Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying,
Parallel Translations
-
Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying,
-
And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
-
And the LORD spoke unto Moses, saying:
Cross-references
No cross-references for this verse.
Explain this verse (19 sources)
Historical commentary, presented as a primary source — not an endorsement.
Private notes
Saved on this device only — never synced or sent anywhere.
John Trapp 1656 · Public Domain Lev 4:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
Lev 4:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
Ver. 1. And the Lord spake.] At another time belike.
John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Matthew Henry 1710 · Public Domain The laws contained in the first three chapters seem…
The laws contained in the first three chapters seem to have been delivered to Moses at one time. Here begin the statutes of another session, another day. From the throne of glory between the cherubim God delivered these orders. And he enters now upon a subject more strictly new than those before. Burnt-offerings, meat-offerings, and peace-offerings, it should seem, had been offered before the giving of the law upon mount Sinai; those sacrifices the patriarchs had not been altogether unacquainted with (Gen 8:20; Exo 20:24), and in them they had respect to sin, to make atonement for it, Job 1:5. But the law being now added because of transgressions (Gal 3:19), and having entered, that eventually the offence might abound (Rom 5:20), they were put into a way of making atonement for sin more particularly by sacrifice, which was (more than any of the ceremonial institutions) a shadow of good things to come, but the substance is Christ, and that one offering of himself by which he put away sin and perfected for ever those who are sanctified.
I. The general case supposed we have, Lev 4:2. Here observe, 1. Concerning sin in general, that it is described to be against any of the commandments of the Lord; for sin is the transgression of the law, the divine law. The wits or wills of men, their inventions or their injunctions, cannot make that to be sin which the law of God has not made to be so. It is said likewise, if a soul sin, for it is not sin if it be not some way or other the soul's act; hence it is called the sin of the soul (Mic 6:7), and it is the soul that is injured by it, Pro 8:36. 2. Concerning the sins for which those offerings were appointed. (1.) They are supposed to be overt acts; for, had they been required to bring a sacrifice for every sinful thought or word, the task had been endless. Atonement was made for those in the gross, on the day of expiation, once a year; but these are said to be done against the commandments. (2.) They are supposed to be sins of commission, things which ought not to be done. Omissions are sins, and must come into judgment; but what had been omitted at one time might be done at another, and so to obey was better than sacrifice: but a commission was past recall. (3.) They are supposed to be sins committed through ignorance. If they were done presumptuously, and with an avowed contempt of the law and the Law-maker, the offender was to be cut off, and there remained no sacrifice for the sin, Heb 10:26, Heb 10:27; Num 15:30. But if the offender were either ignorant of the law, as in divers instances we may suppose many were (so numerous and various were the prohibitions), or were surprised into the sin unawares, the circumstances being such as made it evident that his resolution against the sin was sincere, but that he was overtaken in it, as the expression is (Gal 6:1), in this case relief was provided by the remedial law of the sin-offering. And the Jews say, "Those crimes only were to be expiated by sacrifice, if committed ignorantly, for which the criminal was to have been cut off if they had been committed presumptuously."
Read full note →
II. The law begins with the case of the anointed priest, that is, the high priest, provided he should sin through ignorance; for the law made men priests who had infirmity. Though his ignorance was of all others least excusable, yet he was allowed to bring his offering. His office did not so far excuse his offence as that it should be forgiven him without a sacrifice; yet it did not so far aggravate it but that it should be forgiven him when he did bring his sacrifice. If he sin according to the sin of the people (so the case is put, Lev 4:3), which supposes him in this matter to stand upon the level with other Israelites, and to have no benefit of his clergy at all. Now the law concerning the sin-offering for the high priest is, 1. That he must bring a bullock without blemish for a sin-offering (Lev 4:3), as valuable an offering as that for the whole congregation (Lev 4:14); whereas for any other ruler, or a common person, a kid of the goats should serve, Lev 4:23, Lev 4:28. This intimated the greatness of the guilt connected with the sin of a high priest. The eminency of his station, and his relation both to God and to the people, greatly aggravated his offences; see Rom 2:21. 2. The hand of the offerer must be laid upon the head of the offering (Lev 4:4), with a solemn penitent confession of the sin he had committed, putting it upon the head of the sin-offering, Lev 16:21. No remission without confession, Psa 32:5; Pro 28:13. It signified also a confidence in this instituted way of expiating guilt, as a figure of something better yet to come, which they could not stedfastly discern. He that laid his hand on the head of the beast thereby owned that he deserved to die himself, and that it was God's great mercy that he would please to accept the offering of this beast to die for him. The Jewish writers themselves say that neither the sin-offering nor the trespass-offering made atonement, except for those that repented and believed in their atonement. 3. The bullock must be killed, and a great deal of solemnity there must be in disposing of the blood; for it was the blood that made atonement, and without shedding of blood there was no remission, Lev 4:5-7. Some of the blood of the high-priest's sin-offering was to be sprinkled seven times before the veil, with an eye towards the mercy-seat, though it was veiled: some of it was to be put upon the horns of the golden altar, because at that altar the priest himself ministered; and thus was signified the putting away of that pollution which from his sins did cleave to his services. It likewise serves to illustrate the influence which Christ's satisfaction has upon the prevalency of his intercession. The blood of his sacrifice is put upon the altar of his incense and sprinkled before the Lord. When this was done the remainder of the blood was poured at the foot of the brazen altar. By this rite, the sinner acknowledged that he deserved to have his blood thus poured out like water. It likewise signified the pouring out of the soul before God in true repentance, and typified our Saviour's pouring out his soul unto death. 4. The fat of the inwards was to be burnt upon the altar of burnt-offering, Lev 4:8-10. By this the intention of the offering and of the atonement made by it was directed to the glory of God, who, having been dishonoured by the sin, was thus honoured by the sacrifice. It signified the sharp sufferings of our Lord Jesus, when he was made sin (that is, a sin-offering) for us, especially the sorrows of his soul and his inward agonies. It likewise teaches us, in conformity to the death of Christ, to crucify the flesh. 5. The head and body of the beast, skin and all, were to be carried without the camp, to a certain place appointed for that purpose, and there burnt to ashes, Lev 4:11, Lev 4:12. This was very significant, (1.) Of the duty of repentance, which is the putting away of sin as a detestable thing, which our soul hates. True penitents say to their idols, "Get you hence; what have we to do any more with idols?" The sin-offering is called sin. What they did to that we must do to our sins; the body of sin must be destroyed, Rom 6:6. (2.) Of the privilege of remission. When God pardons sin he quite abolishes it, casts it behind his back. The iniquity of Judah shall be sought for and not found. The apostle takes particular notice of this ceremony, and applies it to Christ (Heb 13:11-13), who suffered without the gate, in the place of a skull, where the ashes of dead men, as those of the altar, were poured out.
Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (1708–1710) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Gill 1763 · Public Domain And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying. Continued to…
And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying. Continued to speak to him, or, after some pause made, proceeded to speak to him, and give things in commandment concerning the sin offering, what it should be, and for whom, as follows.
And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying. Continued to speak to him, or, after some pause made, proceeded to speak to him, and give things in commandment concerning the sin offering, what it should be, and for whom, as follows.
Read full note →
Leviticus 4:2
lev 4:2
lev 4:2
lev 4:2Speak unto the children of Israel, saying,.... For this law concerning the sin offering, as the rest, only belonged to them, and such as were proselyted to them:
if a soul should sin through ignorance; sin is from the soul, though committed by the body; it is the soul that sins, Eze 18:4 it includes, as Aben Ezra observes, both Israelites and proselytes; who sinned through ignorance either of the law, that such things were forbidden, or of having committed them, they being done unobserved, and through inadvertency; or were forgotten that they were done, or were done through error and mistake; these sins are what the apostle calls the errors of the people, their strayings out of the way through ignorance and inadvertency, Heb 5:2 such sins as a man is overtaken with unawares, and is drawn into at once through temptation and the prevalence of corruption; these are the errors and secret faults which David distinguishes from presumptuous sins, Psa 19:12,
against any of the commandments of the Lord (concerning things which ought not to be done.) The Jewish writers (m) distinguish the commandments of the Lord into affirmative and negative, and make their number to be six hundred and thirteen; two hundred and forty eight are affirmative, according to the number of bones in a man's body, and three hundred sixty five are negative ones, according to the number of the days of the year; and they observe (n), it is only the transgression of negative precepts that is here meant, and for which a sin offering was to be brought:
and shall do against any of them; it must be something done, and not merely said: hence the Jews (o) say, that as the neglect of circumcision, and of the passover, does not come under this law, because they are affirmative precepts; so neither blasphemy, because there is nothing done, only something said: of these sins of ignorance, they give instances as follows; if any man eats the fat that is about the kidneys, thinking it is the fat that is about the heart; or that lies with a woman forbidden by the law, thinking her to be his wife; or that commits idolatry, by bowing to the idol, thinking that the law forbids sacrifice, incense, and libation, but not bowing; or that profanes the sabbath, thinking it is a common day (p).
(m) T. Bab. Maccot, fol. 23. 2. (n) Maimon. in Misn. Horayot, c. 2. sect. 3. Bartenora in Misn. Ceritot, c. 1. sect. 1. Gersom in loc. (o) Misn. Ceritot, c. 1. sect. 2. & Bartenora in ib. Maimon. Hilchot Shegagot, c. 1. sect. 2. (p) Maimon & Bartenora in Misn. Ceritot, ib.
John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Wesley 1765 · Public Domain Directions concerning sin-offerings; which were intended for sins committed…
Directions concerning sin-offerings; which were intended for sins committed thro' ignorance, either by the priest himself, ver. 1-12. or by the whole congregation, ver. 13-21. or by a ruler, ver. 22-26. or by a private person, ver. 27-35.
The Lord spake unto Moses - The laws contained in the three first chapters, seem to have been delivered to Moses at one time. Here begin the laws of another day, which God delivered from between the Cherubim.
John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.
Adam Clarke 1810 · Public Domain The law concerning the sin-offering for transgressions committed
CHAPTER IV
The law concerning the sin-offering for transgressions committed
Read full note →
through ignorance, 1, 2.
For the priest thus sinning, 3-12.
For the sins of ignorance of the whole congregation, 13-21.
For the sins of ignorance of a ruler, 22-26.
For the sins of ignorance of any of the common people, 27-35.
NOTES ON CHAP. IV.
Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Joseph Benson 1811 · Public Domain Lev 4:1. The Lord spake unto Moses — The…
Lev 4:1. The Lord spake unto Moses — The laws contained in the first three chapters, seem to have been delivered to Moses at one time. Here begin the laws of another day, which God delivered from between the cherubim.
Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Albert Barnes 1834 · Public Domain And the Lord spake ... Israel - This formula…
And the Lord spake ... Israel - This formula is the commencement of a distinct section of the Law.
Lev 4:2
Read full note →
If a soul shall sin - The sin-offering was a new thing, instituted by the Law. The older kinds of sacrifice Lev 2:1; Lev 3:1 when offered by individuals were purely voluntary: no special occasions were prescribed. But it was plainly commanded that he who was conscious that he had committed a sin should bring his sin-offering. In the abridged rules for sin-offerings in Num 15:22-31, the kind of sin for which sin-offerings were accepted is contrasted with that which cut off the perpetrator from among his people (compare Lev 4:22 with Lev 4:30). The two classes are distinguished in the language of our Bible as sin through ignorance and presumptuous sin. The distinction is clearly recognized in Psa 19:12-13 and Heb 10:26-27. It seems evident that the classification thus indicated refers immediately to the relation of the conscience to God, not to outward practices, nor, immediately, to outward actions.
The presumptuous sinner, literally he who sinned “with a high hand,” might or might not have committed such a crime as to incur punishment from the civil law: it was enough that he had with deliberate purpose rebelled against God (see Pro 2:13-15), and ipso facto was “cut off from among his people” and alienated from the divine covenant (see Lev 7:20; Exo 31:14; compare Mat 12:31; 1Jo 5:16). But the other kind of sin, that for which the sin-offering was appointed, was of a more complicated nature. It appears to have included the entire range of “sins, negligences and ignorances” for which we are accustomed to ask forgiveness. sin-offerings were required not only when the conscience accused the offender of having yielded to temptation, but sometimes for what were breaches of the Law committed strictly in ignorance Lev 4:13, Lev 4:23, Lev 4:28; Lev 5:17, and sometimes on account of ceremonial pollution. They are thus to be regarded as protests against everything which is opposed to the holiness and purity of the divine Law. They were, in short, to be offered by the worshipper as a relief to the conscience whenever he felt the need of atonement.
Sin through ignorance - Sin through error; that is, through straying from the right way. See Psa 119:67; Ecc 5:6.
Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures 1864 · Public Domain Lev_4:1 to Lev_5:13
D.—SIN OFFERINGS
Lev_4:1 to Lev_5:13
Read full note →
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 bullock’s head, and kill the bullock before the Lord. 5And the priest that is anointed4 shall take of the bullock’s 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 bullock’s 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 priest’s, as a meat offering [an oblation43].
TEXTUAL AND GRAMMATICAL
Lev_4:2. בִּשְׁגָגָה from שָׁגָא = שָׁגָה = שָׁגַג = 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 sins—sins “with a high hand”—for which no sacrifice was allowable (Num_15:27-31). The LXX. ἀκουσίως, the Targ. Onk. (also Ben Uz. and Jerus.) בְּשָׁלוּ = through error, so also the Syr. The old Italic has imprudenter. Aquila reads ἐν ἀγνοίᾳ, 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 ἀγνοία and ἀγνοήμα. (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. מֵאַחַת מֵהֵנָּה. 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 מִן in both clauses is to be taken partitively.
Lev_4:3. לְאַשְׁמַת 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 דָּם, while the Sam., 3 MSS., and Vulg., omit the bullock.
Lev_4:8. עַל־הַקֶּרֶב. This is translated in the A. V. and in the ancient versions as if it were אֵתָ־ה֟ 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. כָּל־עֲדַת (congregation) קָהָל (assembly) the two words used here, and מוֹעֵד Num_16:2 and freq. have no difference in signification which can be recognized in translation. They are used in apposition.
Lev_4:13. שָׁגָה. In the A. V. sin always in Lev. is the translation of חָטָא. This being the only exception, should be changed.
Lev_4:13. נֶעְלַּם has dagesh in the ל 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. וַיֶּאְסֹּר Gen_46:29; Exo_14:6, תַּעְלּיִם (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. לְחַטָּאת. The word is used in both senses—a 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. בִּשְׁגָגָה from שָׁגָא = שָׁגָה = שָׁגַג = 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 sins—sins “with a high hand”—for which no sacrifice was allowable (Num_15:27-31). The LXX. ἀκουσίως, the Targ. Onk. (also Ben Uz. and Jerus.) בְּשָׁלוּ = through error, so also the Syr. The old Italic has imprudenter. Aquila reads ἐν ἀγνοίᾳ, 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 ἀγνοία and ἀγνοήμα. (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 שָׁחַט 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 הִיא.
Lev_4:22. נָשִׂיא. 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 אוֹ should be rendered if perhaps, Fuerst, Gesenius. The Syr. renders by if, the LXX. καί, Vulg. et postea.
Lev_4:23. שָׂעִיר = a he-goat, generally understood of one older than the עַתּוּד 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. שְׂעִירָה is simply the feminine of the word discussed under Lev_4:23.
Lev_4:28. שְׂעִירָה 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. כֶּבֶשׂ = a sheep, see Text. note 5 under Lev_3:7.
Lev_4:35. עַל אִשֵּי. 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 ו ante שָֽׁמְעָה hic usurpatur αἰτιολογικῶς, estque vertenda quia, eo quod, ut Gen_26:12; Deu_17:16.” Rosenmueller.
Lev_5:1. אָלָה. 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 ὁρκισμοῦ.
Lev_5:2. The full form would be כִּי אֲשֵׁר; accordingly the Sam. and some MSS. prefix כִּי here and add אֲשֶׁר in Lev_5:4
Lev_5:2. See note1 on Lev_11:2.
Lev_5:4. יְבַטֵּא ,לְבַטֵּא, speak idly, or ill-advisedly. Comp. βαττολογέω, Mat_6:7.
Lev_5:5. For יֶאְשַּׁם the Sam. and 20 MSS. here substitute יֶחֱטָּא.
