integrity and turn our prayers to confusion. Christ will have us live the heroic life, a heroism that is often carried to the point of defiance, as if we could not only merely overcome the enemy but actually and absolutely trample him underfoot, in excess of triumph and in redundance of divinely-given strength. We must not altogether take the view of contagion which is full of unhappy and dispiriting suggestions. There is another view, and that we are bound as Christian men to adopt namely, that good may be as contagious as evil. It is difficult to believe this. Human nature seems to be so constituted that evil outruns good and has altogether an easier task than virtue to accomplish. It is easier to go downhill than to go uphill. It seems to suit human nature better not to do duty than to discharge it, not to submit to discipline than to accept it. This is indeed a practical mystery which can only be accounted for completely and satisfactorily by the provision which has been made on the divine side to meet it and overcome it. Still there does remain the sacred and happy impression that even good has its contagious effect upon society. Men may be shamed into withholding part of their strength at least from evil service. Such restraints may not end in a very high type of virtue; in the meantime the very suspension of active evil may prepare the way for something better. The force of example must never be under-estimated. If we once begin to think that evil is predominant over good, and that the bad man alone is influential, we may relax in our efforts and underlive the great purpose of our vocation in Christ Rather let us hear the Master’s voice saying, “Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.” The very argument of Christ in the Sermon upon the Mount is that good men are the light of the world and the salt of the earth.
In the fourteenth verse of this chapter there is a remarkable expression, bearing upon a certain type of sin. The law was that if a soul committed trespass and sinned through ignorance in the holy things of the Lord, he was to bring for his trespass unto the Lord a ram without blemish, out of the flocks, and other offerings, “and he shall make amends for the harm that he hath done in the holy thing, and shall add the fifth part thereto.” The ritual was not, therefore, merely sanitary. Those who would limit it to merely sanitary matters will find it difficult to reconcile the mere details of sanitation with such arrangements as were imposed upon the Jewish people or the Israelites with regard to restitution. What is the law in this case? Whatever harm was done was, as far as possible, to be undone. That being the case one would suppose that the property having been restored, nothing further could be attempted. This is not the case. Not only was restitution to be completed, but twenty per cent was to be added by way of penalty on the one side, and compensation on the other. It is not enough to prove that a man who has been injured has been unjustly injured. It is not the law that a man having been proved not to have committed some offence charged against him, shall simply accept the acquittal. Acquittal must be followed by compensation. Where injury has been done it cannot be met by a mere apology except, indeed, by the grace and courtesy of the man upon whom the injury has been inflicted. Society by its very constitution must go further, and demand that the person who has been unjustly accused shall be compensated for the injury which he has sustained in the estimation of his fellow-men, and, indeed, in his own complacency and conscious integrity. Morality of this kind is most acceptable in any book professing to be a revelation of the divine mind. It is at such points especially that we can lay hold of the purposes of the book, and by keeping them steadily in mind, can wait further light and broadening revelation, conscious that a morality so pure and so just must be the beginning of a dispensation that shall vindicate its own spirituality and broader claim. It is peculiarly characteristic of the Bible that it insists upon justice between man and man, that it will not excuse the great man or the small man, but it will have an equal law, and will bring to bear its spirit of discipline upon every soul, whatever may be the conditions and characteristics which give it partiality and preference amongst its fellows. This is a claim of the Bible to human trust and reception. It can never be set aside by criticism, by casuistry, by speculative unbelief; it appeals to the conscience of mankind, and it says to that conscience Whatever difficulties or mysteries I may yet address to your imagination, hold fast by these plain and substantial truths; if my purpose is absolutely unimpeachable in morality, the very spirit of justice, and honour, and truth; and in proportion as you appreciate the social side of the revelation will every other side be made luminous, and ultimately vindicate itself by its equally practical beneficence.
God will have nothing to do with uncleanness. “Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings” is the continual voice of God to the human soul. He will pity weakness; he will not be offended by ungainliness; he understands all the meaning of poverty; in all these directions we have nothing to fear; but when we hide uncleanness, or endeavour to make excuse for sin, all heaven burns against us with unquenchable anger. This is another aspect of the morality of the Bible. Even when Christ sat down to meat with publicans and sinners, he recognised their character and did not seek to confound their manhood and their merely official position. This must be the clear understanding everywhere: that the Bible will have no immorality, no trifling with righteousness, no compromises with the wicked spirit. The Bible insists upon holiness in the inward parts a morality that can bear the criticism of the divine righteousness and how great soever its compassion for weakness, poverty, frailty, and all the various characteristics of fallen humanity that do not involve consent to that which is evil, the Bible can hold no intercourse or parleying whatsoever with any soul that would cling to its uncleanness, and yet expect to enjoy the fellowship or complacency of God. This is not only an anomaly, but a miracle which lies beyond the omnipotence of Heaven.
Prayer
Almighty God, our altar is already built: we come unto the Cross of Jesus Christ our Saviour, and there offer such prayer as thou mayest inspire in our hearts. Thou hast moved us to pray every day for pardon; if we confess our sins, thou art faithful and just to forgive us our sins. Grant unto us the grace of confession the power of uttering in thine ear all the tale of sin and wrong, keeping back nothing from the divine eye, but calling attention to everything we have done which is amiss. Thus, by knowing our sin, and naming it in the hearing of God and in the sight of the Cross, may the burden be dissolved, and instead of despair may the joy of conscious pardon and release take possession of our hearts and utter itself in the music of continual praise. We thank thee that thou hast come near to us with gospels of forgiveness. Thou couldest have blinded us with glory, or amazed us with wonders, without associating these disclosures of thy power with tenderness and willingness to redeem and to forgive; but thou hast caused the Cross of Christ to represent the fulness of thy miraculous power; and we behold in it not only almightiness, but compassion, not only omnipotence, but the tenderness of the heart of God. Do thou instruct us in all the way of life. Keep quite near to us; may we never be beyond the reach of thine ear not only because of our loudness and crying, but when we whisper, may we be so near, thou so near, that we may hold fellowship one with another. Let the sky of our life brighten above our head, let the last cloud be cleansed from the horizon, and let a great brightness of complacency shine upon us from above; then shall we walk in thy light and take counsel of thee, and obey thee with industry and gladness. Write thy word for us every day; accommodate thy light to our vision; be nearest to us when we most need thee; and give us triumph in the night-time; and in despair, in great sorrow, and in floods of tears, may we always be found steadfast in faith, ardent in love, bright in spiritual hope, renewing our confidence continually in God, and purifying the motive by which our whole life’s action is determined. The Lord hear us, and in the hearing give us answers of peace. Amen.
Fuente: The People’s Bible by Joseph Parker
III
OFFERINGS
Leviticus 1-7
I make some general statements that apply to those books of the Pentateuch before Leviticus. In sacrifices of every kind, we commence with the fundamental idea of vicarious expiation. Vicarious means “in the place of another,” a substitute dying for another. The next advance in thought is the atonement that is made in heaven based upon the blood that he shed here upon earth. The next thought is, how the blood of the expiatory sacrifice is applied to the sinner. The next is, that but once is the expiatory blood ever sprinkled on the mercy seat; after that, it is sprinkled just outside the most holy place. There are sins that a man commits after Christ’s blood is applied, and for these sins there are offerings and the application to the forgiveness of sins; those particular offenses and all of these things are presented in this book and afterward realized in the New Testament idea.
First of all the offerings is the vicarious offering, simply because every other one depends on that. You couldn’t offer what is called a thank offering unless there had first been an expiatory offering based upon which the thank offering can be offered. One cannot offer a peace offering unless it is based upon the idea of an expiation that has preceded that peace offering. The fundamental idea then is the expiatory sacrifice of the substitutionary victim.
The word “burnt offering” is a very comprehensive term. A burnt offering may be a sin offering, it may be a consecration offering, it may be a meal offering or it may be a peace offering. Then the burnt offering may be burnt in whole or in part. In the case of a sin offering it is always burnt, every make his offering. Now, poor people could not have offered pigeon. Why? Why that variety? So that every one could bit of it; so in the consecration offerings; in others only a part is burnt. So it is very easy to get your mind confused on the burnt offering.
The next thought in connection with the burnt offering is, where it is burned. There are only two places where the burnt offering can be burned. If it is a sin offering as well as a burnt offering, it is all burned outside the camp; but if it is a consecration burnt offering, or of that kind, the burning is always on the brazen altar of sacrifice.
Now, let us take up the idea of the burnt offering which is for the purpose of consecration. These offerings, or consecrations, are of great variety. I will tell you why directly. One might offer a bullock, a goat, a sheep, a turtledove, or a young a bullock when they wanted to consecrate themselves unto God; it was more than they were able to pay. It is an indication of the extreme poverty of our Lord’s family that when they went to consecrate him they could not bring any more than a pair of turtledoves. The object of the variety is to enable everybody to make an offering, whether rich or poor.
The next thought in this connection is, that this must always be a whole offering, not a part. If one was rich enough to offer a bullock, he must offer the whole bullock and the whole bullock was burned. If he was so poor that he could only offer turtledoves, he never presented half of the turtledove or pigeon, but presented the whole dove, the whole pigeon.
The next thought is the last on the consecration offering, viz.: that no life can be consecrated unless it has first been saved; therefore, I say expiation comes first. Now leaving the expiation idea, let us see what is the thought. When a man is saved, saved by the blood of Jesus Christ, what is the first question for him? It is that his entire life and everything that he has is to be consecrated to God. This is the first thought. That was the thought when Jesus was presented in the Temple and when the appearance of the turtledoves indicated the consecration. Everything that he had was laid upon the altar of God.
Now let us look at an era of Texas history. All of you who live in Texas have doubtless heard George Truett’s sermon on consecration. I am sure he has preached it a hundred times. The idea is the giving up wholly to God after you are first saved; that you cannot give your sinful nature to God, but if the blood of Christ has cleansed you, then you can come before God. That is what this Levitical law requires. He was to bring the turtledoves and the whole of them was to be put upon the altar.
Now let us look at the ritual for the consecration offering. When one made that offering, first of all he laid his hands upon it. That indicates the idea of the transfer of his sins to the victim; it also indicates that his faith laid hold on that victim for what was done for him in that offering. In the New Testament times, you will see that the laying on of hands came to signify the imparting of the Holy Spirit.
What was done with the expiatory blood? That was carried into the most holy place and sprinkled on the mercy seat. What was done with the blood of the victim in the consecration offering? It was never carried and sprinkled on the mercy seat, because it was based on the expiation, but it was sprinkled on the sides of the brazen altar. Now, get these significant thoughts in your mind. This is to show that one must offer to God, without any mental reservation whatever, an entire consecration of affection, of talents, of money, of everything that he has. That is why Brother Truett preached that sermon so much. He saw the little things that Christians were doing, and the ease with which they go along, and he wanted to preach that fundamental sermon which would show them that if they were God’s children then they were called upon to lay upon the altar themselves and everything that they had. As Paul says about the churches of Macedonia, that they first gave themselves and then gave their contribution. A contribution without giving yourself doesn’t count.
Now, let us get the idea of fire, the burning, that is, God’s acceptance of the consecration. When the fire consumes utterly the whole of the burnt offering that is laid upon the altar, that fire represents the idea of God’s acceptance and appropriation of the consecration of the entire life. Take, for example, the marvelous scene that occurred in the days of Elijah. The people assembled to determine who was the true God, Jehovah or Baal. The priests of Baal built their altar and laid their sacrifices on it, and then from morning till evening prayed: “O Baal, hear us; now if Baal be God, let him send down the fire and show that he accepts it.” Elijah wanted to show them the difference in the case of Jehovah. So when he had prepared the altar and laid the victim on it, he had barrels of water poured on the victim until the water filled the trenches around the altar of Jehovah. If Jehovah had fire hot enough to consume it, he was surely God. When he prayed, “O, Jehovah, hear us,” fire came down and devoured the sacrifice and licked up the water out of the trenches. The significance of the fire is that it is God’s acceptance of the offering.
The next thought is that which takes place when the smoke of the offering goes up. When you come to the New Testaments Paul says that when they made their offerings it was a sweet savour unto God (Phi 4:18 ).
Now let us take up the next burnt offerings, i.e., the meal offerings. This is not the consecration offering. This consists, as to its materials, of an agricultural product of one kind or another. And when they were brought up and put upon the altar, what is meant by it? It means that, as the whole life was consecrated to God in the consecration offerings, in this one the idea is service. First, we have expiation, then consecration, then service, and these thoughts presented in the book of Leviticus are of real value. If you were to go to preach a sermon on this, you would divide it thus: First, expiation, then atonement, then the consecration of the entire life which has been saved, then service.
There is another distinction between the meal offering and the consecration offering, viz.: that it is intended by the meal offering to make a contribution to the ministers of religion, priests in those times, preachers in these times; that it is a reasonable service of saved men, consecrated men, devoted to service, to minister carnal things to those who minister unto them spiritual things. So, a large part of the offering went to the priest, and to show the application of it in the New Testament Paul says that they went up to the altar and partook of the things of the altar. So God has ordained that those who preach the gospel should live of the gospel. In the last chapter of Leviticus there is this addition made, viz.: the tithe of all that God had given them, and that tenth, or tithe, was for keeping up the worship, or service of God. The peace offering must never precede the expiation. There is no peace with God until the sins are expiated. The peace offering is not all burned, only a part of it. The object of the peace offering was not to obtain peace. In other words, the peace offering relates to peace because of expiation, and Paul translates that idea into the New Testament language, “Being justified by faith, let us have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.” The justification is based on the expiation. There is no such thing as peace, spiritual peace with God, until first there has been justification and atonement and God has declared one justified. In this peace offering we come also to the idea of fellowship. Here the people share with the priest in eating of what is not burned. Only certain parts are burned; the other parts are kept for a feast and the people come up and eat with the officers and the priests in this.
We now come to a distinction in what are called sin offerings. In burning the offerings known as the sin offerings, if one was a king or a priest, he had to make a greater offering than if he had been one of the common people. Why is that? Now, just think about it. It means that if a king’s son sins or if the preacher sins, it is a greater offense than if any one else sins, because he occupies a higher position. It is required that those who bear the vessels of God should be holy. I heard a preacher say that he had as much right to do wrong as any one in his congregation. Perhaps he did, but the responsibility on that preacher to abstain from doing wrong is stronger than on a member of his congregation and he is held to a stricter and larger account.
I now call your attention to this feature of the sin offering, viz.: the Old Testament makes it perfectly clear that a sin offering must be made for a sin of which the person is unconscious; for sins that are unwittingly done. I heard a Methodist preacher give a definition of sin. He said, “Sin is a voluntary transgression of a known law.” I told him to strike out “voluntary” and strike out “known” and even then he would not have a true definition of sin. Suppose that a little child steps on a red-hot iron, does the child’s unwitting act or ignorant act keep that hot iron from burning its foot? You hold out a candle before a baby; it looks pretty and he will reach out and grab it and is burned. The law of nature is fixed. Now you apply that to the spiritual world. Law is not a sliding scale; law is a fixed thing; a thing is right or a thing is wrong, utterly regardless of whether we know it to be right or know it to be wrong. David offers this prayer: “Cleanse thou me from secret faults.” Not faults that he is keeping secret, but of which he is utterly unconscious.
And it is in this connection that I must speak of a very important matter of which Leviticus does not treat at all, viz.: the sin for which no offering can be made. We learn about it when we come to Numbers. The soul that doeth right in ignorance, an atonement shall be made for that sin; the soul that doeth ought presumptuously, no atonement can be made for that sin. If we sin wilfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sin but the certain fearful looking for judgment. Now, Jesus taught that a certain kind of sin is an eternal sin. It never has forgiveness, neither in this world nor in the world to come. That does not mean that some sins are forgiven here and some over yonder, but that God may forgive sins as for eternity and yet chastise the sinner here upon earth. When we come to the New Testament, particularly, to discuss the unpardonable sin, the sin for which there is no provision for forgiveness, I will show you how easily one may become possessed with the idea of committing the unpardonable sin.
I received a letter from a soldier in the regular army last year. He said, “I have never met you but I have heard that you have studied the Bible a great deal. I am in deep trouble. I have knowingly and wilfully committed sin.” Then he quoted that passage, “If we sin wilfully.” And he says, “Have I not committed the unpardonable sin?” I wrote him that his trouble arose from misunderstanding the kind of knowledge that meant; that it did not mean a sin against intellectual knowledge. The unpardonable sin is a sin against spiritual knowledge. Paul says that he sinned ignorantly, and that did not mean that he was intellectually ignorant of the Old Testaments, but he meant that he did not have the spiritual light that points to Jesus Christ.
The only way in which a man can commit the sin for which there is no atonement to be made is in a case like this: We will suppose that a great meeting is in progress, in which the power of God is marvelously displayed; in which the people of God are praying; in which the presence of God is felt in their gathering by any Christian. If, while preaching is going on in such a meeting and Jesus Christ is held up, a sinner is impressed by the Spirit of God that the preacher is telling the truth, that he (the sinner) is a lost soul, and that Jesus is his appointed Saviour, and he, under that spiritual knowledge, feels impressed to make & movement forward and accept Christ and turns away from that spiritual knowledge and says “No,” deliberately, maliciously, and wilfully walking away from it, that is the unpardonable sin. I heard a preacher once, when he saw a boy and girl laughing, accuse them of committing the unpardonable sin. I thought he was committing a great sin to make such accusation. Now, I have discussed the sin for which there is no offering. I have brought it in here because I don’t want to discuss it twice.
Suppose I should ask this question: What is the difference between the sin offering and the trespass offering? I will mention one; it is not all. Suppose a man in ancient times killed another one, the sin offering was made; suppose he stole $100 from a man, then he brought the trespass offering; one is called a sin offering and the other, trespass offering. In the trespass offering, one has to make restitution before he gets forgiveness. He can’t restore if he has killed a man; but if he has stolen money, if it is in his power, he must give the money back. Shakespeare asks this question: “Can a man be pardoned and retain the offence?” If he slips into your room and appropriates a piece of your property and goes off and says, “God forgive me,” God says, “Go and put the property back.” In the sin offering, there is no restitution on his part; there, the great sacrifice of Jesus is the one; but here is something he can do.
Now, who can answer this question: What denomination insists most on restitution where one has committed the trespass? I am sorry that I cannot say that it is the Baptists. It is the Roman Catholics. Just; let any one come and confess to a priest and want absolution don’t believe in confessing to a priest, but let that man come there and make that confession and that priest will insist on restitution before he will absolve him; no way to get out of it.
How is it with most people on that matter? They are ashamed to make restitution, because restitution exposes them. They often do it secretly. For instance, a man by unrighteousness, by burdening a thousand hearts, by bringing desolation into a thousand homes, will acquire an immense fortune. He does not feel right about it and wants to ease his conscience. He won’t come out and say, “I did wrong,” but he says, “I will give to one of the religious denominations, or I will build a church, or I will establish some good charity.” Do you know that a unique part of American history illustrates that part of the case? That is the conscience fund. The United States had to establish a conscience fund. They get so many letters of this kind unsigned: “I robbed the government by withholding a tax that was due. I should have paid it. My conscience so lashes me under religious conviction that I am compelled now to put that money back.” Now, this same conscience fund has assumed enormous proportions. Men feel that they do not want to come out and make a confession. They do not come out and say, “Mr. A and Mr. B confess to have stolen from the government.” It is a fine thing in America that conscience takes hold of us.
Now, study the difference in the trespass offering and the sin offering and you will see that in the case of the trespass offering there must be restitution not only in the law which was broken but fourfold. Zaccheus in the New Testament times says, “Lord, if I have wronged anybody, I restore it fourfold,” which is a reference to this law. As I have borne testimony to the fidelity of the Roman Catholics, I will tell you an amusing thing in literature. One of the greatest historic romancers was Sir Walter Scott, who wrote the book, The Betrothed. A certain castle was left in charge of a knight, to be held faithfully until the owner returned from the Holy Land. A certain number of Flemish people had come over from Flanders and had established a colony under the walls of the castle. When the old knight went out to fight his battle in which he thought he would die, he put this old Flemish man in charge of his castle. The priest distrusted the Flemish man. He believed the Fleming was about to receive overtures from the enemy. The danger was that they were about to destroy the castle. So they managed to get him to hold parley that if they would deliver a certain number of cattle, that he would consider opening the gates to them. The old priest disguised himself and heard the Fleming make that treaty and he determined to denounce him. The Fleming took the priest aside and said: “Father, I have a daughter, Rose. I got into financial trouble and I promised a man that I would give him my daughter if he would give me four hundred marks, and now I have received the four hundred marks and I don’t want to give my daughter.” “Sir, you must restore the four hundred marks.” “Well, but, Father,” he says, “those cattle you see coming yonder are the marks I received, the daughter Rose is this castle. Now, must I restore those cattle?” “No, you fool, the church makes a distinction in certain matters.” And the priest was right in his interpretation, because to restore those cattle meant not being true to the trust of the old knight and was to restore that over which the Fleming had no jurisdiction. He was very much amazed that he did not intend to betray him.
Suppose a man is called in to witness in a court and gives false testimony and an innocent man is made to suffer. He dies on the gallows. Now, this man whose false testimony convicted him has come under conviction himself, spiritual conviction. That prisoner is dead and gone. He brings the case to a preacher. “Now, what must I do? I cannot restore that man’s life.” The preacher says, “No, but you can restore his reputation; you can take the shame off his wife and children, and you must come out. I cannot encourage you that God will save you if you do not come out openly before the world and admit your guilt.” That illustrates the restitution idea; that if you cannot restore all and can restore part, you must restore all that you can.
QUESTIONS
1. Give a general statement applying to all the books of the Pentateuch touching sacrifices.
2. What of the signification of the blood sprinkled outside the most holy place?
3. What offering precedes all others and why?
4. What can you say of the sweep of burnt offerings?
5. What are the different kinds of burnt offerings?
6. What is the order of these offerings?
7. What of distinction in the burning?
8. Where were they burned?
9. What three characteristics of the consecration offerings?
10. Upon what must the consecration offering be based?
11. What modern preacher has a great sermon on consecration and what the main point?
12. What does the ritual prescribe for the consecration offering?
13. What of the signification of the laying on of hands?
14. What was done with the blood?
15. If an expiatory offering, where placed and why?
16. What of the signification of the fire in the consecration offering?
17. What Old Testament illustration of this idea of fire?
18. What does Paul gay of this from God’s viewpoint?
19. What is the idea of the meal offering?
20. Give the scriptural order of the sacrifices.
21. What is the object in the meal offering?
22. What New Testament corresponds to this teaching?
23. What was added later to supplement the offerings?
24. In the peace offering, how much burned?
25. What was the object, negatively and positively?
26. In the case of the sin offering, how burned?
27. Where was the blood placed?
28. What distinction in the case of kings and priests, and why?
29. For what kind of sins were sin offerings made?
30. What is sometimes given as a definition of sin?
31. What words should be stricken from this definition?
32. Is this, then, a good definition, and why?
33. What great sin is not discussed in Leviticus?
34. What is that sin?
35. What distinction between sin offering and trespass offering?
36. What said Shakespeare on this point?
37. What denomination insists most upon this?
38. How is this with most people?
39. How do some attempt to make restitution?
40. How has Uncle Sam provided for this?
41. Give a New Testament reference to the law of the trespass offering.
42. What of the point in the illustration from Scott?
43. What of the relation of this law to the trespass offering to salvation. Illustrate.
Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible
Lev 5:1 And if a soul sin, and hear the voice of swearing, and [is] a witness, whether he hath seen or known [of it]; if he do not utter [it], then he shall bear his iniquity.
Ver. 1. He shall bear his iniquity, ] i.e., He shall suffer for his sinful silence; because he could, but would not, help the truth in necessity, but stand as if he were gagged by Satan, – possessed with a dumb devil.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Leviticus Chapter 5
THE SIN (TRESPASS) OFFERING.
This section, it may be observed, is a sort of appendix to Lev 4 , and of transition to the proper Trespass offering which begins in Lev 5:14 . For this reason, while it falls under the same revelation from Jehovah to Moses as the chapter before, it is called both a Trespass offering and a Sin offering in ver. 6. Four distinctions in the circumstances calling for the offering are laid down in the four opening verses. They were defilements incurred by special inadvertent offences against ordinances of Jehovah; as in Lev 4 provision was made for inadvertent sins in general which simply violated the conscience.
“And if a soul sin, and hear the voice of an oath, and he is a witness whether he hath seen or known, if he do not inform, then he shall bear his iniquity. Or if a soul touch any unclean thing, whether it be the carcase of an unclean beast, or the carcase of unclean cattle, or the carcase of unclean creeping things, and it be hid from him, he also is unclean and guilty. Or if he touch the uncleanness of man, any uncleanness of him by which he is defiled, and it be hid from him, when he knoweth, then he shall be guilty. Or if a soul swear rashly with his lips, to do evil or to do good, in everything that a man shall say rashly with an oath, and it be hid from him, when he knoweth, then shall he be guilty in one of these. sand it shall be when he shall be guilty in one of these, that he shall confess wherein he hath sinned; and he shall bring his trespass to Jehovah for his sin which he hath sinned, a female from the flock, a lamb or a goat for a sin offering; and the priest shall make atonement for him from his sin” (vers. 1-6).
Adjuration was all the more solemn for an Israelite, as Jehovah dwelt in their midst to judge. It was not secret providence, or waiting for a final assize. He was there to deal according to His law and their relationship as His people. Even in a day of utter ruin and in proceedings which mocked all righteousness, we hear our Lord, silent before man’s profound hypocrisy and false witness, at once answer the wicked high priest when adjuring Him, though He knew it would seal His condemnation unto death. Did one shrink and keep back or prevaricate, one must bear one’s iniquity if left there. Then came cases of defilement from contact with death, either unclean beasts or cattle, or crawling things, or again from uncleanness of man, whatsoever its form. Lastly, there might be defilement from a hasty vow unperformed, it mattered not what its shape, “to do evil or to do good,” which on reflection one shirked, dreading to do or not to do. Think of Jephthah’s vow!
What then was he that feared God in such circumstances to feel, when it comes before his soul? Was he not guilty? If in any of these cases he was defiled, he was called on to “confess wherein he hath sinned,” not after a vague general sort. It is the first time we hear of it. Was it not due to carelessness before Jehovah? But more; nothing but sacrifice could remove the stain. “And he shall bring his trespass offering to Jehovah for his sin which he hath sinned.” What more specific for the clearing his guilt away? Here, as in the Sin offering for one of the people, a female sufficed, lamb or goat, and was called an offering for trespass and sin; and the priest should make atonement for him to clear him from his sin.
The tender consideration of the poor (to us the young or feeble in faith) is marked in the alternative that is next given.
And if his hand be not able to bring a lamb, then he shall bring to Jehovah for his trespass which he hath sinned two turtle-doves or two young pigeons; one for a sin offering, and the other for a burnt offering. And he shall bring them to the priest, who shall offer that which is for the sin offering first, and pinch off its head at the neck, but shall not divide it asunder; and he shall sprinkle of the blood of the sin offering on the wall of the altar; and the rest of the blood shall be wrung out at the bottom of the altar. And he shall offer the second for a burnt offering according to the ordinance. And the priest shall make atonement for him from his sin which he hath sinned; and it shall be forgiven him” (vers. 7-10).
Jehovah was even more minute in His concern for him who could not bring a sheep or goat. The victim’s blood was sprinkled unusually, or at least there is a fuller expression given to it. The offering of less pecuniary value He prized for the conscientious soul, and gave a witness of acceptance as well as of sin judged and gone.
The same principle is yet more conspicuous in a third case.
“But if his hand cannot attain to two turtledoves or two young pigeons, then he that hath sinned shall bring for his offering the tenth part of an ephah of fine flour for a sin offering; he shall put no oil on it, nor shall he put frankincense thereon, for it is a sin offering. And he shall bring it to the priest, and the priest shall take his handful of it, the memorial thereof and burn it on the altar with Jehovah’s fire offering: it is a sin offering. And the priest shall make atonement for him from his sin which he hath sinned in one of them, and it shall be forgiven him; and it shall be the priest’s as the oblation” (vers. 11-13).