Lev_5:6. אָשָׁם, like חָטָּאת, 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. οἴσει περὶ ὧν ἐπλημμέλησε κυρίῳ, 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. וְאִס־לֹא תַגִּיעָ יָדוֹ lit. If his hand cannot acquire. The sense is well expressed by the A. V.
Lev_5:9. יִמָּצֵה 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 היא.
Lev_5:12. עַל = 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 introduced—And the LORD spake unto Moses—answering 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. 1–3, 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 commanded—Sin 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 1–3. 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 כִּפֵּר, 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 (4–6:7). (a) The Sin-offering and the little Sin and Trespass offering (4–5:13). 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 offering—Asham; 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 offerings—a 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 people—that is, the guilt of participation in guilt. Luther translates לְאַשְמִית הָעָםthat he scandalizes the people—a conception not very different from our own—viz.: 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, אָשָׁם 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 Stier’s 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 “אָשָׁם 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 Jehovah’s 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 אָשָׁם 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-offering—as a religious offence makes the forgiveness of God necessary—may 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 Sündopfer) and others. If we go back briefly to the ideal distinctions: sin, as sin, is indeed guilt, κατ’ ἐξοχήν, 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 Herzog’s Realencyclopädie. 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 sin—accessoriness. 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 אָשָׁם 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, חטָּאת, 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 God’s 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” [חֶרֶם=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, בִּשְׁנָנָה, 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 חַטָּאת 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 Christ’s 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 offender’s 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.—מִכֹּל 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.: ἀρχιερεύς, כַּהֲנָא רַבִּא = 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 Aaron’s 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 הַכֹּהֵן הַגָּדוֹל= 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, κατ’ ἐξοχὴν (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,לְּאַשְׁמַת הָעָם—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-priest’s 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 male—a 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 הִזָּה is different from זָרַק 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: κατὰ τὸ καταπέτασμα, 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 incense—the 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 altar—doubtless 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 remainder—all the blood—was 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 שָׂרַף 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 “holy”—devoted, under the ban—because 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 place—not 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 שָׂרַף, 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 Saul’s slaughter of the Gibeonites, or David’s 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-priest’s 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 elders—since 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-priest’s 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. כִּפֶּר, 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 offering—i.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 Lange’s discussion under Lev_4:1. The chief argument for the latter is from the use of the word אֲשָׁמוֹ, 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—וְהוּא עֵד. 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 offender’s 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 sins—which might in themselves be far worse—“through 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 Israel’s 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 man’s 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. בִּשְׁגָגָה from שָׁגָא = שָׁגָה = שָׁגַג = 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 sins—sins “with a high hand”—for which no sacrifice was allowable (Num_15:27-31). The LXX. ἀκουσίως, the Targ. Onk. (also Ben Uz. and Jerus.) בְּשָׁלוּ = through error, so also the Syr. The old Italic has imprudenter. Aquila reads ἐν ἀγνοίᾳ, 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 ἀγνοία and ἀγνοήμα. (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. מֵאַחַת מֵהֵנָּה. 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 מִן in both clauses is to be taken partitively.
[3]Lev_4:3. לְאַשְׁמַת 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 דָּם, while the Sam., 3 MSS., and Vulg., omit the bullock.
[6]Lev_4:8. עַל־הַקֶּרֶב. This is translated in the A. V. and in the ancient versions as if it were אֵתָ־ה֟ 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. כָּל־עֲדַת (congregation) קָהָל (assembly) the two words used here, and מוֹעֵד 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. שָׁגָה. In the A. V. sin always in Lev. is the translation of חָטָא. This being the only exception, should be changed.
[11]Lev_4:13. נֶעְלַּם has dagesh in the ל 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. וַיֶּאְסֹּר Gen_46:29; Exo_14:6, תַּעְלּיִם (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. לְחַטָּאת. The word is used in both senses—a 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 שָׁחַט 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 הִיא.
[20]Lev_4:22. נָשִׂיא. 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. בִּשְׁגָגָה from שָׁגָא = שָׁגָה = שָׁגַג = 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 sins—sins “with a high hand”—for which no sacrifice was allowable (Num_15:27-31). The LXX. ἀκουσίως, the Targ. Onk. (also Ben Uz. and Jerus.) בְּשָׁלוּ = through error, so also the Syr. The old Italic has imprudenter. Aquila reads ἐν ἀγνοίᾳ, 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 ἀγνοία and ἀγνοήμα. (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 אוֹ should be rendered if perhaps, Fuerst, Gesenius. The Syr. renders by if, the LXX. καί, Vulg. et postea.
[23]Lev_4:23. שָׂעִיר = a he-goat, generally understood of one older than the עַתּוּד 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. שְׂעִירָה 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. כֶּבֶשׂ = a sheep, see Text. note 5 under Lev_3:7.
[30]Lev_4:35. עַל אִשֵּי. 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 ו ante שָֽׁמְעָה hic usurpatur αἰτιολογικῶς, estque vertenda quia, eo quod, ut Gen_26:12; Deu_17:16.” Rosenmueller.
[32]Lev_5:1. אָלָה. 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 ὁρκισμοῦ.
[33]Lev_5:2. The full form would be כִּי אֲשֵׁר; accordingly the Sam. and some MSS. prefix כִּי here and add אֲשֶׁר in Lev_5:4
[34]Lev_5:2. See note1 on Lev_11:2.
[35]Lev_5:4. יְבַטֵּא ,לְבַטֵּא, speak idly, or ill-advisedly. Comp. βαττολογέω, Mat_6:7.
[36]Lev_5:5. For יֶאְשַּׁם the Sam. and 20 MSS. here substitute יֶחֱטָּא.
[37]Lev_5:6. אָשָׁם, like חָטָּאת, 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. οἴσει περὶ ὧν ἐπλημμέλησε κυρίῳ, 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. שְׂעִירָה is simply the feminine of the word discussed under Lev_5:23.
[39]Lev_5:7. וְאִס־לֹא תַגִּיעָ יָדוֹ lit. If his hand cannot acquire. The sense is well expressed by the A. V.
[40]Lev_5:9. יִמָּצֵה 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 היא.
[42]Lev_5:12. עַל = 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.”
Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical), ed. John Peter Lange, English translation edited by Philip Schaff (1864–1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Daniel D. Whedon 1874 · Public Domain ORDINARY SINS OF INADVERTENCE, Lev_4:1-2.
ORDINARY SINS OF INADVERTENCE, Lev_4:1-2.
2. If a soul shall sin — It is a noteworthy fact that throughout this entire description of sacrifices Jehovah makes provision not for bodies, nor for men, but for souls. He would thus early direct the attention of the Hebrews away from the visible form to the immaterial and spiritual person which it enshrines.
Read full note →
Through ignorance — The Hebrew word b’shaggah — in error — occurs here for the first time in the Bible. In the Authorized Version it is translated by the word ignorance twelve times, by unawares four times, once by unwittingly, and twice by error. It occurs only in Leviticus, Numbers, Joshua, and Ecclesiastes. Furst prefers to render it by the adverb inadvertently. Up to this time Jehovah had overlooked the sins of his people which arose from lack of knowledge and imperfection of judgment. But that every mouth may be stopped and all may be guilty before him, he pronounces sentence of condemnation upon them for their unconscious deviations from his law. There can be no high attainments in holiness until the cry is extorted, Who can understand his inadvertencies? Cleanse thou me from unknown errors. Psa_19:12. He who is satisfied so long as his conscience does not condemn him, needs to be taught that the decisions of an approving conscience, involving, as they may, erroneous intellectual judgments, are not a safe ground of justification to him who has access to the written revelation of God’s will. Hence says St. Paul, (1Co_4:4,) as rendered by Alford, “For I am conscious to myself of no delinquency, but I am not hereby justified.” Compare Heb_5:2-3; Heb_9:7.
Against any… commandments — The Hebrew is not against but from — in deviation from. As the law is made up of prohibitions and precepts, it may be broken by doing a forbidden act, which is a sin of commission, and by failing to perform a required deed, which is called a sin of omission. In other words the law may be transgressed, or stepped over, and it may be swerved from. The sin of in-advertence is most frequently committed in the latter way, though there are also involuntary sins of commission. Such are distinctly referred to in the latter part of the verse.
Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges 1878 · Public Domain Lev_4:1-2. A general introduction like that in Lev_1:1-2. From…
Lev_4:1-2. A general introduction like that in Lev_1:1-2. From here to Lev_6:7 a new class of sacrifices are prescribed, the Sin-Offerings and Guilt-Offerings, and the occasions on which they are to be brought are specified, while in chs. 1–3 nothing is said about when the sacrifices are to be brought; their ceremonial only is regulated. The Sin-Offering is for sins committed unwittingly (through ignorance A.V.); for sins committed presumptuously (Heb. with an high hand, Num_15:30) the punishment is ‘that soul shall be cut off from among his people.’ The same distinction is drawn in Psalms 19 where ‘hidden (‘secret’ A.V.) faults’ (Lev_4:12) are contrasted with ‘presumptuous sins’ (Lev_4:13). After this general statement, the material and manner of the offering are prescribed for four different classes: (a) the anointed priest (Lev_4:3-12), (b) the congregation (Lev_4:13-21), (c) a ruler (Lev_4:22-26), (d) any one of the common people (Lev_4:27-35). Cp. Num_15:22-29.
We may observe that the directions for disposal of the Sin-Offering, though very similar in all four cases, are not absolutely identical. In (a) and (b) some of the blood is to be put upon the horns of the altar of incense inside the tent of meeting; all the rest of the blood is to be poured out at the foot of the altar of burnt offering at the door of the tent of meeting; the fat is to be burnt upon the altar of Burnt-Offering; the whole bullock is to be burnt without the camp: in (c) and (d) some of the blood is to be put upon the horns of the altar of burnt offering; all the rest is to be poured out at the foot of that altar; the fat is to be burnt upon the altar; there is no command given as to the remainder.
Read full note →
We notice that on no occasion is the whole burnt upon the altar, as in the case of the Burnt-Offering.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
C. H. Mackintosh 1880 · Public Domain Leviticus 4 - 5:13
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.
Read full note →
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!"
C. H. Mackintosh, Notes on the Pentateuch — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Pulpit Commentary 1880 · Public Domain THE SIN OFFERING. (Le 4, 5:1-13) At the time…
THE SIN OFFERING. (Le 4, 5:1-13) At the time of the Mosaic legislation, burnt offerings and meat offerings were already in existence, and had existed from the time of the Fall. A beginning, therefore, is made with them, and the regulations of the peace offerings naturally follow, because these sacrifices succeed in order to the burnt and meat offerings, and because sacrifices in some respects of the same nature as peace offerings had previously existed under a different name. (cf. Exo_10:25 with Exo_24:5, and see above notes on chapter 3) The sin and trespass offerings, therefore, are left to the last, though, owing to their meaning, they were always offered first of all, when sacrifices of all three kinds were made together. They are the means of ceremonially propitiating God when alienated from his people, or from any individual member of it, by sin, which they legally atone for. The need of expiation is implied and suggested by the offering of the blood, both in the burnt sacrifice and the peace offering. (cf. Job_1:5) But this was not sufficient; there must be a special sacrifice to teach this great truth as its primary lesson. The sin offering typifies the sacrifice of our Lord JESUS CHRIST upon the cross, as the great Sin Offering for mankind, whereby the wrath of God was propitiated, and an expiation for the sins of man was wrought, bringing about reconciliation between God and man.
Vers. 1-35. The sin offering
Read full note →
signifies and ceremonially effects propitiation and expiation. Its characteristic feature, therefore, is the presentation of the blood of the victim, which in this sacrifice alone (when it was offered for the high priest or the whole congregation) was carried into the tabernacle and solemnly sprinkled before the vail which covered God"s presence.
I WHEN IT WAS TO BE OFFERED. On certain solemn public occasions, and whenever the conscience of an individual was awakened to being out of communion with God. The contraction of certain defilements and the commission of certain sins excluded the delinquent from God"s people, and when this had occurred, he might not be readmitted until he had brought a sin offering to be offered in his behalf.
II HOW IT WAS EFFECTIVE. The fact of God"s appointing it for a certain end made it effective for that end; but we are allowed to see why God appointed it, and this was because it was a shadow of the Great Atonement to be wrought for all mankind by the Christian Sin Offering of the cross. For the result of original sin and the consequent growth and spread of wickedness upon the earth had separated between God and man. How were they to be reconciled? Christ became the representative of sinful man, and the substitute for him, and in this capacity he bore the penalty of sins,
(1) in the Garden of Gethsemane,
(2) on the cross thus restoring man to communion with God.
III THINGS TO BE NOTED
1. The wrath of God against sin.
2. The love of God towards sinners.
3. The justice of God.
4. The love of Christ in his incarnation.
5. The obedience of Christ in his death.
6. The blessed result to man, namely, union and communion with God, through Christ the Peace-maker.
IV THE OFFERING MADE ONCE FOR ALL. The Jewish offerings could be brought again and again; the Christian Sin Offering could be made but once. There can be no repetition of it, no continuation of it; but its effects are always continuing, and applicable to all Christ"s people. Its benefits are to be grasped and appropriated, each time that they are needed, by faith. As the Israelite laid his hand on the sin offering, so we lean by faith on Christ, and may constantly plead the merits of the offering which cannot be renewed. In case we have fallen into sin, we may not, like the Israelite, bring our bullock for sacrifice; we cannot renew the Great Sacrifice typified by the bullock"s sacrifice; but, by repentance and by faith in the atonement wrought by the sacrifice of Christ"s death, we can be restored.
V FEELINGS AWAKENED Thankfulness for God"s mercy in finding a way of escape; Thankfulness for Christ"s love in working out man"s salvation; A blessed sense of peace resulting from the consciousness that the Great Atoning Sacrifice has been offered.
HOMILIES BY S.R. ALDRIDGE Vers. 1, 9. Unintentional transgression.
God is the source of authority and law. From him instructions emanate. His words are to be communicated to the people. Like unto Moses, ministers and teachers receive truth not to secrete it in their own breasts, but to impart it for the guidance of those under their charge. "The Lord spake,... saying, Speak unto the children of Israel." May we listen carefully, lest the utterances of the "still small voice" should be misheard, and the counsels intended for comfort and direction prove a false light, speeding the unconscious traveler to the very pitfalls he was to avoid.
I THE UNIVERSALITY OF TRANSGRESSION. Provision is announced for cases of sin, and the possibility of its commission by all classes is thus shown.
1. The ordinary citizen may err; one of "the people of the land" (see verse 27). Poverty and obscurity are not safeguards against unrighteous acts.
2. The man of rank, the "ruler" (verse 22) or prince, is liable to sin. Honour and responsibility do not guarantee or produce immunity from transgression.
3. The whole congregation (verse 13) is not exempt, for collective wisdom and might are not effectual barriers against the encroachments of unlawful desire and action. In the multitude of counselors safety is often thought to lie, but the "people" may do wickedly as well as an individual. This was exemplified at Mount Sinai and Baal-peor, and modern instances abound. Even
4. The man specially consecrated to holy service, the "anointed priest" (verse 3), may incur guilt and bring punishment upon the people. How cautious we should be! What searching of ourselves with the candle of the Lord; what prayer for knowledge and strength should distinguish us all!
II THE POSSIBILITY OF UNINTENTIONAL TRANSGRESSION. A distinction is intimated between sin that arises from mistake ("ignorance," verse 2), that is at first "hid" from perception and afterwards becomes known (verses 13, 14), awaking penitence and a desire to undo the wrong perpetrated, and sin that is willful, committed with a high hand, with an attitude of defiance, a sin against light and knowledge. Inadvertent sinning is possible through
(1) carelessness of behaviour, heedless conduct, acting without previous deliberation; or
(2) a misunderstanding of the Law, failure in correct interpretation, or in remembering the precise precept at the moment; or
(3) a sudden outburst of passion, blinding the judgment and hurrying the will to words and deeds afterwards repented of.
III THE GUILT OF SUCH TRANSGRESSION. This is assumed by the atonement necessary to shield the doer from penalty, and by the expressions employed in verses 13, 22, and 27. "Guilty" refers to the consequences of sinning, the state of wrath into which the sinner enters, and the moral devastation to which he is liable, and from which preservation is possible only through an offering. Learn, then, that ignorance does not of itself excuse violation of God"s commands, but it permits resort to such an atonement as will procure God"s forgiveness. Paul said, "I obtained mercy because I did it ignorantly and in unbelief.
Whereas if we sin willfully, there is no more sacrifice for sins. The soul that doeth presumptuously shall be cut off from among the people. S.R.A.
HOMILIES BY J.A. MACDONALD Vers. 1-3. The sin offering for the priest.
The revelations contained in the preceding chapters, and commencing with the words, "And the Lord called unto Moses," etc., appear to have been given at one diet, and now we are introduced to a new series by similar words, "And the Lord spake unto Moses," etc. The offerings described in the earlier series, viz. the burnt offering, the meat offering, and the peace offering, were similar to those offered by the patriarchs; but these now to be described seem to be characteristic of the Levitical dispensation. In the verses more immediately before us we have to contemplate
I THE PRIEST AS A SINNER.
1. May he be viewed in this character as a type of Christ?
(1) He is distinguished as "the priest that is anointed." Some suppose this determines him to be the high priest. That the high priest was a remarkable type of Christ there can be no question. (Heb_3:1)
(2) But Christ wan sinless. By the miracle in his birth he avoided original sin. (Luk_1:35) In his life he "fulfilled all righteousness". (Mat_3:15 Heb_4:15 Heb_7:26)
(3) Yet so was our sin laid to his account that he vicariously stood forth as the universal sinner. "The Lord made to meet upon him the iniquity of us all". (Isa_53:6, margin)
2. He may be viewed as a type of the Christian
(1) He was not necessarily the high priest because "anointed" Aaron"s sons were consecrated with Aaron. (Lev_8:2) This expression may, therefore, simply import that he was a priest who had come to official years, and therefore had received consecration. (see Lev_7:6, where minors and females are reputed to be "among the priests
(2) The priests in general were representatives of the nation of Israel, who were, in consequence, viewed as a "kingdom of priests". (Exo_19:6)
(3) And they typified the Christians. (1Pe_2:9) We do not exercise our priesthood by proxy, but ourselves "draw nigh unto God." This supplies a good reason for their being "anointed," for "Christians," as their name imports, are anointed ones. (see 2Co_1:21 Heb_1:9 1Jn_2:20, 1Jn_2:27)
II THE PRIEST AS NEEDING A SIN OFFERING.
1. His sin is that of ignorance.
(1) The case of Eli could not be brought within this statute. (see 1Sa_3:14) For obstinate sin there is no mercy. (see Num_15:30, 31 Heb_10:26-29) True Christians do not willfully sin. (see Mat_13:38 Joh_8:44 1Jn_3:6-10) Not all who profess the Christian name have a right to the title.
(2) There are sins that are not willful: sins of surprise; sins of inattention; sins of neglect in consequence. (Gal_6:1 Jam_5:19, Jam_5:20) But these are sins.
(3) The sin offering is the only remedy for these. Though ignorance may be pleaded in extenuation, it cannot be pleaded in exculpation. (see 1Jn_1:7-9)
2. The priest must bring a bullock.
(1) The common people may bring a kid (verse 28). Even a ruler may bring a kid (verse 23). But the priest must bring the larger animal. He has to bring the same which is offered for the whole congregation.
(2) Much is expected of professors of religion; and more especially so of office-bearers and ministers. They should have more perfect knowledge in that which is the principal business of their life. They may, from their position, more easily misguide the people. The words in the text rendered "If the priest that is anointed do sin according to the sin of the people," some construe "If the anointed priest shall lead the people to sin." It is a fearful thing to be a "blind leader of the blind". (see Rom_2:21)
(3) Conspicuous men should consider this. Church wardens in Episcopal Churches; deacons in Congregationalist Churches; leaders in Methodist Churches; ministers in all; they should watch; they should pray; they should seek the prayers of their Churches. J.A.M. (Eph_6:19 Col_4:3 1Th_5:25 2Th_3:1)
Vers. 1-12. The sin offering viewed as typical of the Sacrifice of Calvary.
This subject wilt be best considered by citing sonic of the more notable references to it contained in the Scriptures of the New Testament.
I IT IS ENVINCED FROM Rom_8:3: "For what the Law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin," i.e. , by a sin offering (the Greek term here used is that by which the LXX commonly translate the Hebrew for "sin offering")," condemned sin in the flesh," etc. The "flesh" that was "weak" here, we take to be:
1. Not our fallen nature.
(1) The word "flesh" is used for this. It is so used in the connection of this very passage. (verses 4-8; see also Gal_5:16, Gal_5:17) This circumstance has led expositors to accept the term here in that sense.
(2) But as a matter of fact, is the Law of God weak through our fallen nature? Certainly not. The Law answers all God ever intended it to answer. His purposes cannot be frustrated.
2. But the flesh of the sin offerings.
(1) These were constitutionally weak for the purpose of condemning sin. The flesh of bulls and goats is not "sinful flesh." Therefore sin could not be condemned in it.
(2) This weakness was no frustration of God"s purposes, for he never intended that sin should be condemned in such flesh as theirs. (Psa_69:30, 31 51:16 Heb_10:4) He intended these to foreshadow something better, viz.:
3. The Sin Offering of Calvary.
(1) This was made in a human body. Being in the "likeness of sinful flesh;" there was no constitutional weakness here. (Heb_10:5-10)
(2) The glorious Person who assumed the "likeness of sinful flesh" was God"s "own Son." Thus by virtue of his Divinity not only has he condemned sin in the flesh, but he enables us to fulfill the righteousness of the Law in the spirit of the gospel.
II IT IS EVINCED IN 2Co_5:21: "He was made sin," i.e. , a sin offering, "for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.
1. His righteousness is the righteousness of God.
(1) Because he is God himself. The Father was in him. Whoever failed to discern the Father in him did not comprehend him, did not know him. (Joh_14:7-11)
(2) He was approved of God. (Mat_3:17 Mat_17:5) His resurrection placed this beyond question. (Act_2:22-24)
2. This we receive, by imputation, in exchange for our sin.
(1) The transfer of the sin was set forth in the laying on of the hand of the offerer upon the bullock at the altar, while it was yet alive. The Jews give us these as the words uttered by the offerer, "I have sinned; I have done perversely; I have rebelled, and done (here specifying mentally or audibly the cause of his offering). But I return by repentance before thee, and let this be my expiation.
(2) The substitute is then condemned while the offerer is justified. Not only is he released from the obligation to die, but is taken into fellowship with God, and feasts with him upon the meat and drink offerings accompanying. (Num_15:24)
III IT IS EVINCED IS Heb_9:28: "Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin," i.e. , without a sin offering, "unto salvation." The allusions here are to the sin offering of the Law. The teaching is that, whereas at his first advent he appeared in the similitude of sinful flesh for the purposes foreshadowed in the sin offering, when he comes the second time it will be in the glorious similitude of humanity, in innocence and holiness, to effect in us all the glories destined to follow upon his former meritorious sufferings. (1Pe_1:11)
IV IT IS EVINCED IN Heb_13:10-13: "We have an altar, whereof they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle. For the bodies of those beasts, whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high priest for sin, are burned without the comp. Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate. Let us go forth, therefore, unto him without the camp, bearing his reproach.
1. This passage, like those already cited, asserts generally the fact that thesin offering was a type of the sacrifice of Christ.
2. But it also points out the typical import of the burning of the body in the place of ashes without the comp. What is this place of ashes but Calvary, Golgotha, the place of a skull, which was outside the gate of Jerusalem?
3. It furthermore proves that the consumption of the body of the beasts in the fire, viz. after they had been bled at the side of the altar, foreshadowed the" suffering" of Christ. "He suffered without the comp." This suffering then being distinguished from that represented by the bleeding, it must refer to that agony of soul which Jesus suffered from the fire of God"s wrath against sin.
4. Since the altar which supplies our Eucharistic feast is that of Calvary; and since the priests under the Law did not eat of the bodies of those beasts which were burnt without the camp, which were types of Christ, those who serve the tabernacle have no right to eat of our altar. Therefore those who embrace Christ and rejoice in his fellowship must, in the first place, renounce the ceremonial law of Moses. J.A.M. (Gal_2:19-21 Gal_3:1-3)
HOMILIES BY R.A. REDFORD Vers. 1, 2. The sin offering.
The main points in this offering were these:
I The Law of God is made the standard of righteousness.
II Sin is offense against the Law.
III Offenses of ignorance or error involve guilt; that is, require that the Law shall be honoured in view of them.
IV There is forgiveness with God for all sin.
V Those who are in the most responsible position are the most called to offer sacrifice for their sin.
VI The forgiveness of sin is only through expiation, in recognition of an atonement. These points embrace much of the teaching of the Mosaic economy. Consider
I THE LAW OF GOD THE STANDARD OF RIGHTEOUSNESS. The sin which has to be expiated is "sin against any of the commandments of the Lord. While distinction was plainly made from the first between the fundamental moral law, as in the ten commandments, and the ceremonial law still all that was "commanded of the Lord was law to Israel was to be strictly observed, involved the covenant relation between God and man, to violate which was to be estranged from the peace of God. The ceremonial law, taken in connection with the Decalogue and the whole of the Mosaic appointments, set forth this great truth, that the existence of man in all its extent was subject to the will of God, and that that will as declared was law, which must be obeyed at peril of Divine displeasure. So there is still the same subjection of man to law, which is:
1. The law of the heart or of the inward man.
2. The taw of ethics, of man"s relations to his fellow-man.
3. The law of the religious life, of man"s worship of God.
The standard of righteousness must be applied in each of these spheres of Law, which our Lord shows by his Sermon on the Mount, when he proclaims the wilt of God to be holiness in all these respects poverty and purity of heart, love to neighbours, sincerity and devotion in the worship of God. Against the Law any offense is sin. Therefore, as the gospel was a new proclamation of the Law, so was it a new revelation of sin; for Christ, by the Spirit, came to "convince the world of sin," by revealing the law of righteousness.
II SIN IS OFFENSE AGAINST THE LAW. The fundamental conception of the Mosaic economy was the fellowship of God and man the true blessedness of human existence. The Law was a setting out of the boundaries of that ground of fellowship where alone God and man could meet together. Whether it was civil law, or moral law, or ceremonial law, the same twofold reference was in each to the will of God as Creator, King, Redeemer, to the trustful subjection of man to Divine authority. An offense against Law in this wide sense of the word. must include not only a deliberate setting up of the will of the creature against the Creator as in immorality or intentional disobedience of any kind, but anything in the conduct which hinders the fulfillment of the Divine purposes, anything which opposes the Law as an active principle. We recognize the same universality of sanction to law in that inevitableness which we attach to the laws of nature, whether physical or social. They work out their results both in the individual and in society, apart from all respect of persons. The good man violating a law of nature must suffer the consequences. Not because he is punished by the God of providence, but because he has put himself in the way of the great chariot of the world"s onward progress, and has become so far an offense and a stumbling-block, which must be treated as such. It was a grand advance in revelation that all human life was regarded as based upon law, and all law was declared to be God"s Law. Therefore, all rightness, all happiness, both positive and negative, must be from God, the fruit of a living fellowship between the creature and the Creator.
III EXTENSION OF GUILT TO OFFENSES OF IGNORANCE AND ERROR. The word rendered ignorance signifies wandering from the way. Therefore the idea of the offense is not that of absolute ignorance of the Law itself, which would exclude the idea of guilt altogether, but rather that of inadvertence, through carelessness, through human infirmity of any kind, or through the connexion of our own life with the life of others. "There are many things which man"s conscience would pass over, many things which might escape man"s cognizance, many things which his heart might deem all right, which God could not tolerate; and which, as a consequence, would interfere with man"s approach to, his worship of, and his relationship with God" (Macintosh). Hence the need of a Divine atonement for as David prays we must all pray, "Cleanse thou me from secret faults". (Psa_19:12) Now, the sin offering pointed to the fact that such secret faults, unintentional violations of the Law, involved guilt, inasmuch as they were occasions demanding that the Law should be vindicated and honoured as truly as the greatest offenses. This has been universally recognized in the law of nations as a natural principle of justice, The overt act is alone before the eye of the law, not the secret intention except as it changes the character of the overt act. The offense of manslaughter embraces a large number of cases where ignorance and error might be pleaded, but are not sufficient to remove the liability of the offender. Guilt is not merely conscious or subjective liability to punishment, but objective liability as well. Thus is the conscience of man enlightened and its power enlarged by the revelation of God. As Adam knew his sin much more clearly when God had called him into colloquy, so the Law of Moses was an appeal to the conscience, a quickening of it, a setting up of the Divine mirror before man, that he might know himself. See this whole doctrine of guilt treated by St. Paul in Ro 7, "Sin by the commandment became exceeding sinful." "I was alive without the Law once, but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
IV THE OFFERING FOR SIN IS THE PLEDGE OF DIVINE FORGIVENESS. The sin of ignorance represented God"s view of sin as contrasted with man"s view. Therefore, as it was an atoning offering, it proclaimed both the righteousness of God as condemning all sin, and the covenant mercy of God as forgiving all sin. Man would naturally take account only of known sins, but the true peace is that which proceeds from the assurance of entire and infinite atonement. How different is such a revelation of mercy from any of the heathen satisfactions which were mere attempts to appease the Divine wrath as a recognized danger! But dangers are not only seen, but unseen. In the case of natural laws, how often we find that we have broken them when we knew not! The true safety is that which we know is not only partial and probable, but absolutely secured against all possible contingencies. God"s thoughts are not as our thoughts. He invites us to hide under the shadow of his wings.
V RESPONSIBILITY IN PROPORTION TO PRIVILEGE. The priest represented the people. The congregation was the nation in its collective capacity, therefore it represented not only the individuals as sinners, but the special relation of the community to Jehovah as the body to the head. The official position of the high priest was one of peculiar dignity and solemnity, therefore the sin of the individual in his case was more than his own sin it was the violation of that larger relation in which the people as a whole stood to their God. All superior knowledge, all elevation of office and vocation, all representation, carries with it special responsibility. Those who are ministers of God must feel their sins as heavier burdens, requiring to be put away by special acknowledgment, by extraordinary effort. There are sins which none but the high priest and the congregation could commit. So there are sins of official life and sins of Church life, which we are apt to overlook because they are less upon the individual conscience than our own personal sins; but God shows us by the regulations of his Law, that we must hate them and avoid them and seek their forgiveness, even as though they were deliberate and individual offenses. How often men have done, in the name of their religious system or in their official capacity, what, if it had been ascribed to themselves in their private life, they would have immediately condemned! The purity of Church officers and of Church life in general has much to do with the growth of Christianity. The history of ecclesiastical errors is a very sad one. It was the absolute purity of Christ which so severely condemned the religious leaders of his time. They suffered their consciences to be blinded by the corruption of the system under which they lived. They did evil, thinking often that they did God service. Yet the Church and its rulers will be judged, not by the standard of its own degeneracy, but by the Law of God. Judgment begins at the house of God. There are the most responsible men, there are the greatest offenses, and there must be the most exemplary manifestation of Divine righteousness. The clearing away of sin from the Church is the preparation for the pure worship of God, for the re-established relation between the covenant king and his people, for the outpoured blessings of the throne of grace.
VI THE FORGIVENESS OF SIN, ONLY BY EXPIATION, THROUGH ATONEMENT. This is especially set forth by the sin offering, for it represented the Divine demand of expiation in cases where human ignorance or error might be pleaded in excuse on man"s side. What we require is not mere proclamation of pardon, but a peace which is settled on eternal foundations. So long as there remains in the mind of the sinner the thought that God is not satisfied, there must be a barrier to fellowship. The setting forth of the sin offering was a provision of Divine righteousness as the condition of peace. God does not overlook sin as that which has excuse made for it; he puts it away as that which is atoned for. All the details of the ceremony, especially the connection of the blood of the sin offering with the two altars that of incense and that of burnt offering pointed to the completeness of the atonement which God provided. In the antitype, the great sacrifice offered by our Lord Jesus Christ, whose soul was made an offering for sin, we must lay great stress on the Divine perfection of the Victim offered, his coming forth from God, his representation in himself of Divine righteousness; for Christ is not a Saviour merely from individual transgressions, but from sin itself as an evil principle at work in the nature of man. Unless we hold firmly to this atoning perfection of Christ, we cannot proclaim the regenerating gift of the Holy Spirit, for the new life must be founded in a perfect justification; the same faith which admits us into the forgiveness of sins through the blood of Christ, also admits us into that, fellowship and vital union with the living Redeemer, which is the commencement of a new life in the Spirit. The Apostle Peter (1Pe_1:2) puts the sanctification of the Spirit and the sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ in juxtaposition. They are included in the one Sacrifice of Calvary, whereby atonement is made, and the power of an endless life is revealed in him who, having offered himself through the Spirit without spot, rose again from the dead to become the Captain of salvation, the Firstborn among many brethren, the second Adam, the man who is made, by his Divine work, a quickening spirit. "Christ is God"s," and "ye are Christ"s. R.