Here we have the most abject need of all: even pigeons are beyond the means. But grace has its resource for the least condition of faith. His pity was shown, not in dispensing with an offering, but in suiting the need. Though no part of this form of the offering could have the character of Burnt offering like the second bird, Jehovah would accept an offering of fine flour. But unlike the oblation proper, neither oil nor frankincense must be there. It was for sin. The quantity was just that of the manna for a day’s food. Of this the priest took his handful to burn according to the Fire offerings to Jehovah, though for one ceremonially unclean; and as this was valid to atone, so the rest became the priest’s as in the ordinary oblation of meal. Truly God was good to Israel, even to such as owned their uncleanness in the humblest way He prescribed.
Here again, as has been already noticed elsewhere, the lowest form of an offering passes from its proper distinctness into assimilation with others: in the second alternative, with the Burnt offering; in the third with the Meal offering. The stronger the faith, the less can one relish vague apprehension of Christ’s work: one seeks, cherishes, and enjoys God’s side as well as our own in the fulness of divine revelation. The weaker it is, the more one is disposed to be content with a view so misty that the wondrous and instructive differences in its manifold relations vanish in a comprehensive but hazy sense of efficacy. The value of Christ is the same to God, whatever shape the offering might take in God’s condescension. The absence of blood-shedding in the last instance is just the exception which proves the rule. Jehovah testifies His consideration for such poverty as could bring no animal to die, where there was real concern about the trespass and an offering to Him in acknowledgement of it.
THE TRESPASS OFFERING.
A fresh intimation from Jehovah introduces the proper Trespass offering.
“And Jehovah spoke to Moses, saying, If any one commit a perfidy, and sin inadvertently in the holy things of Jehovah, then he shall bring his trespass offering to Jehovah, a ram without blemish out of the flock, according to thine estimation by shekels of silver after the shekel of the sanctuary, for a trespass offering. And he shall make restitution for what he hath done amiss in [lit. from] the holy thing, and shall add the fifth part thereto, and give it unto the priest; and the priest shall make atonement for him with the ram of the trespass offering; and it shall be forgiven him” (vers. 14-16).
We may discern another shade of evil met in the Trespass offering as compared with the more general and public one for sin. The word for the latter is chata which literally signifies departure from right; whereas asham which is translated trespass expresses guilt. It was an act of treachery (maal) in the holy things of Jehovah, though supposed to be done not presumptuously but through inadvertence. Still, though not a moral wrong before the eyes of others, it was a secret perfidy against Him with Whom they stood in holy relationship, and guilt was contracted thereby.
Hence for one who had failed thus in his responsibility a ram without blemish was required in every case. Compare also Lev 19:20-22 , where the offence, though morally wrong also, is viewed as guilt against Jehovah, and the ram of atonement was required as in Num 5:5-10 , where, as in Num 6 , as a modified case, a lamb was offered. We shall see appended to this first instance an added provision in vers. 17-19; but there is no difference allowed in the victim Jehovah required. A new ordinance follows which in the English is so strangely relegated to Lev 6 , but in the Hebrew text continues the fifth chapter as vers. 20-26, and treats of a trespass done to a neighbour, a failure in responsibility which Jehovah counted an act of treachery against Himself; but there also an unblemished ram must be brought by the guilty soul. We may and surely ought to enquire why this animal and no other was suitable to meet the occasion.
Now, in setting apart Aaron and his sons to Jehovah for their priestly place and functions, we know that a ram of consecration had its distinctive importance. There were indeed two rams, one of which was for an olah or Burnt offering, that followed the bullock slaughtered for a Sin offering. But the special feature of that rite was the second ram, the ram of consecration, the blood of which was not only sprinkled like that of the first ram on the altar round about, but, before that, Moses was directed to put of it, first on the tip of Aaron’s right ear, and on the thumb of his right hand, and on the great toe of his right foot, and then on those of his sons also.
The ram accordingly was the fitting animal to offer for the inverse question of desecration; and such was just the aspect of evil which was met in the Trespass offering. It was not simple wrong for which the Sin offering was provided, but treachery in relation to Jehovah. And this is confirmed (ver. 15) by Moses’ “estimation in silver by shekels after the shekel of the sanctuary.” For as gold typifies divine righteousness in God’s presence, silver figures His grace rather, as we may see in the atonement money for the children of Israel, and indeed wherever it appears.
There was another element distinctive of the Trespass or Guilt offering. “He shall make restitution for what he hath done amiss in the holy thing.” More than this; as Jehovah commanded the tithe of the Israelite’s increase as blessed of Him, so He demanded as the fine of the Trespass offering the fifth part, or a double tithe. All this was to go to the priest; which again keeps up the relative character already seen. “And the priest shall make atonement for him with the ram of the trespass offering; and it shall be forgiven him.”
The appendix which follows adds words even more precise as to ignorance and worthy of all attention.
“And if any one sin or do against any of all the commandments of Jehovah what should not be done, and hath not known, yet is he guilty, and shall bear his iniquity. And he shall bring a ram without blemish out of the flock according to thine estimation for a trespass offering unto the priest; and the priest shall make atonement for him concerning his inadvertence wherein he sinned inadvertently, and knew it not; and it shall be forgiven him. It is a trespass offering: he is certainly guilty before Jehovah” (vers. 17-19).
Here while inadvertence is stated plainly, the case goes beyond this. But though the ram was the normal victim required for this character of evil, the demand was modified where the ritual failure differed. Thus for the leper’s cleansing (Lev 14 ) a lamb was to be offered as a Trespass offering, and the priest put its blood on the person of him that was being cleansed, as Moses did on Aaron and his sons on the day of their consecration, where the oil followed the blood (vers. 12- 18). Then came the Sin offering (ver. 19), and after it the Burnt offering. Thus the distinction of Trespass and Sin is made clear, whatever be the “great controversy” as to the difference among theologians, and the uncertainty of their sound to this day. And it is intelligible why in the consecration of the priests the Sin offering (whether bullock or calf) was brought, but no Trespass offering, any more than on Atonement Day, the tenth of the seventh month.
We may see too, in the visions of God vouchsafed to Ezekiel of the coming kingdom on the earth, there is provision for the Burnt offering, the Sin offering, the Trespass offering, and the sacrifice of the Oblation (Eze 40:38 , Eze 40:42 ; Eze 42:13 ; Eze 44:29 ). The Epistle to the Hebrews is in no way at issue; for it treats of the abolition of these shadows for the Christian only. Vain self-sufficiency denies the future hopes of Israel in Jehovah’s mercy, and, counting itself the sole object of grace, seeks the exaltation proper to Israel, and loses its own special privileges of suffering with Christ while awaiting glory on high.
It is distinctly laid down that, though the person in question “hath not known, yet is he guilty.” Jehovah would exercise His people in the sense of what was due to His relationship and their privilege who had the sign of His presence in their midst. He would have them read or hear His word with serious spirit and submissive heart. It was no matter of conscience, or of open immorality, such as the Sin offering was prescribed for; but perfidy in respect of those commandments of Jehovah in their favoured position toward Him.
Hence the necessity of diligent heed to His statutes and judgments. Ignorance was no tenable excuse. They were Israelites, and Jehovah had imposed commandments with which they were responsible to comply. If any one did not know, yet was he guilty. Indifference to His requirements must have been the antecedent state; and what is this in His eyes? What did it detect in the Israelite? Was Jehovah to be blind, because he failed to know what was plainly written in His law, though not in the ten words? He was guilty, and must bear his iniquity (avon). Therefore was he to bring an unblemished ram from the sheep according to Moses’ estimation for a Trespass offering unto the priest. Neither inadvertence nor ignorance availed to screen his guilt or do away with the offering indispensable for it. But it should be forgiven him that thus offered. Even with greater energy is the language here, “It is a trespass offering: trespassing he trespassed before Jehovah.” Man otherwise might have readily excused it.
Fuente: William Kelly Major Works (New Testament)
soul = a person. Hebrew. nephesh. App-13.
sin. Hebrew. chata. App-44.
and hear = because he heard.
swearing = adjuration. is = “he [is]”.
iniquity = perverseness. Hebrew. ‘avail. App-44. Put here by Figure of speech Metonymy (of Cause) for the punishment due to it. App-6.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Chapter 5
Chapter five.
And if a soul sinned, and hear the voice of swearing, and is a witness, whether he has seen or known of it; and he does not utter it, then he shall bear his iniquity ( Lev 5:1 ).
If you touch any unclean thing and it goes on with some of the sins that you know to be wrong, and you swear against God, or do things that are to you knowledgeable, you’re guilty, you know it.
Then you shall confess that he has sinned in that thing ( Lev 5:5 ):
So even though you were to bring a sacrifice yet the necessity of the confession of your guilt.
Now in Proverbs we read, “whoever seeks to cover his sin shall not prosper; but who so will confess his sin shall be forgiven.” ( Pro 28:13 ) God cannot really deal with sin in your life as long as you’re trying to hide it. As long as you’re trying to deny it, as long as you’re trying to excuse it, as long as you’re trying to give the rationale for it, God can’t deal with it. If you can just sit down and tell me all the reasons why you sinned and give me all the excuses for why you were doing it, then God can’t deal with your excuses. God can only deal with it when you come to the place of confession. And when I confess my sin, it is then that He is faithful and just to forgive me and to cleanse me from all unrighteousness. So always with a trespass there was the necessity of confession. “God I have sinned against you in this thing. I was wrong. God I am sorry.” And with a confession, I make the possibility of forgiveness.
And so first of all the necessity was that of confession of the guilt, verse five.
And then he shall bring his trespass offering unto the Lord, a female from the flock, a lamb, or a kid of the goats, for the sin offering; and the priest shall make an atonement [or a covering] for his sin. And if he is not able to bring a lamb, then he shall bring for his trespass, which he has committed two turtle doves, or two young pigeons, unto the Lord; one for his sin offering, the other for a burnt offering. And he shall bring them unto the priest, who shall offer that which is for the sin offering first ( Lev 5:6-8 ),
And goes ahead how they are to take care of the turtledoves and so forth, if that is what is brought as an offering. And they are to be offered before the Lord for the trespasses.
Verse fifteen is
If a soul commit a trespass, and sin through ignorance, in the holy things of the Lord; then he shall bring for his trespass unto the Lord a ram without blemish out of the flocks, of his estimation according to shekels ( Lev 5:15 ),
And so forth, shall make amends.
“
Fuente: Through the Bible Commentary
Commentators have not been in agreement in their interpretation of this section, some holding that it deals with the sin offering, some that it is the commencement of the trespass offering. I believe that the section dealing with the trespass offering begins here, notwithstanding that in the course of the passage the word “sin offering” occurs frequently. A careful examination will show that the sin offering merges into the trespass offering in interpretation. Trespass is more than a missing of the mark and refers to positive wrongdoing. In the sins mentioned in this paragraph both kinds are recognized.
In the more positive aspects of the trespass offering, two groups are dealt with: first, trespass against God directly in the matter of the holy things, and, second, trespass against one’s neighbor In the rest of this chapter we have to do with the first of these. In any sin connected with the holy things of the Lord ignorance is palpable guilt because the commandments had been given with perfect clearness. In the trespass offering, therefore, it will be observed that there are elements of divine requirement and personal restitution. In cases of willful sin restoration must be made. Thus guilt is canceled through vicarious suffering. In some senses it must also be shared by the loss sustained by the guilty.
Fuente: An Exposition on the Whole Bible
Trespass-Offerings for Various Sins
Lev 5:1-13
The sin-offering was closely resembled by the trespass-offering; but they differed in this: that the former was meant to fix the thought of the sinner rather on the evil of his character, and that there was within him a root of bitterness and a poisonous fountain. But the latter deals with the acts of transgression to which this evil character gives rise, and more especially with the harm which it inflicts on others. We need to confess our trespasses as often as we eat our daily bread; and it is very reassuring that, through the blood of Jesus, God forgives all our trespasses. See Col 2:13.
It is very touching to notice the provision made for the very poor. Mary, the mother of our Lord, had to content herself with the two pigeons or turtle doves of Lev 5:11. But none of us are exempted. We cannot come to the close of any day without kneeling to confess our sins and asking that we may be sprinkled from an evil conscience.
Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary
Lecture IV The Sin Offering
Read Leviticus, chaps. 4; 5:1-13; 6: 24-30; Psalm 22; 2Co 5:21.
We have already noticed that the bloody offerings are divided into two classes, sweet savor offerings and offerings for sin. The burnt offering and the peace offering are in the first class, the sin offering and the trespass offering in the second. The burnt offering was not brought because things had been going wrong; it was the expression of the offerers worship. He brought it to God as an evidence of the gratitude of his heart because of what God was to him and had done for him, and all went up to Jehovah as a sweet savor. As we have seen, it represented the Lord Jesus Christ offering Himself without spot unto God as a sacrifice of a sweet smelling savor on our behalf. When we come into the presence of God as worshipers with our hearts occupied with Christ, we come bringing the burnt offering. Our souls are taken up with Him, the worthy One, who gave Himself for us who were so unworthy. We think of Him not merely as the One who died for our sins, but as having glorified God in this scene where we had so dishonored Him, and we adore Him because of what He is, as well as for what He has done. A child loves its mother not merely because of what she does for it but because of what she is. It is her tender loving heart that draws the child to her. And so the Israelite expressed the worship of his soul in the burnt offering. It was the recognition of Gods goodness, and because He saw in it that which spoke of His Son all went up as a sweet savor to Him. As He beheld the smoke of the burnt offering ascend to heaven, He was looking on to Calvary; He could see beforehand all that blessed work of the Lord Jesus, and who can tell how much it meant to Him? In Gen 8:20, 21 we read how Noah offered a burnt offering upon the renewed earth, and we are told the Lord smelled a sweet savor, or, as the margin puts it, a savor of rest. It was something in which His heart found delight, not because of any intrinsic value of its own but because it was a type of Christ and His work.
Then in the peace offering we have another suggestion. In it the pious Israelite expressed his communion with God and with others who shared with him in partaking of it. A portion was burned upon the altar. It was called the food of the offering, and it spoke of Gods delight in the inward perfections of His Son. Then the wave-shoulder was given to Aaron and his house that they might feed upon it. The shoulder is the place of strength. The priestly house had its portion in that which spoke of the mighty power and unfailing strength of the Lord Jesus Christ. The officiating priest had the wave-breast.