The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Expositor's Bible 1887 · Public Domain BOTH in the burnt offering and in the peace…
THE SIN OFFERING
Lev_4:1-35
Read full note →
BOTH in the burnt offering and in the peace offering, Israel was taught, as we are, that all consecration and all fellowship with God must begin with, and ever depends upon, atonement made for sin. But this was not the dominant thought in either of these offerings; neither did the atonement, as made in these, have reference to particular acts of sin. For such, these offerings were never prescribed. They remind us therefore of the necessity of atonement, not so much for what we do or fail to do, as for what we are.
But the sin even of true believers, whether then or now, is more than sin of nature. The true Israelite was liable to be overtaken in some overt act of sin; and for all such cases was ordained, in this section of the law, {Lev_4:1-35; Lev_5:1-13} the sin offering; an offering which should bring out into sole and peculiar prominence the thought revealed in other sacrifices more imperfectly, that in order to pardon of sin, there must be expiation. There was indeed a limitation to the application of this offering; for if a man, in those days, sinned wilfully, presumptuously, stubbornly, or, as the phrase is, "with a high hand," there was no provision made in the law for his restoration to covenant standing. "He that despised Moses law died without mercy under two or three witnesses"; he was "cut off from his people." But for sins of a lesser grade, such as resulted not from a spirit of wilful rebellion against God, but were mitigated in their guilt by various reasons, especially ignorance, rashness, or inadvertence, God made provision, in a typical way, for their removal by means of the atonement of the sin and the guilt offerings. By means of these, accompanied also with full restitution of the wrong done, when such restitution was possible, the guilty one might be restored in those days to his place as an accepted citizen of the kingdom of God.
No part of the Levitical law is more full of deep, heart-searching truth than the law of the sin offering. First of all, it is of consequence to observe that the sins for which this chief atoning sacrifice was appointed, were, for the most part, sins of ignorance. For so runs the general statement with which this section opens (Lev_4:2): "If anyone shall sin unwittingly, in any of the things which the Lord hath commanded not to be done, and shall do any of them." And to these are afterwards added sins committed through rashness, the result rather of heat and hastiness of spirit than of deliberate purpose of sin; as, for instance, in Lev_5:4 : "Whatsoever it be that a man shall utter rashly with an oath, and it be hid from him." Besides these, in the same section (Lev_5:1-4), as also in all the cases mentioned under the guilt offering, and the special instance of a wrong done to a slave girl, {Lev_19:20-21} a number of additional offences are mentioned which all seem to have their special palliation, not indeed in the ignorance of the sinner, but in the nature of the acts themselves, as admitting of reparation. For all such it was also ordained that the offender should bring a sin (or a guilt) offering, and that by this, atonement being made for him, his sin might be forgiven.
All this must have brought before Israel, and is meant to bring before us, the absolute equity of God in dealing with His creatures. We think often of His stern justice in that He so unfailingly takes note of every sin. But here we may learn also to observe His equity in that He notes no less carefully every circumstance that may palliate our sin. We thankfully recognise in these words the spirit of Him of whom it was said {Heb_5:2, marg.} that in the days of His flesh He could "reasonably bear with the ignorant"; and who said concerning those who know not their Masters will and do it not, {Luk_12:48} that their "stripes" shall be "few"; and who, again, with equal justice and mercy, said of His disciples fault in Gethsemane, {Mat_26:41} "The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak." We do well to note this. For in these days we hear it often charged against the holy religion of Christ, that it represents God as essentially and horribly unjust in consigning all unbelievers to one and the same unvarying punishment, the eternal lake of fire; and as thus making no difference between those who have sinned against the utmost light and knowledge, wilfully and inexcusably, and those who may have sinned through ignorance, or weakness of the flesh. To such charges as these we have simply to answer that neither in the Old Testament nor in the New is God so revealed. We may come back to this book of Leviticus, and declare that even in those days when law reigned, and grace and love were less clearly revealed than now, God made a difference, a great difference, between some sins and others; He visited, no doubt, wilful and defiant sin with condign punishment; but, on the other hand, no less justly than mercifully, He considered also every circumstance which could lessen guilt, and ordained a gracious provision for expiation and forgiveness. The God revealed in Leviticus, like the God revealed in the Gospel, the God "with whom we have to do," is then no hard and unreasonable tyrant, but a most just and equitable King. He is no less the Most Just, that He is the Most Holy; but, rather, because He is most holy, is He therefore most just. And because God is such a God, in the New Testament also it is plainly said that ignorance, as it extenuates guilt, shall also ensure mitigation of penalty; and in the Old Testament, that while he who sins presumptuously and with a high hand against God, shall "die without mercy under two or three witnesses," on the other hand, he who sins unwittingly, or in some sudden rash impulse, doing that of which he afterward truly repents; or who, again, has sinned, if knowingly, still in such a way as admits of some adequate reparation of the wrong, -all these things shall be judged palliation of his guilt; and if he confess his sin, and make all possible reparation for it, then, if he present a sin or a guilt offering, atonement may therewith be made, and the sinner be forgiven.
This then is the first thing which the law concerning the sin offering brings before us: it calls our attention to the fact that the heavenly King and Judge of men is righteous in all His ways, and therefore will ever make all the allowance that strict justice and righteousness demand, for whatever may in any way palliate our guilt.
But none the less for this do we need also to heed another intensely practical truth which the law of the sin offering brings before us: namely, that while ignorance or other circumstances may palliate guilt, they do not and cannot nullify it. We may have sinned without a suspicion that we were sinning, but here we are taught that there can be no pardon without a sin offering. We may have sinned through weakness or sudden passion, but still sin is sin, and we must have a sin offering before we can be forgiven.
We may observe, in passing, the bearing of this teaching of the law on the question so much discussed in our day, as to the responsibility of the heathen for the sins which they commit through ignorance. In so far as their ignorance is not wilful and avoidable, it doubtless greatly diminishes their guilt; and the Lord Himself has said of such that their stripes shall be few. And yet more than this He does not say. Except we are prepared to cast aside the teaching alike of Leviticus and the Gospels, it is certain that their ignorance does not cancel their guilt. That the ignorance of anyone concerning moral law can secure his exemption from the obligation to suffer for his sin, is not only against the teaching of all Scripture, but is also contradicted by all that we can see about us of Gods government of the world. For when does God ever suspend the operation of physical laws, because the man who violates them does not know that he is breaking them? And so also, will we but open our eyes, we may see that it is with moral law. The heathen, for example, are ignorant of many moral laws; but do they therefore escape the terrible consequences of their law breaking, even in this present life, where we can see for ourselves how God is dealing with them? And is there any reason to think it will be different in the life hereafter?
Does it seem harsh that men should be punished even for sins of ignorance, and pardon be impossible, even for these, without atonement? It would not seem so, would men but think more deeply. For beyond all question, the ignorance of men as to the fundamental law of God, to love Him with all the heart, and our neighbour as ourselves, which is the sum of all law, has its reason, not in any lack of light, but in the evil heart of man, who everywhere and always, until he is regenerated, loves self more than he loves God. The words of Christ {Joh_3:20} apply: "He that doeth evil cometh not to the light"; not even to the light of nature.
And yet, one who should look only at this chapter might rejoin to this, that the Israelite was only obliged to bring a sin offering, when afterward he came to the knowledge of his sin as sin; but, in case he never came to that knowledge, was not then his sin passed by without an atoning sacrifice? To this question, the ordinance which we find in chapter 16 is the decisive answer. For therein it was provided that once every year a very solemn sin offering should be offered by the high priest, for all the multitudinous sins of Israel, which were not atoned for in the special sin offerings of each day. Hence it is strictly true that no sin in Israel was ever passed over without either penalty or shedding of blood. And so the law keeps it ever before us that our unconsciousness of sinning does not alter the fact of sin, or the fact of guilt, nor remove the obligation to suffer because of sin; and that even the sin of which we are quite ignorant, interrupts mans peace with God and harmony with him. Thus the best of us must take as our own the words of the Apostle Paul: {1Co_4:4, R.V} "I know nothing against myself; yet am I not hereby justified; He that judgeth me is the Lord."
Nor does the testimony of this law end here. We are by it taught that the guilt of sins unrecognised as sins at the time of their committal, cannot be cancelled merely by penitent confession when they become known. Confession must indeed, be made, according to the law, as one condition of pardon, but, besides this, the guilty man must bring his sin offering.
What truths can be more momentous and vital than these! Can anyone say, in the light of such a revelation, that all in this ancient law of the sin offering is now obsolete, and of no concern to us? For how many there are who are resting all their hopes for the future on the fact that they have sinned, if at all, then ignorantly; or that they have meant to do right; or that they have confessed the sin when it was known, and have been very sorry. And yet, if this law teach anything, it teaches that this is a fatal mistake, and that such hopes rest on a foundation of sand. If we would be forgiven, we must indeed confess our sin and we must repent; but this is not enough. We must have a sin offering; we must make use of the great sin offering which that of Leviticus typified; we must tell our compassionate High Priest how in ignorance, or in the rashness of some unholy, overmastering impulse, we sinned, and commit our case to Him, that He may apply the precious blood in our behalf with God.
It is a third impressive fact, that after we include all the cases for which the sin offering was provided, there still remain many sins for the forgiveness of which no provision was made. It was ordered elsewhere, for instance {Num_35:31-33} that no satisfaction should be taken for the life of a murderer. He might confess and bewail his sin, and be never so sorry, but there was no help for him; he must die the death. So was it also with blasphemy; so with adultery, and with many other crimes. This exclusion of so many cases from the merciful provision of the typical offering had a meaning. It was intended, not only to emphasise to the conscience the aggravated wickedness of such crimes, but also to develop in Israel the sense of need for a more adequate provision, a better sacrifice than any the Levitical law could offer; blood which should cleanse, not merely in a ceremonial and sacramental way, but really and effectively; and not only from some sins, but from all sins.
The law of the sin offering is introduced by phraseology different from that which is used in the case of the preceding offerings. In the case of each of these, the language used implies that the Israelites were familiar with the offering before its incorporation into the Levitical sacrificial system. The sin offering, on the other hand, is introduced as a new thing. And such, indeed, it was. While, as we have seen, each of the offerings before ordered had been known and used, both by the Shemitic and the other nations, since long before the days of Moses, before this time there is no mention anywhere, in Scripture or out of it, of a sacrifice corresponding to the sin or the guilt offering. The significance of this fact is apparent so soon as we observe what was the distinctive conception of the sin offering, as contrasted with the other offerings. Without question, it was the idea of expiation of guilt by the sacrifice of a substituted victim. This idea, as we have seen, was indeed not absent from the other bloody offerings; but in those its place was secondary and subordinate. In the ritual of the sin offering, on the contrary, this idea was brought out into almost solitary prominence; -sin pardoned on the ground of expiation made through the presentation to God of the blood of an innocent victim.
The introduction of this new sacrifice, then, marked the fact that the spiritual training of man, of Israel in particular, herewith entered on a new stadium; which was to be distinguished by the development, in a degree to that time without a precedent, of the sense of sin and of guilt, and the need therefore of atonement in order to pardon. This need had not indeed been unfelt before; but never in any ritual had it received so full expression. Not only is the idea of expiation by the shedding of blood almost the only thought represented in the ritual of the offering, but in the order afterward prescribed for the different sacrifices, the sin offering, in all cases where others were offered, must go before them all; before the burnt offering, the meal offering, the peace offering. So again, this new law insists upon expiation even for those sins which have the utmost possible palliation and excuse, in that at the time of their committal the sinner knew them not as sins; and thus teaches that even these so fatally interrupt fellowship with the holy God, that only such expiation can restore the broken harmony. What a revelation was this law, of the way in which God regards sin and of the extremity, in consequence, of the sinners need!
Most instructive, too, were the circumstances under which this new offering, with such a special purpose, embodying such a revelation of the extent of human guilt and responsibility, was first ordained. For its appointment followed quickly upon the tremendous revelation of the consuming holiness of God upon Mount Sinai. It was in the light of the holy mount, quaking and flaming with fire, that the eye of Moses was opened to receive from God this revelation of His will, and he was moved by the Holy Ghost to appoint for Israel, in the name of Jehovah, an offering which should differ from all other offerings in this-that it should hold forth to Israel, in solitary and unprecedented prominence, this one thought, that "without shedding of blood there is no remission of sin," not even of sins which are not known as sins at the time of their committal.
Our own generation, and even the Church of today, greatly needs to consider the significance of this fact. The spirit of our age is much more inclined to magnify the greatness and majesty of man, than the infinite greatness and holy majesty of God. Hence many talk lightly of atonement, and cannot admit its necessity to the pardon of sin. But can we doubt, with this narrative before us, that if men saw God more clearly as He is, there would be less talk of this kind? When Moses saw God on Mount Sinai, he came down to ordain a sin offering even for sins of ignorance! And nothing is more certain, as a fact of human experience in all ages, than this, that the more clearly men have perceived the unapproachable holiness and righteousness of God, the more clearly they have seen that expiation of our sins, even of our sins of ignorance, by atoning blood, is the most necessary and fundamental of all conditions, if we will have pardon of sin and peace with a Holy God.
Man is indeed slow to learn this lesson of the sin offering. It is quite too humbling and abasing to our natural, self-satisfied pride, to be readily received. This is strikingly illustrated by the fact that it is not until late in Israels history that the sin offering is mentioned in the sacred record: while even from that first mention till the Exile, it is mentioned only rarely. This fact is indeed often in our day held up as evidence that the sin offering was not of Mosaic origin, but a priestly invention of much later days. But the fact is quite as well accounted for by the spiritual obtuseness of Israel. The whole narrative shows that they were a people hard of heart and slow to learn the solemn lessons of Sinai; slow to apprehend the holiness of God, and the profound spiritual truth set forth in the institution of the sin offering. And yet it was not wholly unobserved, nor did every individual fail to learn its lessons. Nowhere in heathen literature do we find such a profound conviction of sin, such a sense of responsibility even for sins of ignorance, as in some of the earliest Psalms, and the earlier prophets. The self-excusing which so often marks the heathen confessions, finds no place in the confessions of those Old Testament believers, brought up under the moral training of that Sinaitic law which had the sin offering as its supreme expression on this subject. "Search me, O God, and try my heart; and see if there be in me any wicked way"; {Psa_139:23-24} "Cleanse Thou me from secret sins."; {Psa_19:12} "Against Thee only have I sinned, and done this evil in Thy sight". {Psa_51:4} Such words as these, with many other like prayers and confessions, bear witness to the deepening sense of sin, till at the last the sin offering teaches, as its own chief lesson, its own inadequacy for the removal of guilt, in those words of the prophetic, {Psa_40:6} from the man who mourned iniquities more than the hairs of his head: "Sin offering Thou hast not required."
But, according to the Epistle to the Hebrews, we are to regard David in these words, speaking by the Holy Ghost, as typifying Christ; for we thus Heb_10:5-10 : "When He cometh into the world He saith, Sacrifice and offering Thou wouldst not, but a body didst Thou prepare for Me; in whole burnt offerings and sin offerings Thou hadst no pleasure. Then said I, Lo, I am come (in the roll of the book it is written of Me) to do Thy will, O God."
Which words are then expounded thus: "Saying above, Sacrifices and offerings, and whole burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin Thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein (the which are offered according to the law); then hath He said, Lo, I am come to do Thy will. He taketh away the first that He may establish the second. By which will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all."