The breast speaks, of course, of affection, of love, and so the priest was to feed upon that which set forth the tender love of the coming Saviour. Then the offerer himself invited his family and friends, and they all sat down together and consumed the rest of the peace offering. Every part of it spoke of Christ. Thus we see God, Aaron, and his house, the officiating priest, the offerer and his friends, all in happy communion, feasting together upon that which spoke of Christ! And so to-day all who have been saved by His death upon the cross are called to enjoy Christ together in hallowed fellowship with Himself, the One who made peace by the blood of His cross. But now we come to another view of things. Until the soul has seen in Him the One who took the sinners place and bore his judgment, Christ can never be enjoyed as the One who has made peace; so we have the sin offering. It is somewhat difficult to distinguish between the two aspects of the sin offering and the trespass offering; but the first one seems rather to have in view sin as the expression of the unclean, defiling condition of the very nature of the sinner; whereas the trespass offering rather emphasizes the fact that sin is to be regarded as a debt which man can never pay, a debt that must be paid by another if ever paid at all. I am not saying that the sin offering only has in view our evil nature, for that would be a mistake. It is plain, I should think, that actual transgressions are in view in chaps. 4 and 5-but what I do say is that these transgressions are the manifestation of the corrupt nature of the one who commits them. I am not a sinner because I sin; I sin because I am a sinner. I, myself, am an unclean thing in the sight of God; I am utterly unfit for His presence; my evil deeds only make this manifest; therefore the need of a sin offering. That this offering like the others speaks of Christ, we may be assured, for we are told very definitely in 2Co 5:21: That God hath made Him to be sin for us, who knew no sin, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him. The words for sin and sin offering are the same in the original in both Testaments, so we might render it, God hath made Him to be a sin offering for us. And in the Epistle to the Hebrews, chaps. 9, 10, the Holy Ghost clearly shows how the offering for sin of old typifies His one offering on Calvarys cross. In fact, in the quotation from Psalm 40 as found in Heb 10:5, 6, all of the offerings are indicated, and all are shown to have their fulfilment in Christs work. Sacrifice is the peace offering; offering is the meal offering; burnt offering speaks for itself, and the term sin offering takes in both sin and trespass offerings. The offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all in verse 10, and the one sacrifice for sin in verse 12, show that Christ fulfilled all these types.
Turn then to Lev 4:2. We read, If a soul shall sin through ignorance against any of the commandments of the Lord concerning things which ought not to be done, and shall do against any of them-then follow instructions as to how the sin is to be dealt with. Observe, there was no sin offering for wilful, deliberate sin under the law. It was only for sins of ignorance. But since the cross, God in infinite grace counts only one sin as wilful, and that is the final rejection of His beloved Son. All other sins are looked upon as sins of ignorance; they are the outcome of that evil heart of unbelief which is in all of us. Men sin because of the ignorance that is in them. You remember Peters words to guilty Israel as bringing home to them their dreadful sin in crucifying the Lord of Glory. He says, I wot, brethren, that it was through ignorance ye did it. And the apostle Paul, in speaking of Christs crucifixion and death, says, Which none of the princes of this world knew; for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. What wondrous grace is here displayed! The very worst sin that has ever been committed in the history of the world is classed by God as a sin of ignorance! And so the sin offering is available for any man who desires to be saved. Whatever your record may have been God looks down upon you in infinite pity and compassion, and opens a door of mercy to you as one who has ignorantly sinned. But if you still refuse the mercy He has provided in grace, then you can no longer plead ignorance, for you crucify to yourself the Son of God afresh and put Him to an open shame. This is the wilful sin so solem- ly portrayed in the Epistle to the Hebrews, the sin for which there is no forgiveness. It is not a question there of a Christian who has failed; but it is the enlightened man, the one who knows the gospel, who is intellectually assured of its truth, and yet turns his back deliberately upon that truth, and finally refuses to acknowledge the Son of God as his Saviour. There is nothing for that man but a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation which shall devour the adversaries. But every poor sinner who wishes to be saved may avail himself of the Great Sin Offering, and may know that all his guilt is forever put away.
In Lev 4:3 we read, If the priest that is anointed do sin; then in ver. 13 it is, If the whole congregation of Israel sin through ignorance, and the thing be hid from the eyes of the assembly, and they have done somewhat against any of the commandments of the Lord concerning things which should not be done, and are guilty; then in ver. 22 we read, When a ruler hath sinned, and done somewhat through ignorance against any of the commandments of the Lord his God concerning things which should not be done, and is guilty; whereas in ver. 27 it is, And if any one of the common people sin through ignorance, while he doeth somewhat against any of the commandments of the Lord concerning things which ought not to be done, and be guilty. When you read the instructions that follow you will observe that there are different grades of sin offerings. If the anointed priest sinned he had to bring a young bullock, and this was also the offering for the whole congregation; but if a ruler sinned he was to bring a kid of the goats, a lamb without blemish. On the other hand if it was one of the common people, he could bring a kid of the goats or a lamb of the flock, females. But in chap. 5:11-13 we find that even lesser offerings were acceptable if the sinner was exceedingly poor. All this suggests the thought that responsibility increases with privilege. The anointed priest was as guilty as the entire congregation; he should have known better because he was so much nearer to God in outward privilege. Then a ruler, while not so responsible as the priest, was more so than one of the common people. There is a principle here that is well for us all to remember: The more light we have on the truth of God and the greater the privileges which we enjoy in this scene, the more responsible God holds us; we shall be called to account in accordance with the truth He has made known to us. Alas, my brethren, is it not a lamentable fact that should bow us in shame before God that many of us who pride ourselves upon a wonderful unfolding of truth are ofttimes most careless in our behaviour, and become stumbling-blocks to those who have less light than we? How we need to have recourse to the great Sin Offering, to remember as we bow in confession of our failures before God that all our sins were dealt with on the Cross of Christ! It is hardly necessary to go into all the details of each of the offerings, but we may look particularly at that for the priest as it embraces practically everything that is mentioned in the lesser ones. First observe, the priest was to bring a young bullock without blemish unto the Lord for a sin offering. He who knew no sin made sin for us!-it is of this that the unblemished bullock speaks. It was to be brought to the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, before the Lord. The sinner was to identify himself with his offering by laying his hand upon its head and killing it himself. Then the officiating priest was to take of the blood of the bullock, and entering the sanctuary sprinkle it seven times before the Lord before the veil. He was to put some of the blood upon the horns of the altar of sweet incense before the Lord; the rest of it was to be poured out at the bottom of the altar of burnt offering. What solemn lessons are these! It was here on this earth our blessed Saviour died as the great Sin Offering; here His blood was poured out at the foot of His cross. This earth has drunk the blood of Him who was its Creator. That shed blood tells of life given up. In Lev 17:11 God says, The life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul. His life, holy, spotless, pure and undefiled, has been given up in death for us who are sinners by nature and by practice, and now as trusting Him we may well sing,
Upon a life I did not live,
Upon a death I did not die,
Anothers life, Anothers death,
I hang my whole eternity.
But that blood shed here on earth, has really pierced the heavens. It has, so to speak, been carried into the sanctuary, the sevenfold sprinkling has been done within the veil which in the old economy was still unrent. It was the testimony to God of the work completed here on earth. Then the blood upon the horns of the golden altar linked the altar in the sanctuary with the great altar out in the court, for the bronze altar spoke of Christs work in this world; the golden altar spoke of His work in heaven; the blood linked the two together. His intercession in heaven is based upon the work of the cross.
In verse 8 we learn that the priest was to take off from the bullock all the fat and certain inward parts that could only be reached by death, and he was to burn them upon the altar of the burnt offering. They were not said to be a sweet savor, for they spoke of Christ being made sin for us. This is further emphasized when we read that the skin of the bullock and all the rest of the carcase, even the whole bullock, was to be carried outside the camp where the ashes were poured out and there burned upon the wood with fire. This expresses the awful truth that Christ was made a curse for us. We read in Heb 13:11: For the bodies of those beasts, whose blood is brought into the holy place by the high priest as a sin offering, are burned outside the camp. Wherefore Jesus also, that He might sanctify the people by His own blood, suffered outside the gate. He went into the place of darkness and distance in order that we might be brought into the place of light and nearness to God for all eternity. In Lev. 13 the leper was put outside the camp. It was the place of the unclean, and so our blessed Lord, when He became the great Sin Offering, was dealt with as taking the place of the unclean ones, though Himself the infinitely Holy One. The place itself, however, is called a clean place. No actual defilement attached to it.
It is important to learn that it was not merely the physical suffering of Jesus that made atonement for sin; it was not the scourging in Pilates judgment hall, the suffering from the ribald soldiery in Herods court, the crowning with thorns and the flagellation-these were not in themselves what expiated our guilt. But we read in Isa. 53, When Thou shalt make His soul an offering for sin. It was what our Lord suffered in the depths of His inward being that met the claims of divine justice and settled the sin question. You have doubtless noticed that our blessed Saviour hung upon that cruel cross for six long hours, and these six hours are divided into two parts. From the third to the sixth hour, that is, from nine oclock in the morning to high noon, the sun was shining down on the scene, and in spite of all His intense physical suffering our Lord enjoyed unbroken communion with the Father. But from the sixth to the ninth hour, that is, to three oclock in the afternoon, darkness was over all the land. What took place in those awful hours only God and His beloved Son will ever know. It was then the soul of Jesus was made an offering for sin. It was as the darkness was passing away that He cried in anguish, My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me? You and I may well see in our sins and our innate sinfulness the answer to that cry. He was forsaken that we might have access as redeemed sinners to the Fathers face. And it is of this that the burning of the sacrifice outside the camp speaks. Observe, it was to be carried into a clean place. We have said that the outside place was the place of the unclean in the case of the leper, and this is true, but un-cleanness was never in any sense attached to Jesus; even as the sin offering He was most holy. He had no sin in Him though our sins were laid on Him.
A careful study of the directions for the peoples offering will bring to light some little details that have not perhaps been touched upon, but I need not dwell on them here for all will be clear in the light of what we have already looked at.
We have in chapter 5 some things that may well claim our attention. In the first four verses we get various degrees of uncleanness because of sin. And if a soul sin, and hear the voice of swearing, and is a witness, whether he hath seen or known of it; if he do not utter it, then he shall bear his iniquity. Or if a soul touch any unclean thing, whether it be of a carcase of an unclean beast, or a carcase of unclean cattle, or the carcase of unclean creeping things, and if it be hidden from him; he also shall be unclean, and guilty. Or if he touch the uncleanness of man, whatsoever uncleanness it be that a man shall be defiled withal, and it be hid from him; when he knoweth of it, then he shall be guilty. Of if a soul swear, pronouncing with his lips to do evil, or to do good, whatsoever it be that a man shall pronounce with an oath, and it be hid from him; when he knoweth of it, then he shall be guilty in one of these. These suggest what I have already dwelt upon, that the sin offering has particularly in view sin as evidencing the corruption of our nature. Any of these things would be manifesting the hidden uncleanness. Then in verse 5 we read, And it shall be, when he shall be guilty in one of these things, that he shall confess that he hath sinned in that thing. Notice the definiteness of the confession. A mere general acknowledgment of failure would not do. The culprit must face his actual transgression and confess it in the presence of God, and so we read, If we confess our sins He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness (Uohn 1:9). It is not merely if he asks for forgiveness, or in a general way acknowledges that we all fail-that we have left undone those things that we ought to have done, and we have done those things we ought not to have done, but there must be a definite confession in order to have a definite forgiveness.
Then in vers. 6-13 notice the grace of God in the provision made for even the poorest of His people. No matter how feeble our apprehension of Christ may be, if we come to God in His name He will forgive. The offerer under ordinary circumstances was to bring a female from the flock, a lamb or a kid of the goats for a sin offering. But God took poverty into account, and in ver. 7 we read, If he be not able to bring a lamb, then he shall bring for his guilt according to all he hath committed, two turtle-doves or two young pigeons unto the Lord, one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering. But there might be some in Israel who could not even procure an offering like this, and so in ver. 11 we are told, If he be not able to bring two turtle-doves or two young pigeons, then he that hath sinned shall bring for his offering a tenth part of a ephah of fine flour for a sin offering; he shall put no oil upon it, neither shall he put any frankincense thereon; for it is a sin offering. Then the priest was to take a memorial of it and burn it upon the altar, and even of this we read in ver. 13, The priest shall make an atonement for him as touching his sin that he hath sinned in one of these, and it shall be forgiven him; and the remnant shall be the priests, as a meal offering. There was nothing in this offering that spoke of the shedding of the blood, but it did picture Christ Himself, and it was Christ taking the sinners place. Hence the omission of the oil and frankincense. And God would accept this when the offerer could bring no more. It tells us that the feeblest apprehension of Christ as the Saviour of sinners brings forgiveness. One might not understand the atonement, nor what was involved in the redemptive work of our Saviour, but if he trusts in -Christ, however feebly, God thinks so much of the Person and work of His Son that He will have everyone in heaven who will give Him the least possible excuse for getting him there. What matchless grace!
In chap. 6: 24-30 we have the law of the sin offering, and the priest is instructed as to his own behaviour, and how to treat the vessels that were used in connection with it. Twice we read concerning the sin offering, It is most holy. God would not have our thoughts lowered in regard to the holiness of His Son because He stooped in grace to be made sin on our behalf. He was ever undefiled and undefilable.
There was a portion of the sin offering which the priests were to eat. We may think of this as suggesting our meditation upon what it meant for Christ to take the sinners place.
Help me to understand it,
That I may take it in,
What it meant to Thee, the Holy One,
To put away my sin.
Observe carefully, the priests were not to eat the sin-they were to eat the sin offering. It does not do for us to dwell upon the sin, either our own or that of others. To do so would be most defiling. But we are all called upon to eat the sin offering in the holy place. In ver. 30 we learn, however, that no sin offering, whereof any of the blood is brought into the tabernacle of the congregation to reconcile withal in the holy place, shall be eaten; it shall be burned in the fire. The priests could only partake of certain parts of such sacrifices as were not burned outside the camp, nor the blood sprinkled before the veil. We cannot enter into all the fulness of the death of Christ. Our apprehension of what He suffered for sin must always be feeble, and perhaps the full realization of it would be too much for our poor hearts and minds. It broke His heart (Psa 69:20); it would crush us completely; but, thank God, there is a sense in which we can indeed eat the sin offering in the holy place as we meditate upon what Scripture has clearly revealed in regard to the expiatory work upon that cross of shame. If we read carefully Ps. 22, which might be called the psalm of the sin offering, we may enter in, in some measure, to what His holy soul went through when He took our place in judgment. To do this with reverence and awe is to eat the sin offering in a manner acceptable to God.
In closing, let me say that God in thus giving His Son to take the sinners place, has told out to the full His infinite love to lost man. What then can be the guilt of that man who refuses such grace and tramples upon such love? What can there be for him but a certain fearful look- ing-for of judgment and fiery indignation which shall devour the adversaries?
Grace like this despised, brings judgment,
Measured by the wrath He bore.
God grant that no one to whom this message comes may trample on such loving-kindness and so merit such dire judgment.
We are told in Joh 3:18: He that believeth on Him is not condemned. He that believeth not is condemned already, because He hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And in Joh 16:9 the sin of which the Holy Spirit has come to convince men is thus described, Of sin, because they believe not on Me. This is wilful sin, and for this sin, if unrepented of, there is no forgiveness. Even the redemptive work of Christ will not avail to save the sinner who spurns the One who there died to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. To turn from the message of the gospel-to deliberately and finally reject the One who upon the accursed tree became the Great Sin Offering-is to do despite to the Spirit of God, to trample under foot the love of Christ, to count His precious atoning blood an unholy, a common, thing, and to crucify to oneself the Son of God afresh, thus putting Him to an open shame. Yea, more, it is to throw back into the outraged face of the Father the slain body of His beloved Son, thus calling down the righteous wrath of God upon the guilty rejecter of His grace!
Fuente: Commentaries on the New Testament and Prophets
a soul: Lev 5:15, Lev 5:17, Lev 4:2, Eze 18:4, Eze 18:20
hear: Exo 22:11, Jdg 17:2, 1Ki 8:31, 1Ki 22:16, 2Ch 18:15, Pro 29:24, Pro 30:9, Mat 26:63
the voice of swearing: Kol alah, rather, “the voice of adjuration,” , as the LXX render; for this does not relate to the duty of informing against a common swearer, but to the case of a person who, being adjured by the civil magistrate to answer upon oath, refuses to declare what he knows upon the subject – such an one shall bear his iniquity – shall be considered as guilty in the sight of God of the transgression which he has endeavoured to conceal, and must expect to be punished for hiding the iniquity with which he was acquainted.
bear: Lev 5:17, Lev 7:18, Lev 17:16, Lev 19:8, Lev 20:17, Num 9:13, Psa 38:4, Isa 53:11, 1Pe 2:24
Reciprocal: Exo 28:43 – bear not iniquity Lev 6:20 – the tenth Lev 7:37 – trespass Lev 14:19 – General Lev 19:21 – General Lev 24:15 – bear his sin Num 5:6 – When Num 15:31 – his iniquity Num 18:9 – every trespass Num 30:15 – he shall bear 2Ch 6:22 – and an oath
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Lev 5:1. And hear the voice of swearing, and is a witness The meaning seems to be, If a person sin, in not revealing the voice of swearing, which he has seen, that is, been a witness to, or been present when it was said, or known by sufficient information from others. But it must be observed, that the word, , alah, here used, probably means cursing, blasphemy, or execration, and that either against ones neighbour, or against God. This seems to be principally intended here, if not also, as many suppose, false swearing, for the crime spoken of is of so high a nature, that he who heard it was obliged to reveal it, and prosecute the guilty. Some think the expression ought to be rendered, The voice of adjuration, or being adjured in the name of God, when he is called to be a witness in a cause, to speak the truth. For in those countries the judges were wont to demand, in court, of accused persons or witnesses, in the name of God, to declare the whole truth; and this laid the same obligation upon them, as the administering an oath now does with us. See instances of this, Num 5:21; 1Ki 8:31; 1Ki 22:16; Pro 29:24; Mat 26:63. Whether he hath seen or known That is, according to this last sense of the expression, if he be adjured to declare what he can say of the matter in question, whether upon his own knowledge, or from information of credible persons. If he do not utter it If he suppress the truth, or be guilty of prevaricating, or dissimulation. He shall bear his iniquity That is, the punishment of his iniquity; for the word , gnavon, has frequently that meaning. Let him not think it is no offence to suppress the truth, when so solemnly called upon to declare it. He is unclean and guilty, and in token of his repentance let him offer such a sacrifice for his sin as is prescribed, (Lev 5:6,) which belongs to this and all the following cases. The expression, Shall bear his iniquity, is very emphatic, and imports that guilt, like a grievous burden, shall lie heavy upon him. Houbigant, however, an acknowledged critic, prefers the former interpretation.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Lev 5:1. He shall bear his iniquity. Pro 29:24, seems to refer to this passage. He that hears cursing, and betrays it not, hates his own soul. The sons of Belial said, that they heard Naboth blaspheme God and the king. Both Satan and his servants will cite the scriptures to impose and deceive.
Lev 5:2. If a soul touch any unclean thing. The carcase of a reptile, of an unclean beast, or a dead body. The daily impurities of the Hebrews were cleansed by washing, and by the evening sacrifice. But the law here respected a mans approach to the sanctuary, or the eating of holy things.
Lev 5:4. If a soul swear, that is lightly and foolishly, or pronounce a rash word. Rash vows of hurting ourselves, or our neighbours, are here declared to be very sinful. Men had better repent of the rashness, than have bitter cause to repent of the vow and the sin.
Lev 5:5. Confess that he hath sinned. So in Num 5:7. The papists turn this to their own purpose. Agat pnitentiam pro peccato. He shall do penance for his sin; whereas Lev 5:6 prescribes no penance, except a lamb from the flock. Repentance must be towards God.
Lev 5:15. If a soul commit a trespassin holy things. The LXX read , which refers to some fraud, by withholding the tenths for the support of the sanctuary and its ministers, whether of corn or of the firstlings of his flock, he was here not only enjoined to restore it, but to add a fifth part as a fine for his fault. The whole tribe of Levi gave up their land; they had no lot but forty eight cities. Hence in fact, the people only cultivated the lands of the levites, while the levites, in return, devoted their lives to the instruction of the people: to rob the levites therefore was to rob the Lord. Mal 3:8.
REFLECTIONS.
The first object which presents itself in this chapter, is a caveat against perjury. If any Israelite heard it, and did not bear his testimony against it, he participated of the crime; and in fact, it is so with almost every other sin. For we have all one Father, even God; and if we see or hear iniquity committed against him, and do not testify against it, how can he regard us as his friends? This is a striking argument against being partakers of other mens sins.
If a man had defiled himself with touching a dead body, and had neglected to cleanse himself and had eaten of holy things, or approached the sanctuary of God, so defiled, he is declared to have sinned; and atonement must be made for him. Let us beware of approaching the Lord with any defilement, either of body or mind, unrenounced and unabhorred. And as to the sins of which we may not be properly aware, let us pray the Lord to search and cleanse us from every secret fault.
Rash words, oaths and vows, being sinful in their nature, and the effect rather of passion than of judgment, all need atonement in the sight of God. Man, who is lord neither of life nor limb, but a mere creature dependant every moment on his Makers pleasure, should make no vows but in submission to his will: but if he have uttered an indiscreet word, or made a rash vow, he had better desist from keeping it, and repent before the Lord: for it is a gross mistake to suppose, that a holy God will accept the payment of any vow, where the motive is not pure and holy. A bad vow has been regarded as a sword with two edges, which cuts both ways: either payment or repentance will wound the mind.
Observe the gracious condescension of the Lord; if the offender was poor, and could not bring the prescribed victim, two doves or a little flour would be accepted. The Father of mercies will never spurn the poor and the needy from his presence, nor from the atonement of Christ Jesus. What a pity that the wicked should remain in sin and alienated from God, seeing the way is applained, and access made easy. Surely if men knew the riches of his mercy, they would revere his justice and adore his grace.
Fuente: Sutcliffe’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Leviticus 4 – 5:13
Having Considered the “sweet savour” Offerings, We now approach the “sacrifices for sin.” These were divided into two classes, namely, sin offerings and trespass offerings. Of the former, there were three grades; first, the offering for “the priest that is anointed,” and for “the whole congregation.” These two were the same in their rites and ceremonies. (Compare. ver. 3-12, with ver. 13-21) It was the same in result, whether it were the representative of the assembly, or the assembly itself, that sinned. In either case there were three things involved: God’s dwelling-place in the assembly, the worship of the assembly, and individual conscience. Now, inasmuch as all three depended upon the blood, we find, in the first grade of sin offering, there were three things done with the blood. It was sprinkled “seven times before the Lord, before the veil of the sanctuary.” This secured Jehovah’s relationship with the people, and His dwelling in their midst. Again, we read, “The priest shall put some of the blood upon the horns of the altar of sweet incense before the Lord, which is in the tabernacle of the congregation.” This secured the worship of the assembly. By putting the blood upon “the golden altar,” the true basis of worship was preserved; so that the flame of the incense and the fragrance thereof might continually ascend. Finally, “He shall pour all the blood of the bullock at the bottom of the altar of the burnt offering, which is at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.” Here we have the claims of individual conscience fully answered; for the brazen altar was the place of individual approach. It was the place where God met the sinner.
In the two remaining grades, for “a ruler” or “one of the common people: it was merely a question of individual conscience; and, therefore, there was only one thing done with the blood. It was all poured “at the bottom of the altar of burnt offering.” (Comp. ver. 7 with ver. 25, 30) There is divine precision in all this, which demands the close attention of my reader, if only he desires to enter into the marvellous detail of this type.*
{*There is this difference between the offering for “a ruler,” and for “one of the common people:” in the former, it was “a male without blemish;” in the latter, “a female without blemish.” The sin of a ruler would, necessarily, exert a wider influence than that of a common person; and, therefore, a more powerful application of the value of the blood was needed. In Lev. 5: 13, we find cases demanding a still lower application of the sin offering – cases of swearing and of touching any uncleanness, in which “the tenth part of an ephah of fine flour “was admitted as a sin offering. (See Lev. 5: 11-13) What a contrast between the view of atonement presented by a ruler’s bullock, and a poor man’s handful of flour! And yet, in the latter, just as truly as in the former, we read, “it shall be forgiven him.”
The reader will observe that Lev. 5: 1-13, forms a part of Lev. 6. Both are comprehended under one head, and present the doctrine of sin offering, in all its applications, from the bullock to the handful of flour. Each class of offering is introduced by the words, “And the Lord spake unto Moses.” Thus, for example, the sweet savour offerings (Lev. 1 – 3) are introduced by the words, “The Lord called unto Moses.” These words are not repeated until Lev. 4: 1, where they introduce the sin offering. They occur again at Lev. 5: 14, where they introduce the trespass offering for wrongs done “in the holy things of the Lord;” and again at Lev. 6: 1, where they introduce the trespass offering for wrong done to one’s neighbour.
This classification is beautifully simple, and will help the reader to understand the different classes: of offering. As to the different grades in each class, whether “a bullock,” “a ram,” “a female,” “a bird,” “or “a handful of flour: they would seem to be so many varied applications of the same grand truth.}
The effect of individual sin could not extend beyond individual conscience. The sin of “a ruler,” or of “one of the common people,” could not, in its influence, reach “the altar of incense” – the place of priestly worship. Neither could it reach to “the veil of the sanctuary” – the sacred boundary of God’s dwelling place in the midst of His people. It is well to ponder this. We must never raise a question of personal sin or failure, in the place of priestly worship, or in the assembly. It must be settled in the place of personal approach. Many err as to this. They come into the assembly, or into the ostensible place of priestly worship, with their conscience defiled, and thus drag down the whole assembly and mar its worship. This should be closely looked into, and carefully guarded against. We need to walk more watchfully, in order that our conscience may ever be in the light. And when we fail, as, alas! we do in many things, let us have to do with God, in secret, about our failure, in order that true worship, and the true position of the assembly may always be kept, with fullness and clearness, before the soul.
Having said thus much as to the three grades of sin offering, we shall proceed to examine, in detail, the principles unfolded in the first of these. In so doing, we shall be able to form, in some measure, a just conception of the principles of all. Before, however entering upon the direct comparison already proposed, I would call my reader’s attention to a very prominent point set forth in the second verse of this fourth chapter. It is contained in the expression,” If a soul shall sin through ignorance.” This presents a truth of the deepest blessedness, in connection with the atonement of the Lord Jesus Christ. In contemplating that atonement, we see infinitely more than the mere satisfaction of the claims of conscience, even though that conscience had reached the highest point of refined sensibility. It is our privilege to see, therein, that which has fully satisfied all the claims of divine holiness, divine justice, and divine majesty. The holiness of God’s dwelling-place, and the ground of His association with His people, could never be regulated by the standard of man’s conscience, no matter how high the standard might be. There are many things which man’s conscience would pass over – many things which might escape man’s cognisance – many things which his heart might deem all right, which God could not tolerate; and which, as a consequence, would interfere with man’s approach to, his worship of, and his relationship with, God. Wherefore, if the atonement of Christ merely made provision for such sins as come within the compass of man’s apprehension, we should find ourselves very far short of the true ground of peace. We need to understand that sin has been atoned for, according to God’s measurement thereof-that the claims of His throne have been perfectly answered – that sin, as seen in the light of His inflexible holiness, has been divinely judged. This is what gives settled peace to the soul. A full atonement has been made for the believer’s sins of ignorance, as well as for his known sins. The sacrifice of Christ lays the foundation of his relationship and fellowship with God, according; to the divine estimate of the claims thereof.