And so, as the deepest lesson of the sin offering, we are taught to see in it a type and prophecy of Christ, as the true and one eternally effectual sin offering for the sins of His people; who, Himself at once High Priest and Victim, offering Himself for us, perfects us forever, as the old sin offering could not, giving us therefore "boldness to enter into the holy place by the blood of Jesus." May we all have grace by faith to receive and learn this deepest lesson of this ordinance, and thus in the law of the sin offering discover Him who in His person and work became the Fulfiller of this law.
William Robertson Nicoll, ed., The Expositor's Bible (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1887–1910) — public domain. 65 of 66 books (1 Corinthians is not separately keyed, as that volume carries no machine-parseable verse references); section-level commentary keyed to the opening verse. Introductory and overview sections not keyed to a specific passage are excluded.
The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary 1892 · Public Domain Sacrifices for Sins
Sacrifices for Sins
SUGGESTIVE READINGS
Read full note →
Lev_4:2.—If a soul shall sin. Be it noted that the foregoing sacrifices are specified as sacrifices already familiar to the Hebrew people. In distinction from those, the sin and trespass offering are for the first time mentioned. The law only just given on Sinai created a new standard of obedience and righteousness; thus, “by the law is the knowledge of sin.” It is here defined as “against the commandments of the Lord,” etc.; and to meet this new disclosure of human frailty and guiltiness, God appointed the sin and trespass offerings. Shall we not welcome a full discovery of our sinfulness, since it both disposes the sinner to despair of self-justification and constrains him to seek the redemption divinely provided? When God reveals sin it is to show its antidote; and “with Him is plenteous redemption.”
Through ignorance, i.e., inadvertently, as distinguished from deliberate and defiant disobedience (comp. Num_15:30), for which there was no expiation. Are these of small import? Shall we think them of such inferior consequence as compared with sins done willfully? Let it then be recalled that Christ was crucified by inadvertence! That greatest act of human wrong was done “through ignorance” (Act_3:17): “Had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory” (1Co_2:8). Hence, though great the crime it may be forgiven mankind; as a wilful sin, done in the full light of knowledge, could not; but man’s guilt at the Cross was a vast sin of inadvertence: “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do!” (Luk_23:34). Alas! for such as “sin wilfully after they have received the knowledge of the truth! there remaineth for such no more sacrifice for sins” (Heb_10:26).
Lev_4:3-12.—The priest that is anointed, etc. Thus it is affirmed that even the highest personage in the priestly ranks is frail and as liable to sin as the commonest of the people; he may “do according to the sin of the people” (Lev_4:3). Shall Christ’s ministers, then, dare assume to possess superior spiritual sanctity? [See Heb_7:27-28.] The “anointed” priest was the high priest (Lev_8:12); other priests were only consecrated. Yet, though he was frail as ordinary persons, his sacred office and privileges made his sin so much the greater that he had to bring a far more costly sacrifice for his atonement. [See Lev_4:27-28.] God distinguishes concerning the criminality of sins: they who live nearer the light have less excuse for “ignorance.” So here, God requires most solemn arrangements for expiation: the blood is to be sprinkled “seven times before the Lord, before the veil of the sanctuary,” i.e., in front of the holy of holies, and even be smeared upon the golden altar itself! thus setting his sin in the very light of God’s countenance! How would this fill the anointed priest with self-reproach and shame! God cannot deal leniently with elevated souls. We shall be “judged according to that we have.”
Lev_4:7.—Pour all the blood at the bottom of the altar. By this rite the sinner acknowledged that he deserved to have his blood thus poured out like water. It likewise signified the pouring out of the soul before God in true repentance; and typified our Saviour’s pouring out His soul unto death.—Henry.
Lev_4:12.—Without the camp. As being accursed, for it symbolically held the sinner’s guilt, he having laid his hand (Lev_4:4) thereon. So did our Sin-Bearer “suffer without the gate” (Heb_11:11-13). Thus, too, is sin removed from God’s presence by expiation, carried into oblivion, and consumed out of existence. Jesus “put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.”
Lev_4:13-21.—If the whole congregation, etc. Crime may spread itself throughout a community, a state, or a nation; and equally, a congregation or a church may lapse into evil conduct and contract iniquity. When the sin becomes “known” to them (Lev_4:14), an expiation must be made with a solemnity equal to the high priest’s. Guilt is not less guilty because of its being prevalent in a community. God has declared against wrong-doers that “though hand join in hand they shall not be unpunished.” Sanctioned wrongs, evils connived at, customary misdemeanors, immoralities and impieties which find currency, popular sins, all are hateful to Jehovah, and none the less hateful because the moral or spiritual distemper rages amid the multitudes rather than confines itself to individuals. Nations have suffered God’s displeasure for unrepented sins; and churches have been withered for cherishing impurities which have wounded Christ in the house of His friends. True patriotism should bemoan and seek to remove the evils which degrade the national life; and earnest piety will show itself in endeavouring to arouse a lukewarm Church to “repent and do her first works.”
Lev_4:22-26.—When a ruler hath sinned. They who dispense laws are amenable to the Lawgiver; they who call others to account are themselves accountable the Supreme Ruler. The word “ruler” is rendered “king” in 1Ki_11:34, Eze_34:24, etc.; but God is “King of kings, and Lord of lords”; and before His bar they must stand in judgment if before the Cross they do not bow in penitence and faith. “Be wise now, therefore, O ye kings; be instructed ye judges of the earth. Serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son, lest He be angry,” etc (Psa_2:10-12).
Lev_4:27-35.—One of the common people sin. The lowest are not overlooked by the searching eye of God. Though in his humble station he may be less instructed, less responsible for error, less blameworthy for sin, yet God demands expiation. If none are exempted from the sinfulness of his deeds, surely each should watch against sin, never excusing himself that he “did it ignorantly,” but seek to inform himself of God’s requirements, and thus come to “understand his errors.” Yes; and leaving his evil state, every one should seek the altar with his sin offering; go to Calvary with meek contrition and an upturned look of prayerful trust. “Behold the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world.”
SECTIONAL HOMILIES
Topic: SINS COMMITTED IN IGNORANCE (Lev_4:1-12)
Our evil nature does not slumber; it acts. “Dead” as regards all power of living to God, it is full of untiring energy in living “according to the prince of this world, the spirit which worketh in the children of disobedience.” Cain and his children were “dead” towards God, yet full of activity in wrong, they builded cities and invented arts, living to Satan and themselves. So we are committers of sin, doers of iniquity. No remedy, therefore, would be commensurate with our need which failed to meet the consequences of committed sin. Accordingly the sin offering and the trespass offering were appointed.
Committed sin may be distributed into those committed in ignorance (and of these this chapter treats), and those committed consciously (which are dealt with in chapter 5).
I. MAN’S OWN DISPOSITION IS TO CONDONE INADVERTENT SINS.
In the heart of many there is readiness to think of sins of ignorance as if they were no sins; or if admitted to be sins and need mercy, such mercy is regarded rather as a right than as the unmerited gift of grace.
1. Ignorance is treated as if synonymous with guiltlessness. To act conscientiously, however dark or dead the conscience, is, in the esteem of many, to act blamelessly. Hence
2. The responsibilities which attach to knowledge become secretly a reason why knowledge is eschewed. “Darkness is loved rather than light,” because darkness brings quiet; whereas light has an awakening and convicting power.
To these errors of thought the appointment of the sin offering is an answer: it is designed to meet sins committed in ignorance. No one who reverences the Word of God will speak lightly of sins of ignorance after reading, “If a soul shall sin through ignorance, etc.… let him bring for the sin that he hath sinned,” etc. (Lev_4:4-5).
II. WHEREIN THE GUILTINESS OF INADVERTENT SINS CONSISTS.
The heinousness of such sins depends not so much on the character of the deed done as on that condition of heart which is capable of committing sin without knowing that it is sin; and commits it, perhaps, exultingly, triumphing in it as good! What must angels think of the state of that soul which is so thoroughly blinded, so utterly astray from God, as to violate His commandments and resist His will in total unconsciousness that it is doing wrong!
1. What such sinfulness has wrought. It was thus that multitudes in Israel hated and persecuted the Lord Jesus, that Paul shed the blood of Stephen, resisting the testimony of the Holy Ghost from one whose face shone with heavenly brightness while he spake; that Paul again “verily thought he was doing God service” when persecuting the saints. All this argued thorough blindness of soul, thorough alienation of heart from God.
2. Sin in ignorance is the embodiment in action of those dark principles of enmity against God which lie embosomed in the human heart.
III. GOD’S EMPHATIC WITNESS AGAINST INADVERTENT SINS.
1. Sources of Divine remonstrance against such sins.
(1) In Nature. Throughout the heathen world the eternal power and Godhead are declared by the works of God’s hands. “The heavens declare the glory of God,” etc. (Psalms 19) “He left not Himself without witness in that He gave them rain,” etc. (Act_14:17). “The invisible things of Him,” etc. (Rom_1:20).
(2) In Scripture. The Jews, in addition to the testimony of creation, had the written Word. “To them were committed the oracles of God” (Rom_3:2).
(3) By living preachers. From them came many a warning, “line upon line, precept upon precept.”
(4) In conscience. The consciences both of Jews and Gentiles were often made to feel the appeals of God; as Paul made Felix tremble.
2. Man’s resistance of the Divine remonstrance. Satan and man’s own evil disposition quenched or obscured the light. As they turned from the light—
(1) Their conscience became more hardened. And as it hardened, sins of ignorance were multiplied, and
(2) Committed with a higher and more reckless hand.
3. Such daring ignorance, how is it fostered?
(1) By the perversion of revealed truth. Truth had been revealed to, received by, Israel; but received to be betrayed. Their imposing systems of worship and sacrifice were constantly distorted, were false renderings of Divinely given truth.
(2) Erroneous teaching was welcomed. In vain, therefore, the Scriptures spake of Jesus; in vain John, His forerunner, testified; in vain the Lord Himself proved by His words, His character, His miracles, that He was indeed the Son of the living God. The light of holiness and grace shone fruitlessly upon their hearts, whose natural darkness was deepened by the systematic influence of a religious corruption which had sanctified error by holy titles, and had blessed wickedness in the name of God.
Nor has it been otherwise in Christendom. The history of the Church of God supplies countless instances of souls so nourished from childhood in error as to be deadened in every power of right discernment and apprehension. What wonder, seeing that our hearts naturally love darkness, that sins of ignorance should abound!
IV. GODLY SOULS ARE BETRAYED INTO THE COMMISSION OF INADVERTENT SINS.
It would be happy could we assert even of real Christians that they were free from these fearful sins of ignorance.
1. How are Christians betrayed thereinto? Whenever they give themselves up to the guidance of any individual, or of any system not strictly accordant with God’s revealed truth, they will surely act against Christ and His commandments ignorantly. Hence nothing operates more terribly against the progress of truth than the misdirected energies of real Christians ignorantly sustaining error, ignorantly resisting light.
2. Christians may therefore be beguiled. Paul was keenly alive to their peril. He knew how easily the souls of believers can be bewitched. “O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you?” He knew how easily Satan can transform himself into an angel of light to deceive.
3. If where there is most diligence and watchfulness there may be sins of ignorance, how much more where there is negligence or slumber, or acquiescence in the prevailing evil of the age!
V. SINS IN THE GODLY ARE MOST HEINOUS IN GOD’S ESTEEM.
Addressed as is this chapter to those who were ostensibly the separated people of God, it teaches us especially respecting sins of ignorance committed by believers.
1. Sins are greater in proportion to the spiritual status of those who commit them. The loftier our privileges, the nearer we are brought to God, the more intimately we are connected with His service, the more terrible must be the consequences of transgression.
2. God’s name was more dishonoured. The sins of an instructed Israelite threw discredit on the God he acknowledged.
3. Sacred life was defamed. With the priest or Israelite there should have been found understanding and the fear of the Lord.
Notes: (a) God had a right to expect such sins to be avoided. The priests were anointed that they might minister in the near presence of God: their employment was in holy things; their place the sanctuary. As instructed in the Word of the Lord, acquainted with the ways of His house, their lips were to keep knowledge; and others through them were to learn the ways of the Lord. Sins of ignorance were therefore the very sins that should have been absent from the priest.
(b) Sin is to be estimated by a man’s spiritual elevation. As here; by the holiness of the things and places in which the priest ministered, and by the disastrous consequences to others, as well as to himself, that flowed from its commission.
VI. EXPIATION PROVIDED FOR SINS OF INADVERTENCE.
Sin, as in the priest, had invaded the holy place, had entered before the veil, had taiuted the place of his ministration, had defiled the altar, had involved others in its consequences: the stain must be effaced, either by vengeance consuming the sinner, or be expiated by the blood of a substituted victim.
God, in the unsearchable riches of His grace, appointed the sin offering; on whose head the transgressor laid his hand, and whose blood was sprinkled before the Lord. Thus was denoted—
1. Against Whom the sins were committed. Seven times the blood was sprinkled “before the Lord.” “Against Thee, Thee only, have I sinned,” etc. (Psa_51:4).
2. The process of purging. The ground on which the priest was accustomed to stand, the altar at which he ministered, were covered with blood: thus the taint was covered over, himself purchased back from destruction, the privileged place he had occupied preserved unforfeited.
3. Its suggestion of death. The remainder of the blood was poured out at the bottom of the altar, betokening that the just requisition of God’s holiness had been met—met by death. It was the token of accomplished and accepted atoning death. It was blood shed.
4. Its suggestion of wrath. On fire, kindled not on the altar, not even within the camp, but “without the gate,” the place of dishonour and reproach, like the fire of Gehenna, it was devoured as an accursed thing.
VII. TYPICAL INTIMATIONS OF CHRIST’S DEATH FOR MAN’S SINS.
1. God’s condemnation of our Substitute. Faith, as it stands by the fire without the camp, and gazes on the devoted parts of the sin offering being consumed, beholds—
(1) The memorial of what Christ became on account of His people.
(2) Sees not only their sins, but their sins judicially ended.
(3) That their guilt is remembered no more as the subject of wrath—evidenced by the ashes; for ashes are the token of fire having burned itself out.
2. God’s acceptance of our Substitute. The internal parts of the victim were burned on the altar; representing the inherent excellencies of Christ, and accepted as “a sweet savour” by God. Jehovah provided for us One whose excellencies are here presented for our vileness. In atonement Divine holiness requires in the Surety not only that He should bear every penalty, but that He should also present a substitutional perfectness for us. Thus, while sins committed in ignorance showed the inherent corruption of our inmost nature; the acceptance of the inmost parts of the sin offering by God upon His holy altar declares the satisfaction made by Christ on our account.—Homiletically developed from Thoughts on Leviticus, by B. W. NEWTON.
Topic: SINAI’S LAW NECESSITATED THE ORIGIN OF THE SIN OFFERING (Lev_4:2; Lev_4:13-14; Lev_4:22; Lev_4:27, etc.)
Revelation from God and religious feeling in man are not synonymous, are not synchronous. The religious feeling is instinctive. Revelation comes to inform and guide that instinct. Prior to any revelation, man was religious. Within himself, in the thoughts and fears and aspirations of his own soul, man possesses the incitements to religion, i.e., to recognise and seek and propitiate God.
I. EARLIEST ANNALS OF HUMAN HISTORY SHOW MAN TO HAVE BEEN RELIGIOUS.
1. Touched by conscious dependence, man acknowledged it by tributary gifts to Deity.
2. Grateful for enjoyed blessings or providential deliverances, he brings to his altar a thank offering.
3. Troubled by sense of error, wrong, guilt, he rears an altar and offers some propitiatory presentation. Well nigh every ancient people thus expressed religious feeling, even where no revelation was given. Either these votive and appeasement offerings originated in—
(a) The outcry and outlook of the human soul for its unseen and unknown God; or—
(b) An intimation, in some form, from Heaven that men “should seek the Lord if haply they might feel after Him and find Him” (Act_17:27).
But, whether by supernatural intimation or by spiritual intuition, man has always been religious.
Turning to the Hebrew scriptures we find offerings on some rude form of altar presented to God by the children of the first human family, Cain and Abel. And noteworthy: they bring their offerings not as if they were adventuring upon and originating a new mode of worship, but as if in conformity with a custom already existing.
Through the antedeluvian period, and following the dispersion of Noah’s descendants, worship by altar offerings was preserved in all branches of the Semitic family. [Compare ATWATER on Tabernacle of the Hebrews.]
II. PRIOR TO THE SINAITIC LAW NEITHER SIN OR TRESPASS SACRIFICES WERE INSTITUTED.
The early patriarchs were familiar with burnt offerings and meat offerings; but, until the Exodus, sacrifices for expiation seem to have had no specific existence.
1. Subordinately every ancient sacrifice of victims on the altar intimated conscious sin and desire for expiation. But it was only subsidiary. The sacrifice was not offered with the single and supreme thought of atonement for sin. Those remoter sacrifices expressed self-surrender and allegiance rather than expiation. No sacrifice is recorded as a distinct effort to expiate for sin prior to the Sinaitic law.
2. Until the law was given sin was not clearly realised and felt. There was doubtless a vague and indefinite sense of wrong in men, but “where there is no law there is no transgression” (Rom_4:15). So also “by the law is the knowledge of sin” (Rom_3:20); but “sin is not imputed where there is no law” (Rom_5:13)
3. The conviction of man of sin rendered the Sin offering a necessity. The law convicted man of sin; his inherent guiltiness had not been apprehended till it stood revealed in the light of God’s holy commandments. Hence this provision of the sin offering has relation to a man “sinning against any of the commandments” (Lev_4:2; Lev_4:13-14; Lev_4:22; Lev_4:27, etc.). “The law entered that the offence might abound” (Rom_5:20).
III. In the Sin offering ASSURANCE OF SALVATION MEETS THE AWAKENED CONSCIOUSNESS OF GUILT.
It seems evident that the sacrificial offerings of the Hebrews became modified and developed in order to meet the advancing consciousness of sin. With a nearer acquaintance with God came a keener sense of unworthiness and wrong. Hence their sacrifices became increasingly expiatory.
1. Sin, essential and inherent sin, was so pressed upon man’s conscience by the standard of perfect and unattainable righteousness given in the law, as to render the sin offering an absolutely necessary provision of God’s mercy.
2. Hence the expiatory element in sacrifice, which had been subordinate until the law, was raised into eminence and vividness in the newly and specially instituted offering of the sin sacrifice.
3. And in the sin sacrifice a prophecy of God’s purpose was given to provide the great expiatory sacrifice of Calvary, in which all anticipatory sacrifices were to be completed and annulled.
Topic: IGNORANCE IN SINNING (Lev_4:2; Lev_4:13; Lev_4:22; Lev_4:27.)
“If a soul sin through ignorance”; but a soul should not be so ignorant as to inadvertently sin. Has not God plainly declared what “ought not to be done”? (Lev_4:2). If therefore “they have done somewhat against any of the commandments of the Lord concerning things which should not be done,” they “are guilty” (Lev_4:13). Such ignorance must be either from carelessness, which shows culpable neglect; or through blindness, which argues wilful repudiation of light. A perverse will, an “evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God,” a refusal to “come to the light lest their deeds should be made manifest”; these are criminal, and are sternly condemned
I. MAN’S PERCEPTION OF RIGHT AND WRONG CANNOT BE AN ALLOWED STANDARD. He may “sin through ignorance.”
1. Neither his judgment nor his conscience is an adequate guide in detecting sin. There are many wrong things which escape man’s cognizance, many which his conscience fails to condemn, many which indeed “seem right unto a man” and his heart approves, which God cannot tolerate. [See Addenda, p. 57, Ignorance v. Knowledge.]
2. Hence the inquiry, What is sin? must be determined from without a man, and not from within him. God must be heard. “God is light, and in Him is no darkness at all.” He knows what is sin; and He has revealed it in “the commandments of the Lord”
3. The presence of sin in man, sin even ignorantly contracted, imperils man’s relationship to God. He cannot look upon sin. It must be cast out from His presence. “Carry it forth without the camp” (Lev_4:12). Sin, therefore, interrupts man’s approach to God, prevents his acceptable worship of God, and alienates his relationship with God.
II. GOD’S ESTIMATE AND MEASUREMENT OF SIN REGULATED THE ATONEMENT. “Bring for the sin which he hath sinned,” etc. (Lev_4:3). All the depths and subtilties of sin were in God’s thoughts when He arranged for its expiation.
1. Man’s faulty apprehension of sin would have narrowed the atonement. We should then have found our guilt exceeding the provisions; an unexpiated sinfulness would have remained beyond the appeasement we had made.
2. Sin has been expiated according to God’s measurement of sin. Hence a full atonement for the believer’s sins of ignorance as well as for his recognised sins has been made in Christ.
(a) This, if apprehended, lays the ground of a settled peace. All may be left with Christ.
(b) This will exalt our conception of the fulness and efficacy of the Saviour’s sacrifice.
(c) This will assure us of acceptable and satisfactory fellowship with God, since all sin is propitiated.
III. Ignorance concerning sin argues MAN’S REAL HELPLESSNESS IN DEALING WITH IT.
Even if he could, by any process, rid himself of sin, what can he do with the sin of which he is not cognizant? There is guiltiness in man which never comes (until he is Divinely enlightened) within the range of his own consciousness or conscience.
1. Man’s ignorance of sin proves his total inability to put it away. He is like a physician, when himself so sick as to become delirious, attempting to prescribe and apply remedies for his recovery. [See Addenda, p. 57, Perils of Ignorance.]
2. Even the most elevated human conscience is inadequate to determine and depose sin. “Who can understand his errors?”
3. If there may be sin eluding our detection, how would the dread of undetected and unexpiated guilt destroy all peace were we left to deal with our sin?
4. No happy communion with God would be possible were a misgiving over lurking sin troubling our hearts. An uneasy mind, anxious on the question of sin, would mar all worship and blessedness.
(a) A happy spiritual life rests upon an assured peace.
(b) Assured peace must rest on a perfectly purged conscience.
(c) A purged conscience must rest on the foundation of a perfect remission of all our sins, whether sins of knowledge or of ignorance.
“And He is the propitiation for our sins.”
Topic: DEFILED SANCTITIES (Lev_4:6-7.)
“The priest shall dip his finger in the blood, and sprinkle of the blood seven times before the Lord, before the veil of the sanctuary. And the priest shall put some of the blood upon the horns of the altar of sweet incense before the Lord,” etc.
The sin of a “priest” marks the wrong-doing of exalted and privileged souls, and the defamation wrought by one so eminent in sacred relationship and service. In his misdemeanour a defiled foot would taint the holy ground on which he stood; a defiled hand would taint the altar at which he ministered.
1. Christians occupying exalted positions, enjoying elevated privileges, rendering distinguished service for God, may fall into sin.
2. They know that the dishonour done to God is commensurate with the dignity of their position and the holiness of their profession.
3. So acutely is their guilt felt by them when thus brought under consciousness of sin, that its burden and bitterness would overwhelm them were there not adequate grace in the sin offering for even such sin as theirs.
Here, therefore, it is clearly shown by the Holy Spirit—
I. That HOWEVER FAR SIN MAY HAVE PENETRATED, even though to the very “veil of the sanctuary,” and WHATEVER SOLEMN AND SACRED THINGS SIN MAY HAVE DEFILED, even though it be the holy “altar” itself, thither THE ATONING BLOOD FOLLOWS, carrying full expiation where sin has carried defilement.
1. When sin enters the inmost recesses of a Christian soul, high in sacred relationship and godly service, into the motives, thoughts, affections of a holy man, it intrudes to the very “veil of the sanctuary” wherein God dwells. Sin thus invades scenes so hallowed, the very vestibule of the Divine indwelling.
2. When sin mars the life and conduct and ministries of a consecrated servant of the Lord, who had occupied high station in the church, and fulfilled prominent functions in the sanctuary, it profanes the very “altar” of Jehovah, for it casts a stain and defamation on the holiest solemnities of the Christian profession. In touching one who dwells so near God, and whose life is so devoted to Him, sin lays its defiling hand on that which on earth is most godly, which most represents God, and which is nearest God.
Can there be atonement and purifying for such desecration of most holy things?
Yes, the virtue of the Redeemer’s blood penetrates to any shrine, to every object sin has reached.
And “where sin abounded grace doth much more abound.” [See Addenda, p. 57, Pardon.]
II. That THE DISHONOUR DONE TO GOD, to the SANCTITIES OF A GODLY LIFE, and to the SOLEMNITIES OF SANCTUARTY MINISTRIES was compensated for in offering upon that “altar of sweet incense” the symbols of the INHERENT AND INTRINSIC EXCELLENCY OF CHRIST.
1. The inward excellency of the victim (represented in “the fat that covereth the inwards,” etc.) is laid on the sacred altar in lieu of, and as an appeasement for, the inward impurity of the sinner, whose soul had contracted defilement through ignorance. And in that precious excellency of Jesus as our Substitute God receives a perfectly satisfactory compensation. The ill savour of our sin dishonoured God and defiled His holy altar; but on the “sweet incense altar” Christ offered so fragrant a presentation as to answer for all the fallibilities and faults of man.
2. Especially is this perfectly acceptable offering of Christ’s excellence a consolatory fact in contrast with the imperfection which discredits the most consecrated and sacred human life. Even a priest “anointed” with the holy oil (Lev_4:3), called to minister at the altar and before the veil of the sanctuary, may “sin according to the sin of the people.” Alas! “there is none righteous, no, not one.” Men may be now “anointed of the Holy Ghost,” raised to a “holy priesthood” in Christ, elevated to loftiest spiritual privileges, made partakers of the heavenly gift, and yet may defile all this sacred excellence through sin. “The best of men are but men at the best.” But Christ was “holy, harmless, undefiled.” “In Him was no sin.” And in Him God’s “soul delighted.” And in Him God was honoured by a perfection so unsullied as to obliterate the dishonour done to Him by man’s faultiness and sin.
Topic:—SIN’S FEARFUL ASPECTS. “If a soul shall sin” (Lev_4:2); if a priest shall sin” (Lev_4:3); if the whole congregation of Israel shall sin” (Lev_4:13), etc
Sin! The sound is brief. But it presents a dark abyss of thought.
I. Think much of sin: IT IS EARTH’S DEATH-BLOW
It marred the beauty of a beauteous world, stripped it of its lovely robe; caused life to wither and decay, etc. It placed its foot upon a perfect workmanship and left it a disordered wreck.
II. Think much of sin: IT IS MAN’S RUIN.
Its most tremendous blight fell on our inner life. It drove the soul from peaceful fellowship with God; changed the loving child into a hardened rebel; robbed the mind of light; made the heart a whirlpool of tumultuous passions, a spring of impure streams. It is the malady, the misery, the shame of our whole race. It is the mother of—death; it digs each grave; every widow and orphan tastes its gall. It fills each hospital with sick; strews the battle-field with slain. It is the core in every grief, the worm that gnaws the root of peace.
III. Think much of sin: ITS TERRIBLE DESTRUCTION DIES NOT IN THE GRAVE
There is a region where its full effects run revel. It kindled quenchless flames; sharpened the undying sting of an upbraiding conscience; bars the hopeless in that outer darkness, where weeping ever weeps, and wailing ever wails.
IV. Think much of sin: it works this bitter and eternal anguish because GOD’S CURSE ATTENDS IT.
It raised a rebel hand against His will; dared to violate His holy law; strove to lay His honour in the dust; trampled on the statute book of Heaven. Therefore God’s anger fiercely burns against it; hence every misery follows in its rear. He must be wretched who has God against him.
V. Think much of sin: REGARD IT WITH AN EARNEST DREAD.
No power can over-paint the terrible reality of what sin is, what sin has done, what penalties it evokes. Those terrors of a human heart are the best prelude to the tidings of the sin offering. Tears magnify the Cross. Hell seen betimes is hell escaped for ever. Though sin is death, the sinner need not die. There is a way by which the vilest may stand pure. God’s love decreed a plan. He willed a ransom, and His Son achieved it. Flee to the Sin Offering. Blessed are they whose curse descends on the Saviour’s Cross.—From “Christ is All,” by Dean of Gloucester.
Topic: HOW THE SIN OFFERING MEETS MAN’S INMOST NEED (Lev_4:27; Lev_4:35)
The trespass offering provides expiation for specific acts of transgression, for what man does; the sin offering provides expiation for the evil inherent in man, for what he is. Our error is to see sinfulness only as it breaks into expression in deeds; God sees that there is in us a sinfulness which is essential, and which is the source whence the evil acts proceed; that so tainted is man’s moral nature as that he may sin without even recognising his conduct to be sinful. It is a mere peradventure whether, having sinned, his sin will even “come to his knowledge” (Lev_4:28).
I. MOURNFUL RECOGNITION OF THE SINNER’S INHERENT CORRUPTION.
Sin is in our very nature. The institution of the law of “commandments” does not create us sinners, it only reveals us to be sinners. It holds the standard up which discloses how void man is of righteousness, of rightness. This inherent corruption is—
1. Not realised by the unenlightened. Unconverted persons only apprehend sin as it appears in actions; they repudiate, or fail to recognise, the fact that they are essentially, and in all the springs of thought and life, sinful.
2. Faintly discerned at first by the awakened. The young convert perceives and bewails his trespasses more than his sin. He deplores that he has done evil, but scarcely sees how really he is evil.
3. Supremely apprehended by the most godly. Those highest in grace, with conscience most illumined and heart most instructed through fellowship with God, and realisation of the beauty of Christ, and enlightenment of the Holy Ghost, “abhor themselves” and not their acts only. “In me, that is, in my flesh, dwelleth no good thing.” Most keenly is this realised by holiest men. “The flesh lusteth against the spirit,” so that “when we would do good evil is present.” [See Romans 7 and Gal_5:17.]
II. JOYOUS SATISFACTION OVER THE INCLUSIVE ATONEMENT OF JESUS. “A sweet savour unto the Lord”; “an atonement for him” (Lev_4:31).
When the painful fact is realised that sin in us, as well as trespasses by us, constitutes our condemnation, what consolation comes in the fact that an offering for sin, as well as offerings for trespasses, was appointed by God. Thus Christ was “made sin for us”; He “bore our sin”; as well as “was delivered for our offences.”
1. Because of our indwelling sinfulness Christ was offered as our Sin Sacrifice (Lev_4:29).
2. Because Christ was offered as our Sin Sacrifice we who trust in Him are saved from an indwelling sin (Lev_4:35).
Note, therefore:
(1) When the Spirit reveals to believers their deeper sinfulness (“He shall convince of sin,” Joh_16:8), it is not to destroy their peace in Christ, or rob them of joyful realisation of His full atonement; but to reveal how much Christ’s salvation is needed, and to provoke to fuller gratitude and faith.
(2) To doubt our justification and acceptance because we see our “sin,” betrays a low estimate of Christ’s work for us, and reflects on the all-abounding graciousness of God in providing the sin offering. He “put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.” “He by Himself purged our sins” (Heb_1:3).
Topic: THREE ASPECTS OF SIN OFFERING (Lev_4:3; Lev_4:13; Lev_4:22; Lev_4:27)
I. THREE DISTINCT CLASSES OF TRANSGRESSION ARE SPECIFIED.
1. “The priest that is anointed” and “the whole congregation of Israel” are classed together as if identified. For the priest represented all Israel, and all Israel suffered in the error of the priest, so that the individual and collective sin are to be atoned for on precisely the same conditions and by precisely the same methods. This points to those transgressors who had enjoyed sacred privileges, and were in covenant relation to Jehovah, representing godly souls who yet had erred from their integrity.
2. The “ruler” represents the civil and secular life of a people, men of state dignity, social eminence, and foremost in patriotic affairs rather than in the church; statesmen, legislators, magistrates, civil functionaries. These may err from their uprightness.
3. “The common people” gather in the multitudes, who are distinguished by no eminence, burdened by no public responsibility, holding no office in Church or State, simple ordinary persons exposed to none of the temptations and perils of an exalted station. Yet these may err and lapse into wrong.
II. THREE ALIENATIONS WROUGHT BY SIN are intimated.
1. God’s dwelling-place in the tabernacle was rendered unsanctified. “Holiness becometh Thine house, O Lord, for ever.” But instead of stainless sanctity sin had been carried by the priest “before the veil of the sanctuary.” The holy place was sullied in God’s sight.