A clear sense of this is of unspeakable value. Unless this feature of the atonement be laid hold of, there cannot be settled peace; nor can there be any just moral sense of the extent and fullness of the work of Christ, or of the true nature of the relationship founded thereon. God knew what was needed in order that man might be in His presence without a single misgiving; and He has made ample provision for it in the cross. Fellowship between God and man were utterly impossible if sin had not been disposed of, according to God’s thoughts about it: for, albeit man’s conscience were satisfied, the question would ever be suggesting itself, Has God been satisfied If this question could not be answered in the affirmative, fellowship could never subsist.* The thought would be continually intruding itself upon the heart, that things were manifesting themselves in the details of life, which divine holiness could not tolerate. True, we might be doing such things “through ignorance but this could not alter the matter before God, inasmuch as all is known to Him. Hence, there would be continual apprehension, doubt, and misgiving. All these things are divinely met by the fact that sin has been atoned for, not according to our “ignorance,” but according to God’s knowledge. The assurance of this gives great rest to the heart and conscience. All God’s claims have been answered by His own work. He Himself has made the provision; and, therefore, the more refined the believer’s conscience becomes, under the combined action of the word and Spirit of God, the more he grows in a divinely-adjusted sense of all that morally befits the sanctuary – the more keenly alive he becomes to every thing which is unsuited to the divine presence, the fuller, clearer, deeper, and more vigorous will be his apprehension of the infinite value of that sin offering which has not only travelled beyond the utmost bounds of human conscience, but also met, in absolute perfection, all the requirements of divine holiness.
{*I would desire it to be particularly remembered, that the point before us in the text is simply atonement. The Christian reader is fully aware, I doubt not, that the possession of “the divine nature, is essential to fellowship with God. I not only need a title to approach God: but a nature to enjoy Him. The soul that “believes in the name of the only-begotten Son of God” has both the one and the other. (See John 12, John 13; John 3: 36; John 5: 24; John 20: 31; 1 John 5: 11-13)}
Nothing can more forcibly express man’s incompetence to deal with sin, than the fact of there being such a thing as a “sin of ignorance.” How could he deal with that which he knows not? How could he dispose of that which has never even come within the range of his conscience? Impossible. Man’s ignorance of sin proves his total inability to put it away. If he does not know of it, what can he do about it? Nothing. He is as powerless as he is ignorant. Nor is this all. The fact of a “sin of ignorance” demonstrates, most clearly, the uncertainty which must attend upon every settlement of the question of sin, in which no higher claims have been responded to than those put forth by the most refined human conscience. There can never be settled peace upon this ground. There will always be the painful apprehension that there is something wrong underneath. If the heart be not led into settled repose by the scripture testimony that the inflexible claims of divine Justice have been answered, there must, of necessity, be a sensation of uneasiness, and every such sensation presents a barrier to our worship, our communion, and our testimony. If I am uneasy in reference to the settlement of the question of sin, I cannot worship; I cannot enjoy communion, either with God or His people; nor can I be an intelligent or effective witness for Christ. The heart must be at rest, before God, as to the perfect remission of sin, ere we can “Worship him in spirit and in truth.” If there be guilt on the conscience, there must be terror in the heart; and, assuredly, a heart filled with terror cannot be a happy or a worshipping heart. It is only from a heart filled with that sweet and sacred repose which the blood of Christ imparts, that true and acceptable worship can ascend to the Father. The same principle holds good with respect to our fellowship with the People of God, and our service and testimony amongst men. All must rest upon the foundation of settled peace; and this peace rests upon the foundation of a perfectly purged conscience; and this purged conscience rests upon the foundation of the perfect remission of all our sins, whether they be sins of knowledge or sins of ignorance.
We shall now proceed to compare the sin offering with the burnt offering, in doing which, we shall find two very different aspects of Christ. But, although the aspects are different, it is one and the same Christ; and, hence, the sacrifice, in each case, was “without blemish.” This is easily understood. It matters not in what aspect we contemplate the Lord Jesus Christ, He must ever be seen as the same pure, spotless, holy, perfect One. True, He did, in His abounding grace, stoop to be the sin-bearer of His people; but it was a perfect, spotless Christ who did so; and it would be nothing short of diabolical wickedness to take occasion, from the depth of His humiliation, to tarnish the personal glory of the humbled One. The intrinsic excellence, the unsullied purity, and the divine glory of our blessed Lord appear in the sin offering, as fully as in the burnt offering. It matters not in what relationship He stands, what office He fills, what work He performs, what position He occupies, His personal glories shine out, in all their divine effulgence.
This truth of one and the same Christ, whether in the burnt offering, or in the sin offering, is seen, not only in the fact that, in each case, the offering was “without blemish,” but, also, in “the Law of the sin offering,” where we read, “this is the law of the sin offering: in the place where the burnt offering is killed shall the sin offering be killed before the Lord: it is most holy.” (Lev. 6: 25) Both types point to one and the same great Antitype, though they present Him in such contrasted aspects of His work. In the burnt offering, Christ is seen meeting the divine affections; in the sin offering, He is seen meeting the depths of human need. That presents Him to us as the Accomplisher of the will of God; this, as the Bearer of the sin of man. In the former, we are taught the preciousness of the sacrifice; in the latter, the hatefulness of sin. Thus much, as to the two offerings, in the main. The most minute examination of the details will only tend to establish the mind in the truth of this general statement.
In the first place, when considering the burnt offering, we observed that it was a voluntary offering. “He shall offer it of his own voluntary will.”* Now, the word “voluntary” does not occur in the sin offering. This is precisely what we might expect. It is in full keeping with the specific object of the Holy Ghost, in the burnt offering, to set it forth as a free-will offering. It was Christ’s meat and drink to do the will of God, whatever that will might be. He never thought of inquiring what ingredients were in the cup which the Father was putting into His hand. It was quite sufficient for Him that the Father had mingled it. Thus it was with the Lord Jesus as foreshadowed by the burnt offering. But, in the sin offering, we have quite a different line of truth unfolded. This type introduces Christ to our thoughts, not as the “voluntary” Accomplisher of the will of God, but as the Bearer of that terrible thing called “sin,” and the Endurer of all its appalling consequences, of which the most appalling, to Him, was the hiding of God’s countenance. Hence, the word “voluntary” would not harmonise with the object of the Spirit, in the sin offering. It would be as completely out of place, in that type, as it is divinely in place, in the burnt offering. Its presence and its absence are alike divine; and both alike exhibit the perfect, the divine precision of the types of Leviticus.
{*some may find difficulty in the fact that the word “voluntary” has reference to the worshipper and not to the sacrifice; but this can, in no wise, affect the doctrine put forward in the text, which is founded upon the fact that a special word used in the burnt offering is omitted in the sin offering. The contrast holds good, whether we think of the offerer or the offering.}
Now, the point of contrast which we have been considering, explains, or rather harmonises, two expressions used by our Lord. He says, on one occasion, “the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?” And, again, “Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me.” The former of these expressions was the full carrying out of the words with which He entered upon His course, namely, “Lo, I come to do thy will, O God;” and, moreover, it is the utterance of Christ, as the burnt offering. The latter, on the other hand, is the utterance of Christ, when contemplating the place which He was about to occupy, as the sin offering. What that place was, and what was involved to Him, in taking it, we shall see, as we proceed; but it is interesting and instructive to find the entire doctrine of the two offerings involved, as it were, in the fact that a single word introduced in the one is omitted in the other. If, in the burnt offering, we find the perfect readiness of heart with which Christ offered Himself for the accomplishment of the will of God; then, in the sin offering, we find how perfectly He entered into all the consequences of man’s sin, and how He travelled into the most remote distance of man’s position as regards God. He delighted to do the will of God; He shrank from losing, for a moment, the light of His blessed countenance. No one offering could have foreshadowed Him in both these phases. We needed a type to present Him to us as One delighting to do the will of God; and we needed a type to present Him to us as One whose holy nature shrank from the consequences of imputed sin. Blessed be God, we have both. The burnt offering furnishes the one, the sin offering the other. Wherefore, the more fully we enter into the devotion of Christ’s heart to God, the more fully we shall apprehend His abhorrence of sin; and vice versa. Each throws the other into relief; end the use of the word “voluntary” in the one, and not in the other, fixes the leading import of each.
But, it may be said, “Was it not the will of God that Christ should offer Himself as an atonement for sin? And, if so, how could there be ought of shrinking from the accomplishment of that will?” Assuredly, it was “the determinate counsel” of God that Christ should suffer; and, moreover, it was Christ’s joy to do the will of God. But how are we to understand the expression, “If it be possible, let this cup pass from me?” Is it not the utterance of Christ? And is there no express type of the Utterer thereof? Unquestionably There would be a serious blank among the types of the Mosaic economy, were there not one to reflect the Lord Jesus in the exact attitude in which the above expression presents Him. But the burnt offering does not thus reflect Him. There is not a single circumstance connected with that offering which would correspond with such language. The sin offering alone furnishes the fitting type of the Lord Jesus as the One who poured forth those accents of intense agony, for in it alone do we find the circumstances which evoked such accents from the depths of His spotless soul. The awful shadow of the cross, with its shame, its curse, and its exclusion from the light of God’s countenance, was passing across His spirit, and He could not even contemplate it without an “If it be possible let this cup pass from me.” But, no sooner had He uttered these words, than His profound subjection manifests itself in, “thy Will be done.” What a bitter cup” it must have been to elicit, from a perfectly subject heart, the words,” let it pass from me!” What perfect subjection there must have been when, in the presence of so bitter a cup, the heart could breathe forth,” thy will be done!”
We shall now consider the, typical act of “laying on of hands.” This act was common both to the burnt offering and the sin offering; but, in the case of the former, it identified the offerer with an unblemished offering in the case of the latter, it involved the transfer of the sin of the offerer to the head of the offering. Thus it was in the type; and, when we look at the Antitype, we learn a truth of the most comforting and edifying nature – a truth which, were it more clearly understood, and fully experienced, would impart a far more settled peace than is ordinarily possessed.
What, then, is the doctrine set forth in the laying on of hands? It is this: Christ was “made sin for us, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.” (2 Cor. 5) He took our position with all its consequences, in order that we might get His position with all its consequences. He was treated as sin, upon the cross, that we might be treated as righteousness, in the presence of infinite Holiness. He was cast out of God’s presence because He had sin upon Him, by imputation, that we might be received into God’s house and into His bosom, because we have a perfect righteousness by imputation. He had to endure the hiding of God’s countenance, that we might bask in the light of that countenance. He had to pass through three hours’ darkness, that we might walk in everlasting light. He was forsaken of God, for a time, that we might enjoy His presence for ever. all that was due to us, as ruined sinners, was laid upon Him, in order that all that was due to Him, as the Accomplisher of redemption, might be ours. There was everything against Him When He hung upon the cursed tree, in order that there might be nothing against us He was identified with us, in the reality of death and judgement, in order that we might be identified with Him, in the reality of life and righteousness. He drank the cup of wrath, – the cup of trembling, that we might drink the cup of salvation – the cup of infinite favour. He was treated according to our deserts, that we might be treated according to His.
Such is the wondrous truth illustrated by the ceremonial act of imposition of hands. When the worshipper had laid his hand upon the head of the burnt offering, it ceased to be a question as to what he was, or what he deserved, and became entirely a question of what the offering was in the judgement of Jehovah. If the offering was without blemish, so was the offerer; if the offering was accepted, so was the offerer. They are perfectly identified. The act of laying on of hands constituted them one, in God’s view. He looked at the offerer through the medium of the offering. Thus it was, in the case of the burnt offering. But, in the sin offering, when the offerer had laid his hand upon the head of the offering, it became a question of what the offerer was, and what he deserved. The offering was treated according to the deserts of the offerer. They were perfectly identified. The act of laying on of hands constituted them one, in the judgement of God. The sin of the offerer was dealt with in the sin offering; the person of the offerer: was accepted in the burnt offering. This made a vast difference. Hence, though the act of laying on of hands was common to both types, and, moreover, though it was expressive, in the case of each, of identification, yet here the consequences as different as possible. The just treated as the unjust; the unjust accepted in the just. “Christ hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God.” This is the doctrine. Our sins brought Christ to the cross; but He brings us to God. And, if He brings us to God, it is in His own acceptableness, as risen from the dead, having put away our sins, according to the perfectness of His own work. He bore away our sins far from the sanctuary of God, in order that He might bring us nigh, even into the holiest of all, in full confidence of heart, having the conscience purged by His precious blood from every stain of sin.
Now, the more minutely we compare all the details of the burnt offering and the sin offering, the more clearly shall we apprehend the truth of what has been above stated, in reference to the laying on of hands, and the results thereof, in each case.
In the first chapter of this volume, we noticed the fact that “the sons of Aaron” are introduced in the burnt offering, but not in the sin offering. As priests they were privileged to stand around the altar, and behold the flame of an acceptable sacrifice ascending to the Lord. But in the sin offering, in its primary aspect, it was a question of the solemn judgement of sin, and not of priestly worship or admiration; and, therefore, the sons of Aaron do not appear. It is as convicted sinners that we have to do with Christ, as the Antitype of the sin offering. It is as worshipping priests, clothed in garments of salvation, that we contemplate Christ, as the Antitype of the burnt offering.
But, further, my reader may observe that the burnt offering was “flayed,” the sin offering was not. The burnt offerings was “cut into his pieces,” the sin offering was not. “The inwards and the legs” of the burnt offering were “washed in water,” which act was entirely omitted in the sin offering. Lastly, the burnt offering was burnt upon the altar, the sin offering was burnt without the camp. These are weighty points of difference arising simply out of the distinctive character of the offerings. We know there is nothing in the word of God without its own special meaning; and every intelligent and careful student of Scripture will notice the above points of difference; and, when he notices them, he will, naturally, seek to ascertain their real import. Ignorance of this import there may be; but indifference to it there should not. In any section of inspiration, but especially one so rich as that which lies before us, to pass over a single point, would be to offer dishonour to the Divine Author, and to deprive our own souls of much profit. We should hang over the most minute details, either to adore God’s wisdom in them, or to confess our own ignorance of them. To pass them by, in a spirit of indifference, is to imply that the Holy Ghost has taken the trouble to write what we do not deem worthy of the desire to understand. This is what no right-minded Christian would presume to think. If the Spirit, in writing upon the ordinance of the sin offering, has omitted the various rites above alluded to – rites which get a prominent place in the ordinance of the burnt offering, there must, assuredly, be some good reason for, and some important meaning in, His doing so. These we would seek to apprehend; and, no doubt, they arise out of the special design of the divine mind in each offering. The sin offering sets forth that aspect of Christ’s work in which He is seen taking, judicially, the place which belonged to us morally. For this reason we could not look for that intense expression of what He was, in all His secret springs of action, as unfolded in the typical act of “flaying.” Neither could there be that enlarged exhibition of what He was, not merely as a whole, but in the most minute features of His character, as seen in the act of “cutting it into his pieces.” Nor, yet, could there be that manifestation of what He was, personally, practically, and intrinsically, as set forth in the significant act of “washing the inwards and legs in water.”
All these things belonged to the burnt-offering phase of our blessed Lord, and to that alone, because, in it, we see Him offering Himself to the eye, to the heart, and to the altar of Jehovah, without any question of imputed sin, of wrath, or of judgement. In the sin offering, on the contrary, instead of having, as the great prominent idea, what Christ is, we have what sin is. Instead of the preciousness of Jesus, we have the odiousness of sin. In the burnt offering, inasmuch as it is Christ Himself offered to, and accepted by, God, we have every thing done that could possibly make manifest what He was, in every respect. In the sin offering, because it is sin, as judged By God, the very reverse is the case. All this is so plain as to need no effort of the mind to understand it. It naturally flows out of the distinctive character of the type.
However, although the leading object in the sin offering, is to shadow forth what Christ became for as, and not what He was in Himself; there is, nevertheless, one rite connected with this type, which most fully expresses His personal acceptableness to Jehovah. This rite is laid down in the following words, “And he shall take off from it all the fat of the bullock for the sin offering; the fat that covereth the inwards, and all the fat that is upon the inwards, and the two kidneys, and the fat that is upon them, which is by the flanks, and the caul above the liver, with the kidneys, it shall he take away, as it was taken off from the bullock of the sacrifice of peace offering; and the priest shall burn them upon the altar of the burnt offering.” (Lev. 4: 8-10) Thus, the intrinsic excellency of Christ is not omitted, even in the sin-offering. The fat burnt upon the altar is the apt expression of the divine appreciation of the preciousness of Christ’s Person, no matter what place He might, in perfect grace, take, on our behalf or in our stead; He was made sin for us, and the sin offering is the divinely-appointed shadow of Him, in this respect. But, inasmuch as it was the Lord Jesus Christ, God’s elect, His Holy One, His pure, His spotless, His eternal Son that was made sin, therefore the fat of the sin offering was burnt upon the altar, as a proper material for that fire which was the impressive exhibition of divine holiness.
But, even in this very point, we see what a contrast there is between the sin offering and the burnt offering. In the case of the latter, it was not merely the fat, but the whole sacrifice that was burnt upon the altar, because it was Christ, without any question of sin-bearing whatever. in the case of the former, there was nothing but the fat to be burnt upon the altar, because it was a question of sin-bearing, though Christ was the sin bearer. The divine glories of Christ’s Person shine out, even from amid the darkest shades of that cursed tree to which He consented to be nailed as a curse for us. the hatefulness of that with which, in the exercise of divine love, He connected His blessed Person, on the cross, could not prevent the sweet odour of His preciousness from ascending to the throne of God. Thus, have we unfolded to us the profound mystery of God’s face hidden from that which Christ became, and God’s heart refreshed by what Christ was. This imparts a peculiar charm to the sin offering. The bright beams of Christ’s Personal glory shining out from amid the awful gloom of Calvary – His Personal worth set forth, in the very deepest depths of His humiliation – God’s delight in the One from whom He had, in vindication of His inflexible justice and holiness, to hide His face – all this is set forth in the fact that the fat of the sin offering was burnt upon the altar.
Having, thus, endeavoured to point out, in the first place, what was done with “the blood;” and, in the second place, what was done with “the fat;” we have, now, to consider what was done with “the flesh.” “And the skin of the bullock, and all his flesh.. even the whole bullock shall he carry forth without the camp unto a clean place, where the ashes are poured out, and burn him On the wood with fire: where the ashes are poured out shall he be burnt.” (Ver. 11, 12) In this act, we have the main feature of the sin offering-that which distinguished it both from the burnt offering and the peace offering. Its flesh was not burnt upon the altar, as in the burnt offering; neither was it eaten by the priest or the worshipper, as in the peace offering. It was wholly burnt without the camp.* “No sin offering, whereof any of the blood is brought into the tabernacle of the congregation, to reconcile withal in the holy place, shall be eaten: it shall be burnt in the fire.” (Lev. 6: 30) “For the bodies of those beasts, whose blood is brought unto the sanctuary by the high priest for sin, are burned without the camp. Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate.” (Heb. 13: 11, 12)
{*The statement in the text refers only to the sin offerings of which the blood was brought into the holy place. There were sin offerings of which Aaron and his sons partook. (See Lev 6: 26-29; Num. 18: 9, 10)}
Now, in comparing what was done with the “blood” with what was done with the “flesh” or “body” of the sacrifice, two great branches of truth present themselves to our view, namely, worship and discipleship. The blood brought into the sanctuary is the foundation of the former. The body burnt outside the camp is the foundation of the latter. Before ever we can worship, in Peace of conscience, and liberty of heart, we must know, on the authority of the word, and by the power of the Spirit, that the entire question of sin has been for ever settled by the blood of the divine sin offering-that His blood has been sprinkled, perfectly, before the Lord – that all God’s claims, and all our necessities, as ruined and guilty sinners, have been, for ever, answered. This gives perfect peace; and, in the enjoyment of this peace, we worship God. When an Israelite, of old, had offered his sin offering, his conscience was set at rest, in so far as the offering was capable of imparting rest. True, it was but a temporary rest, being the fruit of a temporary sacrifice. But, clearly, whatever kind of rest the offering was fitted to impart, that the offerer might enjoy. Hence, therefore, our Sacrifice being divine and eternal, our rest is divine and eternal also. As is the sacrifice such is the rest which is founded thereon. A Jew never had an eternally purged conscience, simply because he had not an eternally efficacious sacrifice. He might in a certain way, have his conscience purged for a day, a month, or a year; but he could not have it purged for ever. “But Christ being come, an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood, he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption. For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh; how much more shall the blood of Christ, who, through the eternal Spirit, offered Himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?” (Heb. 11: 11-14)
Here, we have the full, explicit statement of the doctrine. The blood of goats and calves procured a temporary redemption; the blood of Christ procures eternal redemption. The former purified outwardly; the latter, inwardly. that purged the flesh, for a time; this, the conscience, for ever. The whole question hinges, not upon the character or condition of the offerer, but upon the value of the offering. The question is not, by any means, whether a Christian is a better man than a Jew, but whether the blood of Christ is better than the blood of a bullock. Assuredly, it is better. How much better? Infinitely better. The Son of God imparts all the dignity of His own divine Person to the sacrifice which He offered; and, if the blood of a bullock purified the flesh for a year, “how much more” shall the blood of the Son of God purge the conscience for ever? If that took away some sin, how much more shall this take away “all?”
Now, why was the mind of a Jew set at rest, for the time being, when he had offered his sin offering? How did he know that the special sin for which he had brought his sacrifice was forgiven? Because God had said, “it shall be forgiven him.” His peace of heart, in reference to that particular sin, rested upon the testimony of the God of Israel, and the blood of the victim. So, now, the peace of the believer, in reference to “all SIN,” rests upon the authority of God’s word, and “the precious blood of Christ.” If a Jew had sinned, and neglected to bring his sin offering, he should have been “Cut Off from among his people;” but when he took his place as a sinner – when he laid his hand upon the head of a sin offering, then, the offering was “Cut Off” instead of him, and he was free, so far. The offering was treated as the offerer deserved; and, hence, for him not to know that his sin was forgiven him, would have been to make God a liar, and to treat the blood of the divinely-appointed sin offering as nothing.
And, if this were true, in reference to one who had only the blood of a goat to rest upon, “how much more” powerfully does it apply to one, who has the precious blood of Christ to rest upon? The believer sees in Christ One who has been judged for all his sin – One who, when He hung upon the cross, sustained the entire burden of his sin – One who, having made Himself responsible for that sin, could not be where He now is, if the whole question of sin had not been settled, according to all the claims of infinite justice. So absolutely did Christ take the believer’s place on the cross – so entirely was he identified with Him – so completely was all the believer’s sin imputed to Him, there and then, that all question of the believer’s liability – all thought of his guilt all idea of his exposure to judgement and wrath, is eternally set aside.* It was all settled on the cursed tree, between Divine Justice and the Spotless Victim. And now the believer is as absolutely identified with Christ, on the throne, as Christ was identified with him on the tree. Justice has no charge to bring against the believer, because it has no charge to bring against Christ. Thus it stands for ever. If a charge could be preferred against the believer, it would be calling in question the reality of Christ’s identification with him, on the cross, and the perfectness of Christ’s work, on his behalf. If, when the worshipper, of old, was on his way back, after having offered his sin offering, any one had charged him with that special sin for which his sacrifice had bled, what would have been His reply? Just this: “the sin has been rolled away, by the blood of the victim, and Jehovah has pronounced the words, ‘It shall be forgiven him.'” The victim had died instead of him; and he lived instead of the victim.
{*We have a singularly beautiful example of the divine accuracy of Scripture, in 2 Cor. 5: 21, “He hath made him to be sin (hamartian epoiesen) for us, that we might become (ginometha) the righteousness of God in him.” The English reader might suppose that the word which is rendered “made” is the same in each clause of the passage, This is not the case.}
Such was the type. And, as to the Antitype, when the eye of faith rests on Christ as the sin offering, it beholds Him as One who, having assumed a Perfect human life, gave up that life on the cross, because sin was, there and then, attached to it by imputation. But, it beholds Him, also, As One who, having, in Himself, the power of divine and eternal life, rose from the tomb therein, and who now imparts this, His risen, His divine, His eternal life to all who believe in His name. The sin is gone, because the life to which it was attached is gone, and now, instead of the life to which sin was attached, all true believers possess the life to which righteousness attaches. The question of sin can never once be raised, in reference to the risen and victorious life of Christ; but this is the life which believers possess. There is no other life. All beside is death, because all beside is under the power of sin. “He that hath the Son hath life;” and he that hath life, hath righteousness also. The two things are inseparable, because Christ is both the one and the other. If the judgement and death of Christ, upon the cross, were realities, then, the life and righteousness of the believer are realities. If imputed sin was a reality to Christ, imputed righteousness is a reality to the believer. The one is as real as the other; for, if not, Christ would have died in vain. The true and irrefragable ground of peace is this – that the claims of God’s nature have been perfectly met, as to sin. The death of Jesus has satisfied them all – satisfied them of the awakened conscience? The great fact of resurrection. A risen Christ declares the full deliverance of the believer – his perfect discharge from every possible demand. “He was delivered for our offences, and raised again for our justification” (Rom. 4: 25) For a Christian not to know that his sin is gone, and gone for ever, is to cast slight upon the blood of his divine sin offering. It is to deny that there has been the perfect presentation – the sevenfold sprinkling of the blood before the Lord.
And now, ere turning from this fundamental point which has been occupying us, I would desire to make an earnest and a most solemn appeal to my reader’s heart and conscience Let me ask you, dear friend, have you been led to repose on this holy and happy foundation? Do you know that the question of your sin has been for ever disposed of? Have you laid your hand, by faith, on the head of the sin offering? Have you seen the atoning blood of Jesus rolling away all your guilt, and carrying it into the mighty waters of God’s forgetfulness? Has Divine Justice anything against you? Are you free from the unutterable horrors of a guilty conscience? Do not, I pray you, rest satisfied until you can give a joyous answer to these enquiries. Be assured of it, it is the happy privilege of the feeblest babe in Christ to rejoice in full and everlasting remission of sins, on the ground of finished atonement; and, hence, for any to teach otherwise, is to lower the sacrifice of Christ to the level of “goats and calves.” If we cannot know that our sins are forgiven, then, where are the good tidings of the gospel? Is a Christian in no wise better off in the matter of a sin offering, than a Jew? The latter was privileged to know that his matters were set straight for a year, by the blood of an annual sacrifice. Can the former not have any certainty at all? Unquestionably. Well, then, if there is any certainty, it must be eternal, inasmuch as it rests on an eternal sacrifice.
This, and this alone, is the basis of worship. The full assurance of sin put away, ministers, not to a spirit of self-confidence, but to a spirit of promise, thankfulness, and worship. It produces, not a spirit of self-complacency, but of Christ-complacency, which, blessed be God, is the spirit which shall characterise the redeemed throughout eternity. It does not lead one to think little of sin, but to think much of the grace which has perfectly pardoned it, and of the blood which has perfectly cancelled it. It is impossible that any one can gaze on the cross – can see the place which Christ took – can meditate upon the sufferings which He endured – can ponder on those three terrible hours of darkness, and, at the same time, think lightly of sin. When all these things are entered into, in the power of the Holy Ghost, there are two results which must follow, namely, an abhorrence of sin, in all its forms, and a genuine love to Christ, His people, and His cause.
Let us now consider what was done with the “flesh” or “body” of the sacrifice, in which, as has been stated, we have the true ground of discipleship. “The whole bullock shall he carry forth, without the camp, unto a clean place, where the ashes are poured out, and burn him on the wood with fire.” (Lev. 4: 12) This act is to be viewed in a double way; first, as expressing the place which the Lord Jesus took for us, as bearing sin; secondly, as expressing the place into which He was cast, by a world which had rejected Him. It is to this latter point that I would here call my reader’s attention.
The use which the apostle, in Heb. 13, makes of Christ’s having “suffered without the gate,” is deeply practical. “Let us go forth, therefore, unto him, without the camp, bearing his reproach.” If the sufferings of Christ have secured us an entrance into heaven, the place where He suffered expresses our rejection from earth. His death has procured us a city on high; the place where He died divests us of a city below.* “He suffered without the gate,” and, in so doing, He set aside Jerusalem as the present centre of divine operation. There is no such thing, now, as a consecrated spot on the earth. Christ has taken His place, as a suffering One, outside the range of this world’s religion – its politics, and all that pertains to it. The world hated Him, and cast Him out. Wherefore, the word is, “go forth.” This is the motto, as regards every thing that men would set up here, in the form of a “camp,” no matter what that camp may be. If men set up “a holy city,” you must look for a rejected Christ “without the gate.” If men set up a religious camp, call it by what name you please, you must “go forth” out of it, in order to find a rejected Christ. It is not that blind superstition will not grope amid the ruins of Jerusalem, in search of relics of Christ. It assuredly will do so, and has done so. It will affect to find out, and do honour to, the site of His cross, and to His sepulchre. Nature’s covetousness, too, taking advantage of nature’s superstition, has carried on, for ages, a lucrative traffic, under the crafty plea of doing honour to the so-called sacred localities of antiquity. But a single ray of light from Revelation’s heavenly lamp, is sufficient to enable us to say that you must “go forth” of all these things, in order to find and enjoy communion with a rejected Christ.