2. God’s worship was marred. The whole “congregation” had to pause in consecration and peace offerings, in the joy of adoration, and to assume the sad attitude of criminals suing escape from vengeance by bringing a victim which must be treated as “accursed” in order that sinful men might be spared. It turned aside the homage of a happy people from Jehovah, while they bowed in mournful prostration as a multitude of condemned transgressors.
3. The individual conscience was molested. Sin raised a barrier between the soul and God, separated the sinner from the Divine acceptance, and destroyed—so long as it lay on the conscience—all fellowship, all bliss.
III. THREEFOLD APPEASEMENTS WROUGHT BY THE BLOOD are suggested.
1. The blood being “sprinkled before the Lord, before the veil of the sanctuary,” secured Jehovah’s relationship with His people (which, but for this atonement, must have been severed) and His continued dwelling in their midst.
2. The blood being put upon “the golden altar” preserved the basis of acceptable worship, so that the flame of “the sweet incense” might acceptably ascend to God, He being propitiated by the atonement.
3. By pouring “all the blood” at “the bottom of the altar” the claims of God on the individual soul were met, for thereby substitutionary death was attested. [Compare Notes on Leviticus, by C. H. M.]
Topic: THE EMINENT SINFULNESS OF ERROR IN THE PRIEST (Lev_4:1-12)
Contrition for sin must always have some proportion to its malignity and magnitude. In the gradations of the sin offering—as in all the other sacrifices—this truth is clearly taught. Not that any amount of contrition could really atone for any sin; but the contrition symbolised in the sacrifice was to bear some proportion to the character of the sin to be condoned. The same sin in the priest would be considered greater than in the people, from many considerations.
I. From the superior position he occupied. Placed in front of the people, and anointed to a conspicuous as well as dignified office, being mediator between God and man.
II. From the superior privileges he enjoyed. He had exemption from many secular anxieties that would irritate and embarrass others; was not exposed to many temptations that encompassed others; had more familiar and frequent fellowship with Jehovah than the common people; and was constantly coming in contact with influences in the discharge of his duties that would tend to render his falling into error inexcusable and very culpable.
III. From the superior knowledge he possessed. He would be intimately acquainted with the requirements of the law, having to expound and enforce it; and he would have ample means and opportunities for ascertaining the purpose of the precepts enjoined, and of avoiding omissions and mistakes.
IV. From the superior influence he exerted. The priest would be looked up to by the people as an example, and his influence would be very powerful upon Israel for good or for evil. The old saying, “Like priest, like people,” has much truth in it; and if sin had been allowed in the priest to be passed over and healed up slightly, it would have been like offering a premium to sin and proclaiming an indulgence to transgression. The sin of the priests would not only taint all the holy places that they frequented in the prosecution of their sacerdotal work and worship, but it would contaminate the magnetic circle of moral influence by which they were enveloped, and which necessarily affected the minds and morals of the people among whom they daily ministered. Sin grows heinous according to the rank and influence of the transgressors; and God acknowledged the exalted position of the priests by exacting larger sacrifice from them in the sin offering than from the common people. Sins in the priests—who were regarded as the theocratic earthly head of Israel—would tend to debase the moral sense of the whole community. The sins of the priest were conspicuous, and the sacrifice, therefore, was conspicuous too; and, as the unintentional offender brought the young bullock for an offering, we read in his obedience—anxiety and willingness to be forgiven, as well as confession of his sin. The fact that the offering was equal to that required for the sin of the whole congregation, and more than was to be made for the sin of a ruler, showed how great the contrition and self-abasement were. There was no oil mixed with the sin offering to suggest gladness; no fragrance of frankincense; no festive joy or communion, as at the meat offering. Everything about it denoted sorrow and suffering on account of wrong-doing.—F. W. Brown.
Topic: THE SIN OFFERING OF IGNORANCE FOR THE CONGREGATION (Lev_4:13-22)
The people were as liable to sin through ignorance as the priest, so provision was made for their forgiveness as had been mercifully made for his. The laws recently promulgated were so many, minute, and complicated that the people would be liable to misinterpret and misunderstand them. The Divine Lawgiver knew that; made provision to meet such liability by appointing an offering easily available and that would effectually atone. The people had mixed before their exodus with an idolatrous nation; their old propensities and practices would pursue them in the wilderness, as their old foes had pursued them even though they had been delivered from their final bondage. The offering for the sins of ignorance of the people teaches us—
I. That error is so indigenous to, and insidious in man, that a whole community may become the victim of it.
(a) A whole community may sin ignorantly when—
1. It unwittingly obeys unrighteous human laws.
2. When it misinterprets a righteous Divine law.
3. When it is misled by the incorrect interpretations of its leaders.
4. When it is unaware of the existence of the law.
In any of the above instances the persons committing sin do so ignorantly, and such wrong-doing, though unintentional, may incur guilt, i.e., may entail evil consequences. Let us pray and strive to be saved from such delinquencies.
(b) A whole community may sin ignorantly—
1. Even when it has anointed and authoritative leaders.
2. Even when it has ample means of ascertaining the truth.
3. Even when it is surrounded by helpful and hallowed associations.
We see these facts exemplified in the history of Israel. How constantly they went wrong wilfully, and frequently ignorantly, although blessed with peculiar and pre-eminent advantages. Notwithstanding our light and knowledge we are in danger of falling into error; our high privileges may even prove a snare to us, put us off our guard, and render us an easy prey to sin.
No nation is exempt from this danger. If God’s ancient people were not exempt, where He specially manifested His presence and power, where His will was openly made known, no people at any subsequent period of the world’s history can be exempt.
No church is exempt, for although the Spirit takes of the things of Christ and shows them unto His people, and leads them into all truth, yet we only see as through a glass darkly, and “know in part.” The Church has committed great errors in all ages, and no man, and no body of men, however saintly, are infallible. The larger the disc of light the greater the circumference of darkness.
No family is exempt. Where the best interests and welfare of each is sought there may be sins committed ignorantly, yet fraught with disastrous consequences. We may mislead by the advice we give, misjudge in the opinions we form; may omit to discharge our duty by neglecting judicious and necessary discipline and counsel.
II. That when a whole community becomes the victim of inadvertent error nothing but a general expiation will atone for it.
The elders of the congregation laid their hands upon the heads of the offering to be presented to the Lord to denote that the whole people confessed their sin and desired its removal, and the priest did with the bullock as with his own sin offering. Thus he made an atonement for the people, and their sin was forgiven. Such a service and sacrifice would be equivalent to a season of national confession and humiliation, and would be accepted as such in the sight of God. We are not under the law, but under grace, yet the principle that was underlying these old rites exists still, and though we are called upon to offer no bullock for our individual or national sins, yet we are expected to present the sacrifice of broken and contrite hearts to the God against whom we have wittingly or unwittingly sinned, and to expect that our sacrifice will be accepted through the atonement of our great Redeemer, who is at once our Sacrifice and Priest. When sin is participated in by a nation, or church, or family, the whole community and circle should participate in the contrition, acknowledging complicity in the commission of the sin, and deprecating the consequences which, but for forgiveness, would inevitably ensue.
In our united and public worship we should unitedly and publicly confess sin, for if we are not conscious of any flagrant and high-handed sins, we are sure to have upon us the stain of some inadvertent offence against the Divine laws. In many things—yea, in all things—we all offend. There is full and free forgiveness for all secret and unknown faults as well as for open, unmistakable sins.—F. W. B.
Topic: THE SIN OFFERING FOR THE RULER (Lev_4:22-26)
By the sin offering of the ruler being inferior in quality to that of the priest, the Lord taught the people that no secular position was so high as that of the priest’s, and that no influence was so potent and extensive as that which he, by virtue of his person and position, exerted. The humblest sacred office is higher than the highest secular position, and the sincere believer and true disciple in the Kingdom of Heaven, though poor and obscure in the world, is a king and a priest unto God. We learn from this rite—
I. That persons in the highest positions of secular authority among men are held responsible to God.
It has often been said that “a king can do no wrong”; but the teaching of the old economy shows us that kings could do wrong, and that rulers could do wrong through ignorance, and that their ignorant acts of wrong-doing were not connived at or condoned by the King of Heaven. When they committed error, even by mistake or in ignorance, the law could not be broken without the Lawgiver being slighted and insulted. The inculcation of this truth, and the institution of this rite, would arouse rulers to be circumspect in their conduct, and check them in the exercise of their regal authority, when tending to grow exacting and despotic.
II. That persons in the highest positions of secular authority among men must humble themselves before God and men when they discover their public errors.
The example of the ruler would influence the people injuriously. The atonement of his sin was therefore to be made in a public manner before the Lord, and in the presence of the people he must acknowledge his offences. Just as mercy adds lustre to crowned heads, so the acknowledgment of inadvertent errors or wilful sins will purify and dignify the conscience, and add to the glory of earth’s mightiest potentates.
III. That persons in the highest positions of secular authority among men—thus humbling themselves—obtain forgiveness of their sins and arrest the consequences of their guilt.
God was just, and yet the justifier of the penitent sinner; He demanded atonement that His broken law might be vindicated, and His slighted authority satisfied. The people would see the exceeding heinousness of sin, how exacting and inevitable its penalty, that a priest or a ruler could not sin ignorantly without having to humble himself and seek forgiveness from Him whose laws he had broken. The guilt of such sins would be arrested, their moral consequences would be removed. Such sins would not likely be repeated, they could not be ignorantly by the same persons, and they probably would not be wilfully, when they had been shown to be so offensive in the sight of God, and when for them such sacrifices had to be made. When a course of sin is arrested a multitude of sins are hidden—not only blotted out, but prevented—sins of the past removed and sins of the future restrained. Guilt removed here, and consequences hereafter.—F. W. B.
Topic: THE SIN OFFERING OF ONE OF THE COMMON PEOPLE (Lev_4:27-35)
The law of the sin offering of ignorance included all persons and positions. The sanctity of the priest did not shield him from its demands and scrutiny. The dignity of the ruler did not hedge him in from its surveillance. The multitude of the congregation did not hinder the action of its claims; and the obscurity of any one of the congregation did not excuse or exempt an offender from its requirements. So soon as the sin was discovered to, or by the offender, expiation according to Divine direction must be promptly and penitently made for them. The sin offering for one of the common people teaches us—
I. That obscurity of social position does not shut men out from the cognizance of the great God. The requirement of an offering from a common person who might inadvertently sin, showed that none were too obscure to be observed by the eye of the Lord. Each member of the congregation of Israel was a creature of God, each had a soul capable of sinning, and needing forgiveness, and each one was recognised by and known unto Him. The actions of all men are not only seen, but their moral quality judged.
II. That obscurity of social position does not shut men out from the government of the great God.
Laws were imposed upon and obedience expected from each and all. The poorest might look at the manifestation of God in the shekinah cloud, and recognise Him as their King.
III. That obscurity of social position does not shut men out from the clemency of the great God.
The offering required from a common person was not so great and costly as that required from a priest or ruler; it was adapted to the humbler circumstances of the offerer. This showed that the great God was not willing that even the poorest among the people should perish, not willing that they should sin on without an offering, and so become reprobates. He restored—though they might have sinned—to His fellowship and friendship. “The Lord is good to all, and His tender mercies are over all His works.” In the nature and extent of the sin offering we see foreshadowed the fact that in the great sin offering of the Lamb of God provision is made for the forgiveness of all. “We have redemption through His blood, even the forgiveness of sins.”—F. W. B.
OUTLINES ON VERSES OF CHAPTER 4
Lev_4:2.—Theme: SIN THROUGH IGNORANCE.
1. The seat of sin. “If a soul,” etc.—body with organs only instruments of soul.
2. The source of sin. “Ignorance”—of God—His love, mercy, grace, etc.
3. The strength of sin. Law, “commandments.”
4. The stain of sin. Deep—requires blood to wash it away.
Temptation in itself not sin; yielding is sin. Ignorance of Israel inexcusable. They had sacred memories, public directions, repeated remindings. The Judge of all the earth will do right with those who have never heard His name; but those who know His will and do it not Shall be beaten with many stripes.—F. W. B.
Lev_4:3.—Theme: SIN IN THE PRIESTHOOD. “If the priest that is anointed do sin.”
I. A HOLY OFFICE DOES NOT ENSURE INFALLIBILITY.
II. Occupants of a holy office are SPECIALLY CALLED TO SANCTITY. “Be ye clean that bear the vessels of the Lord.”
III. Eminently privileged and enlightened, they who minister before God SHOULD BE MOST VIGILANT LEST THEY SIN. To “sin through ignorance” should be impossible.
IV. Sin in God’s priests had to be PURGED BY A GREAT SACRIFICIAL EXPIATION. Expressing—
1. The peculiar magnitude of sin in them.
2. The boundless sufficiency of redemption, even for them.
Lev_4:6. Note: SEVENFOLD PURGING. “Sprinkle of the blood seven times before the Lord.”
The different treatment of the blood is here to be noticed. Whilst in the case of the other sacrifices the priest threw the blood upon the walls of the altar of burnt offering (see Lev_1:5), in the sin offering the high priest is—
1. First, to dip his finger seven times in the blood, and sprinkle it before the Lord.
The finger, according to the rules which obtained during the second temple, was that of the right hand, as the blood was always taken and sprinkled with the right hand. [The right hand is the symbol of strength, as if denoting that the act was done with a resolute purpose to find purifying.—ED.]
2. Seven, being a complete number, is used for the perfect finishing of a work.
Hence, the seven days of creation (Gen_2:2; Gen_2:8); seven branches in the golden candlestick (Exo_25:37; Exo_37:23); seven times the blood was sprinkled on the day of atonement (Lev_16:14); seven times was the oil sprinkled upon the altar when it was consecrated (Lev_8:11); seven days were required for consecrating the priests (Lev_8:35); seven days were necessary for purifying the defiled (Lev_12:2; Num_19:19); seven times Naaman washed in the Jordan (2Ki_5:10-14); seven days Jericho was besieged, and seven priests with seven trumpets blew when the walls fell down (Joshua 6); the Lamb had seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God (Rev_5:6); seven seals are on God’s book (Rev_5:5), etc.—Ellicott’s Commentary.
Lev_4:6.—Note: EXPIATION WROUGHT IN THE GAZE OF HEAVEN. “Before the Lord, before the veil of the sanctuary.”
1. The phrase “BEFORE THE LORD” indicates that the act of expiation was to be performed in the immediate presence of
(1) Him whom the sin had dishonoured;
(2) Him whom the sprinkled blood was to propitiate; and on the very spot where the priest had ministered, and which—
(1) By priestly sin had been desecrated, and
(2) By expiatory blood was to be again sanctified.
This twofold effort of expiation, reconciliation to God, and sanctification of sacred scenes, suggests what the sinner has to secure through the blood of Christ, viz.:—
(a) Jehovah propitiated, so that man may stand unrebuked in His presence.
(b) Defiled scenes reconsecrated, so that God may still dwell in the temple, in the human heart. That must be sanctified, for “ye are the temple of God.”
2. The phrase “BEFORE THE VEIL OF THE SANCTUARY” indicates that the act of expiation was to be performed in the gaze of the angel hosts. That blue “veil” was all overwrought with cherubic and angel forms, typical of the firmament, the heavenly world, crowded with the angelic hosts.
1. For angelic beholders watch and bewail man’s sin.
2. They joy in the presence of God over the sinner’s repentance.
3. They “desire to look into” the wonders of redemption.
4. They “minister unto those who are heirs of salvation.”
Hence—
(a) Having beheld God’s holy place defiled, they watch its re-hallowing, and thus ponder how are justified the ways of God with men.
(b) Having witnessed the withdrawal of God from the defiled scenes (for “your iniquities have separated between you and God, and your sins have hid His face from you,” Isa_59:2), they are eager observers of the renewal of favour and fellowship between God and the expiated soul. “The father ran and fell on his neck and kissed him”; and “the father said to his servants (comp. Psa_103:20-21; Zec_3:4-5), Bring forth the best robe,” etc.
Lev_4:6.—Theme: SEVENFOLD SPRINKLING.
To denote completeness, perfection, to indicate how deeply dyed sin was, and impress the mind that it fully was forgiven: sprinkled “before the Lord” To teach—
(1) That all sin is committed against Him.
(2) That all sin must be forgiven by Him. Atonement and mediation the basis and means of pardon.—F. W. B.