{*The Epistle to the Ephesians furnishes the most elevated view of the Church’s place above, and gives it to us, not merely as to the title, but also as to the mode. The title is, assuredly, the blood; but the mode is thus stated: “But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love, wherewith he loved us, even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ (by grace ye are saved); and hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus.” (Eph. 2: 4-6)}
However, my reader will need to remember that there is far more involved in the soul-stirring call to “go forth,” than a mere escape from the gross absurdities of an ignorant superstition, or the designs of a crafty covetousness. There are many who can, powerfully and eloquently, expose all such things, who are very far indeed from any thought of responding to the apostolic summons. When men set up a “camp,” and rally round a standard on which is emblazoned some important dogma of truth, or some valuable institution – when they can appeal to an orthodox creed – an advanced and enlightened scheme of doctrine – a splendid ritual, capable of satisfying the most ardent aspirations of man’s devotional nature – when any or all of these things exist, it demands much spiritual intelligence to discern the real force and proper application of the words, “Let us go forth,” and much spiritual energy and decision to act upon them. They should, however, be discerned and acted upon, for it is perfectly certain that the atmosphere of a camp, let its ground or standard be what it may, is destructive of personal communion with a rejected Christ; and no so-called religious advantage can ever make up for the loss of that communion. It is the tendency of our hearts to drop into cold stereotyped forms. This has ever been the case in the professing church. These forms may have originated in real power. They may have resulted from positive visitations of the Spirit of God. The temptation is to stereotype the form when the spirit and power have all departed. This is, in principle, to set up a camp. The Jewish system could boast a divine origin. A Jew could triumphantly point to the temple, with its splendid system of worship, its priesthood, its sacrifices, its entire furniture, and show that it had all been handed down from the God of Israel. He could give chapter and verse, as we say, for everything connected with the system to which he was attached. Where is the system, ancient, mediaeval, or modern, that could put forth such lofty and powerful pretensions, or come down upon the heart with such an overwhelming weight of authority? And yet, the command was to “GO FORTH.”
This is a deeply solemn matter. It concerns us all, because we are all prone to slip away from communion with a living Christ and sink into dead routine. Hence the practical power of the words, to go forth therefore unto him.” It is not, Go forth from one system to another – from one set of opinions to another – from one company of people to another. No: but go forth from everything that merits the appellation of a camp, “to him” who “suffered without the gate.” The Lord Jesus is as thoroughly outside the gate now, as He was when He suffered there eighteen centuries ago. What was it that put Him outside? “The religious world” of that day: and the religious world of that day is, in spirit and principle, the religious world of the present moment. The world is the world still. “There is nothing new under the sun.” Christ and the world are not one. The world has covered itself with the cloak; of Christianity; but it is only in order that its hatred to Christ may work itself up into more deadly forms underneath. Let us not deceive ourselves. If we will walk with a rejected Christ, we must be a rejected people. If our Master “suffered without the gate,” we cannot expect to reign within the gate. If we walk in His footsteps, whither will they lead us? Surely, not to the high places of this Godless, Christless world.
“His path, uncheered by earthly smiles,
Led only to the cross.”
He is a despised Christ – a rejected Christ – a Christ outside the camp. Oh! then, dear Christian reader, let us go forth to Him, bearing His reproach. Let us not bask in the sunshine of this world’s favour, seeing it crucified, and still hates, with an unmitigated hatred, the beloved One to whom we owe our present and eternal all, and who loves us with a love which many waters cannot quench. Let us not, directly or indirectly, accredit that thing which calls itself by His sacred name; but, in reality, hates His Person, hates His ways, hates His truth, hates the bare mention of His advent. Let us be faithful to an absent Lord. Let us live for Him who died for us. While our consciences repose in His blood, let our heart’s affections entwine themselves around His Person; so that our separation from” this present evil world” may not be merely a matter of cold principle, but an affectionate separation, because the object of our affections is not here. May the Lord deliver us from the influence of that consecrated, prudential selfishness, so common at the present time, which would not be without religiousness, but is the enemy of the cross of Christ. What we want, in order to make a successful stand against this terrible form of evil, is not peculiar views, or special principles, or curious theories, or cold intellectual accuracy. We want a deep-toned devotedness to the Person of the Son of God; a whole-hearted consecration of ourselves, body, soul, and spirit, to His service; an earnest longing for His glorious advent. These, my reader, are the special wants of the times in which you and I live. Will you not, then, join in uttering, from the very depths of your heart, the cry, “O Lord, revive thy work” – “accomplish the number of thine elect!” – “hasten thy kingdom!” – “Come, Lord Jesus, come quickly!”
Fuente: Mackintosh’s Notes on the Pentateuch
Lev 4:1 to Lev 5:13. The Sin Offering.This, and the guilt offering, whose ritual follows, are unknown before the Exile, save as fines (2Ki 12:16, Amo 2:8). Ezek. mentions both, but is conscious of no difference between them. Probably the distinction between them grew up gradually (see on Eze 5:14 ff.). The ritual is derived partly from that of the burnt offering and peace offering; partly from other old rites. No idea of substitution seems to be implied (though it is true that a ritual tablet from Babylonia states that idea very clearly; the life of the kid has he given for his own life, its head for his head, etc.), since the sin offering is most holy, a term which could not be applied to the offerer; a meal offering is included, as if the sacrifice were thought of originally as an offering of food; and the sacrifice is offered for sins not demanding death, though the victim is always killed, and by the worshipper. [Observe also that were the sacrifice substitutionary, the chief point would be the slaughter. But it was rather the manipulation of the blood.A. S. P.] On the other hand, the conception of a gift or payment in return for a wrong done is prominent throughout. The offerer has no more share in his offering than in the case of the burnt offering, though the priest has. This becomes clearer when it is seen that sin is used, not of deliberate disobedience or defiance of Yahwehs moral law, but more particularly of ritual or ceremonial mistakes or defilement committed through inadvertence or ignorance. The sin offering often accompanies other sacrifices; in Ezek., the consecration of the altar (Eze 43:19). While the later legislation thus purifies the sacrificial ritual from anything that could remotely savour of irreverence, it is very far from the standpoint of Psalms 51; it simply perpetuates, for good and evil, the primitive conception of sin as an infraction of the restrictions or taboos imposed on human conduct by the deity. The main characteristics of the sin offering are the killing of the victim by the worshipper and the pouring out of the blood, as in the burnt offering; the flesh is burnt outside the camp or eaten by the priest, i.e. it is most holy. The manipulation of the blood, however, is more complicated (cf. Lev 4:5 ff.), and different kinds of animals are to be offered, according to the rank of the offererHigh Priest, congregation, ruler, private person, or the poor. The seven times repeated sprinkling of the blood before Yahweh (Lev 4:6) recalls the ritual of ch. 16; both may well be among the latest developments of Priestly legislation.
Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible
OFFERING FOR A SPECIFIC SIN (vv. 1-6)
The subject of the sin offering is continued in this chapter up to the end of verse 13. It is a descending scale, for the specific sin has to be brought to the attention of the offender, and the offering made, but allowance also made for a lesser offering in the case of poverty. Verse 1 is a sin of omission. One may hear and know of a matter of serious importance and yet not report it. In law this is called misprision, but it is sin before God. The voice of adjuration put one under solemn obligation to bear witness to what he knew was true. Thus, though the Lord said nothing in defense of Himself before the Sanhedrim, yet when the high priest adjured Him in God’s name, He answered what was true, that He is the Christ, the Son of God (Mat 26:63-64).
Also, touching the dead carcass of an animal would involve one in defilement, or touching a human who was defiled by any type of uncleanness, though this happened inadvertently (vv. 2-3). Or one might thoughtlessly swear an oath that he afterward realized was sinful (v. 4). Touching an unclean thing was of course simply ceremonial defilement, but pictures for us any associations we may make that are morally corrupt. If we identify ourselves with others living corruptly, we too shall be defiled by this.
When any such things were brought to a person’s attention, he was to confess that he had sinned in that thing. How good it is when such a confession is made, with no excuses added!
In verse 6, because a trespass offering was here required, some have thought this introduces the subject of the trespass offering, but a sin offering and a burnt offering were also required (vv. 6-7), and then the sin offering is emphasized in verses 8 and 9. Properly speaking, the subject of the trespass offering begins in verse 14. But the trespass offering and the sin offering (v. 6) were both brought, a female from the flock, or a kid of the goats as a sin offering. This shows a close connection between the two offerings, for the act of disobedience (requiring a trespass offering) exposes the disobedient character of the person, that is, his sinful nature, which is emphasized in the sin offering.
BIRDS IN PLACE OF ANIMALS (vv. 7-10)
One who was unable to bring a lamb would be allowed to bring two turtledoves or two young pigeons as a sacrifice. This pictures one who is poor in his apprehension of the value of the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus as fully atoning for sin. At least he recognizes that the Lord Jesus is from heaven (pictured by the birds), therefore above him, and though his understanding is weak, God receives his offering.
The birds’ heads were to be wrung off, symbolizing the intelligence being set apart, but otherwise no division of the parts of the bird was allowed, for the birds speak of the heavenly character of the Lord Jesus, which is above our ability to discern. Some of the blood was then sprinkled on the side of the altar and the rest drained out at the base of the altar. The first bird was for a sin offering, no doubt offered in accordance with Lev 1:14-17.
A MEAL OFFERING INSTEAD OF A BLOOD SACRIFICE (vv. 11-13)
Because of poverty one might not be able to bring even the birds for an offering. In this case the grace of God allowed an offering of one-tenth of an ephah of fine flour, a small amount, but unlike other meal offerings, no oil or incense was put on it, because it was a sin offering. Since no blood was involved, it could not properly be atoning. It speaks of the purity of the Man Christ Jesus, however, and if there is in the offender a true regard for the person of Christ, though he has no understanding of the value of Christ’s work of redemption, God can still graciously receive this offering, making this concession for ignorance.
There is no sweet savor in this, for it is a sin offering. A handful of this was taken by the priest and burned on the altar, and the remainder was the priest’s, as was the case with a meal offering. Thus, God was given His part and the priest (typical of Christ) was given his.
THE TRESPASS OFFERING (vv. 14 to Lev 6:7)
TRESPASS GODWARD (vv. 15-19)
The trespass offering deals with sin also, but not simply in its general evil character, rather in its being injurious either to God or to people. These are said to be sins of ignorance also. In this section sin in sacred things is first mentioned. For this a ram without blemish was to be offered, and also silver according to the proper estimation of the injury done. The trespass must be fully paid for, but a fifth part also added. Only this could be considered making proper amends.
Thus, the Lord Jesus has not only paid the penalty for the sin that Adam introduced into the world, but has gone beyond this, as Rom 5:17 tells us. He has not only restored what Adam lost, but much more. Adam lost earth, but Christ has introduced heavenly blessing for us.
Fuente: Grant’s Commentary on the Bible
5:1 And if a soul sin, and hear the voice of swearing, and [is] a witness, whether he hath seen or {a} known [of it]; if he do not utter [it], then he shall bear his iniquity.
(a) By which it is commanded to bear witness to the truth, and disclose the iniquity of the ungodly.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
THE RITUAL OF THE SIN OFFERING
Lev 4:4-35; Lev 5:1-13; Lev 6:24-30
ACCORDING to the Authorised Version, {Lev 5:6-7} it might seem that the section, Lev 5:1-13, referred not to the sin offering, but to the guilt offering, like the latter part of the chapter; but, as suggested in the margin of the Revised Version, in these verses we may properly read, instead of “guilt offering,” “for his guilt.” That the latter rendering is to be preferred is clear when we observe that in Lev 5:6, Lev 5:7, Lev 5:9 this offering is called a sin offering; that, everywhere else, the victim for the guilt offering is a ram; and, finally, that the estimation of a money value for the victim, which is the most characteristic feature of the guilt offering, is absent from all the offerings described in these verses. We may safely take it therefore as certain that the marginal reading should be adopted in Lev 5:6, so that it will read, “he shall bring for his guilt unto the Lord”; and understand the section to contain a further development of the law of the sin offering. In the law of the preceding chapter we have the direction for the sin offering as graded with reference to the rank and station of the offerer; in this section we have the law for the sin offering for the common people, as graded with reference to the ability of the offerer.
The specifications {Lev 5:1-5} indicate several cases under which one of the common people was required to bring a sin offering as the condition of forgiveness. As an exhaustive list would be impossible, those named are taken as illustrations. The instances selected are significant as extending the class of offences for which atonement could be made by a sin offering, beyond the limits of sins of inadvertence as given in the previous chapter. For however some cases come under this head, we cannot so reckon sins of rashness (Lev 5:4), and still less, the failure of the witness placed under oath to tell the whole truth as he knows it. And herein it is graciously intimated that it is in the heart of God to multiply His pardons; and, on condition of the presentation of a sin offering, to forgive also those sins in palliation of which no such excuse as inadvertence or ignorance can be pleaded. It is a faint foreshadowing, in the law concerning the type, of that which should afterward be declared concerning the great Antitype, {1Jn 1:7} “The blood of Jesus cleanseth from all sin.”
When we look now at the various prescriptions regarding the ritual of the offering which are given in this and the foregoing chapter, it is plain that the numerous variations from the ritual of the other sacrifices were intended to withdraw the thought of the sinner from all other aspects in which sacrifice might be regarded, and centre his mind upon the one thought of sacrifice as expiating sin, through the substitution of an innocent life for the guilty. In many particulars, indeed, the ritual agrees with that of the sacrifices before prescribed. The victim must be brought by the guilty person to be offered to God by the priest; he must, as in other cases of bloody offerings, then lay his hand on the head of the victim, and then (a particular not mentioned in the other cases) he must confess the sin which he has committed, and then and thus entrust the victim to the priest, that he may apply its blood for him in atonement before God. The priest then slays the victim, and now comes that part of the ceremonial which by its variations from the law of other offerings is emphasised as the most central and significant in this sacrifice.