Lev_4:12.—Theme: SIN LOATHED BY GOD. “Even the whole bullock shall he carry forth without the camp,” etc.
If the law reveals sin in man, it is to drive the convicted and condemned sinner to the sacrifice for sin. The law was not given to make men holy, but to prove us sinners. Deluded souls, “blinded” by the deceiver, try to keep the law and thus become righteous: in vain! For “the law makes nothing perfect”; it unveils man’s deformity that he may hide himself in the redeeming merits of Christ.
I. SIN’S HATEFULNESS. “Carry forth without the camp.”
Look at the sin offering, and see there how hateful sin is! See how the perfect Substitute, God’s own beloved One, is cast out.
1. Our sin is repulsive, odious, an offence to God. He cannot bear it in His presence.
2. He in whom sin centres is repelled as loathsome, yes: be it Jesus, our Surety, on whom our sin is laid; or be it man himself, carrying his own unpardoned sins—the sin-bearer is banished!
II. SIN’S ANNIHILATION. “Shall he be burnt.” Nothing remaining.
1. Sin consumed. “Behold the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world.” Those dead “ashes” tell of sin’s annihilation.
2. Sins cancelled. All our bewailing over our sins could never cancel one; if, therefore, they were not all cancelled when Christ “died for our sins” they cannot now be cancelled. “There remaineth no more offering for sin.”
(a) If the sin offering has been sacrificed and accepted, we may joy in the fact of sin for ever expiated.
(b) We may rejoice, even when most convinced of sin, that God asks no penalty beyond the death already borne. [See Addenda, p. 57. Pardon.]
Lev_4:12.—Theme: DISCIPLESHIP FOLLOWING CHRIST TO REPROACH. “The whole bullock shall he carry forth without the camp.”
This act is to be viewed as expressing—
a. The place which the Lord Jesus took for us, as bearing sin.
b. The place into which He was cast, by a world which had rejected Him.
The use which the Apostle, in Hebrews 13, makes of Christ’s having “suffered without the gate” is deeply practical: “Let us go forth, therefore, unto Him, without the camp, bearing His reproach.”
1. The place where He suffered expresses our rejection from earth. Though His death has secured us a city on high, it has forfeited for us a city below.
2. In suffering “without the gate” He set aside Jerusalem as the present centre of Divine operations. There is no such thing now as a consecrated spot on earth.
3. Christ has taken His place as a suffering One, outside the range of this 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,”
I OUTSIDE EVERY RELIGIOUS CAMP.
You must “go forth” out of every “holy city,” every religious system which men set up, to find the rejected Christ.
1. From the gross absurdities of ignorant superstitions.
Christ is not to be found amid the ruins of Jerusalem, amid the so-called sacred scenes and the relics of antiquity. A single ray of revelation shows that we must “go forth” from all such trifles to find communion with a rejected Christ.
2. So, when men set up “a camp,” and rally round a standard on which is emblazoned some dogma of truth, or some imposing institution, when they appeal to some orthodox creed or splendid ritual—it then requires much spiritual discernment for the proper application of the words “let us go forth,” and much spiritual energy and decision to act upon them. Still, they should be discerned and acted upon, for the atmosphere of a camp is destructive of personal communion with a rejected Christ.
3. It is the tendency of our hearts to drop into cold stereotyped forms. These forms may have originated from real visitations of the Spirit. The temptation is to stereotype the form when the spirit and power have departed. This is, in principle, to set up a camp. The Jewish system could boast a Divine origin—its temple, splendid worship, priesthood, sacrifices, etc. Where is the system which could put forth such powerful and lofty pretentions to-day? And yet the command was to “go forth.” It is our proneness to slip away from communion with Christ, and sink into a dead routine.
II. Outside the Camp TO THE LORD JESUS “Unto Him.”
Not glide from one system to another, from one set of opinions to another, from one company of people to another, but from all which merits the appellation of “a camp” to Him who “suffered without the gate.”
1. The Lord Jesus is as thoroughly outside the gate now.
The religious world put Him outside eighteen centuries ago; and the religious world of that day is, in spirit and principle, the religious world of the present moment. The world has covered itself with the cloak of Christianity.
2. If we would walk with a rejected Christ we must be a rejected people.
Our Master “Buffered without the gate,” we cannot reign within the gate. If we walk in His footsteps whither will He lead us? Surely not to the high places of this Godless, Christless world.
“His path, uncheered by earthly smiles,
Led only to the Cross.”
He was a despised Christ, a rejected Christ, a Christ outside the camp.
3. Bearing His reproach, let us go forth unto Him.
Not bask in the sunshine of the world’s favour Let us be faithful to a rejected Lord. While our consciences repose in His blood, let our hearts’ affections entwine themselves around His sacred Person. We ask a bold separateness from the world, a joyous, living attachment to Christ.—Arranged from Notes on Leviticus, by C. H.M.
Lev_4:13.—Theme: HIDDEN SIN.
Sin may be hidden, undetected by the doer; may be concealed from others; but cannot from God. The genesis of sin—(a) begins in secret chambers of heart, (b) proceeds to, exhibits itself in, words and deeds. No sin so secret and subtle but known fully to God. Thought, feeling, intention, are known to Him. Sins of heart need pardon—unfulfilled evil purposes need forgiveness.—F. W. B.
Lev_4:20.—Theme: GOOD NEWS.
I. Of appointment of mediator—“Priest.”
II. Of acceptance of sacrifice—“Atonement.”
III. Of proclamation of pardon. “Shall be forgiven them.”
In the Gospel we have these glad tidings fully and freely proclaimed, and all centred in Christ.—F. W. B.
Lev_4:27.—Theme: COMMON PEOPLE.
I. No one so common as to be overlooked by God.
II. No sin so trivial as to be connived at by God.
Life, then, is real, solemn earnest, even in humblest. Venial as well as mortal sins to be deprecated and avoided.—F. W. B.
Lev_4:20.—Theme: FORGIVEN. “It shall be forgiven them.”
Based on the “atonement.” No forgiveness otherwise. “The priest shall make an atonement for them and it shall be forgiven them.” The terms of forgiveness are fixed: and the order in which forgiveness is gained is determined. Atonement first: then forgiveness.
I. THE CONSCIOUSNESS OF FORGIVENESS: how is it gained?
The mind of the Jewish offerer was set at rest by the presentation of his sin offering. How did he know that the sin for which he brought his sacrifice was forgiven?
Because God had said “It shall be forgiven him.”
1. His peace of heart rested on the testimony of God.
2. His peace of heart rested on the offered and accepted sacrifice.
It was a transaction with a covenant promise. The transaction effected (“atonement made for him”, the promise was believed (“it shall be forgiven him”). Thus—
(a) FAITH in God’s Word and in the Saviour’s atonement imparts the peace and satisfaction of forgiveness to the sinner.
For an offerer of the sin offering not to believe that his sin was forgiven would have reflected on the truthfulness of God who had pledged forgiveness as the issue of atonement. To doubt is to “make God a liar.” We must believe!
(b) Christ’s crucifixion is a fact; as really so as the death of the victim for the sin offering. The blood of Christ is our satisfaction to justice: as the blood of the victim was. What then? Sin is expiated. That fact stands. The believer sees in Christ One who has been judged for his sin; One who made himself responsible for his sin. And, as God sealed His acceptance of that sacrifice by Christ’s resurrection, the sinner’s pardon and justification are truths to be held with the joy of faith.
II. THE REALISATION OF FORGIVENESS: What it ensures?
1. All fear of judgment and wrath is eternally set aside. God “made Him to be sin for us that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him” (2Co_5:21). Our judgment, the wrath due to sin, these were settled, effected, on the accursed tree, between Divine holiness and the Spotless Victim. Justice has no charge to bring against the believer, because it has no charge to bring against Christ. If a charge could be brought against a soul identified with Christ by faith, it would deny the perfectness of Christ’s work on his behalf.
2. Eternal life is inherited: for the death which sin brings is escaped by its falling on the Substitute. The sin is gone, because the life to which it was transferred is gone. There is no other death required. The sinner does not die: for Christ has died his death. It remains to the forgiven and justified soul that he lives: “he that believeth in Me shall never die” (Joh_11:26). The judgment and death of Christ on the Cross were realities; then the righteousness and life of the believer are also realities. Imputed sin—ours laid on Christ—was a reality; imputed righteousness—Christ’s transferred to us—is a reality. The death of Jesus satisfies all the demands made as to human sin, satisfies them for ever. [Comp. Notes on Leviticus, by C. H. M.] [See Addenda, p. 57, Pardon.]
Lev_4:27. Theme: CULPABILITY OF IGNORANCE. “If any one sin,” etc.
The majesty of the law of God was exhibited, and declared, by the fact that it could not be broken inadvertently with impunity; and the mercy of God was displayed in that, for any transgression, an offering would not only be accepted, but was commanded. It is an eternal law that the moral quality of an action lies in the intention Sins, committed through ignorance, may be fraught with disastrous consequences, as in the case of those who rejected and crucified Christ “through ignorance,” for whom He prayed on the Cross saying “they know not what they do.” Their ignorance was not wholly excusable; they shut their eyes to evidences of the Messiahship; through pride and prejudice they regarded Him as an imposter and usurper, and had, as Jesus said, “no cloak for their sins.”
Saul of Tarsus, though “blameless, as touching the righteousness which is in the law,” yet his legal blamelessness did not exempt him from errors of ignorance, nor did his scrupulous conscientiousness prevent him from doing wrong; for he persecuted the Christians, and thought he was doing God service. The Pharisee in the Temple thought himself better than other men, and seemed unaware of the heinous pride and wicked self righteousness that prevented him going down to his house justified as did the poor publican. Even conscience needs educating and enlightening; it has shared the fate of all the other faculties, and is liable to seriously mislead us.
We may commit sins of ignorance.—
I. Through mere want of thought; through absolute neglect.
II. Through lack of knowledge that might have been acquired.
III. Through misapprehension of information, or direction given.
IV. Through defectiveness of memory, not retentive or ready at the needed juncture to prevent error.
V. Through not heeding protests and obstacles which God may have paced in the “way, and presented against wrong-doing.
The sacrifice provided for sins of ignorance shows that God does not connive at the errors and mistakes of any one; and, that for inadvertent wrong-doing, as well as for highhanded sins, pardon must be sought. We need to pray to be forgiven for unknown, as well as for known sins; and to be cleansed from secret faults, as well as to be kept back from presumptuous sins.—F. W. B.
Lev_4:27—Theme: SCRIPTURE THE ANTIDOTE FOR IGNORANCE
“Sin through ignorance, while he doeth somewhat against any of the commandments of the Lord.”
Honest-hearted reception of the Word of God can alone preserve us from ignorance.
I. ACQUAINTANCE WITH SCRIPTURE: This alone is the effectual remedy for the darkness of ignorance.
I. Is not the light of Scripture hidden today, other lights being substituted instead?
(1) Think of the manner in which ceremonial rites (many of them mere inventions of man), ministered, too, by unholy hands, have supplanted the true and saving ministrations of the Gospel of the grace of God.
(2) Think of multitudes while yet in their sins, because unsanctified by faith in Jesus, being taught falsely to say to the great Shepherd of Israel, “We are Thy people, and the sheep of Thy pasture.”
(3) Think how many, uncommissioned by God, unacquainted with His truth, untaught by His Spirit, have usurped the place of ministers of Christ, and are so owned and honoured.
(4) Think how professed discipleship of Christ has degenerated into seeking unholy place and gain, coveting the splendour of Solomon rather than the reproach of Jesus.
2. Is there not a natural tendency in the heart of man to how to perverted and falsely assumed authority?
“The prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests bear rule by their means, and Thy people love to have it so.”
(1) All such authority, neither based upon nor guided by truth, can only lead into the darkness to which itself belongs. What wonder, then, that ignorance should settle upon that soul which has made itself the slave of such authority! What wonder if it should welcome falsehood, and fight against truth, and congratulate itself most when furthest from the principles of Christ!
(2) Individuals, too. as well as collective bodies, may claim an authority which God has never given. And not unfrequently fear, or affection, or self interest, or a disposition to lean upon others, causes it to be gladly recognised. But such authority, seeing that it is not grounded upon truth, that it directs not to the Scriptures alone, can only lead towards, if not into, darkness.
II. CLOSE ADHERENCE TO SCRIPTURE: This alone will save us from the false leadings and lights of our age.
1. Is that which we hear true or false? Is it or is not the Word of God? Such are the great questions we have to ask ourselves now.
2. The faithful use of the Scripture will expose many an error, detect many a sin of ignorance, and show us much that we have not sufficient grace to attain.
3. Instruction and exhortation of the Scriptures is employed by the Lord to free His people from the sins of ignorance and their disastrous consequences.
III. THE STEADY LIGHT OF GOD’S WORD: This is appointed to shine on in the darkness, until the day dawn.
The energies of Satan, and the impelling of evil in us, are active to resist the Scriptures and quench the sacred light of truth.
1. The delusions of Satan and of the human heart struggle to increase darkness and confirm error. And we cannot wonder that they prosper in their plans during a period marked by our Lord Himself as one wherein “iniquity shall abound.”
2. Yet the greater the darkness the more precious is any light that is available in our midst. Amid all the dark and stifling scenes through which the fierce passions of men, under Satan, are hurrying alike the Church and the world, the Word of God remains unchanged and unchangeable; the only one steady light.
3. Happy they who stand most apart from the tumults, and cleave most closely to the Scriptures, and most meditate therein.
4. If, as the history of Christianity peculiarly shows, the perpetual effort of Satan be to hide, veil or distort the light of Scripture, let our effort be to unveil it, and to give stead direction to its beams. He will not have lived in vain who shall have caused one ray of light from the Word of God to rest steadily on a heart that was dark to it before.
IV. SCRIPTURE LIGHT WILL SURELY MANIFEST SINS OF IGNORANCE: how, then, can we have courage to use, or to approach a light, so certain to reveal such sins both in ourselves and others, if there were no Sin Offering?
What hope could we have unless we were able to say that the whole family of faith are protected for ever under its efficacy? We have not again to offer it: it has been offered, once and for ever offered, every ceremony fulfilled, every ordinance obeyed.
Let us use it, not to nurture ignorance, listlessness and slumber, but to encourage ourselves to cleave to and maintain the light of revealed truth, which, however beset by evil, however much it may be for the time shrouded, shall never have its essential brightness marred by one element of darkness, on to the hour when it mingles with the light of the eternal day.—Developed from Thoughts on Leviticus, by B. W. Newton, Vol. I.—[See Addenda, p. 58, Scripture Light.]
ILLUSTRATIVE ADDENDA TO CHAPTER 4
IGNORANCE. Classical quotations:—
Ignoratione rerum bonarum et malarum maxime hominum vita vexatur.—Cicero.
[Through ignorance of what is good and bad the life of man is greatly perplexed.]
O miseras hominum mentes! Oh pectora cæca!—Lucretius.
[How wretched are the minds of men, how blind their understandings.]
Quantum animis errois inest!—Ovid.
[What error there is in human minds!]
IGNORANCE versus KNOWLEDGE
“When you know a thing, to hold that you know it; and when you do not know a thing, to allow that you do not know it—this is knowledge.”—Confucius: Analects.
“Wisdom is humble that he knows no more.”
—Cowper: The Task.
“The first step to self-knowledge is self-distrust. Nor can we attain to any kind of knowledge except by a like process.”—J. C. and A. W. Hare: Guesses at Truth.
“All things I thought I knew; but now confess
The more I know I know, I know the less.”
—Owen.
“Ignorance is the curse of God;
Knowledge the wing wherewith we fly to heaven.”—Henry VI.
“By knowledge we do learn ourselves to know,
And what to man, and what to God we owe.”—Spencer: Tears of the Muses.
“Conviction of ignorance is the door-step to the temple of wisdom.”—Spurgeon.
PERILS OF IGNORANCE
Modern science has shown that the seeds of epidemic and miasmatic diseases are generated and exert their activity during the night, and in places unvisited by the sun’s beams—a true image of the evils developed from unillumined ignorance.
“So long as thou art ignorant be not ashamed to learn. Ignorance is the greatest of all infirmities, and when justified the greatest of all follies.”—Isaak Walton.
“Ignorance is the night of the mind, but a night without moon or star.”—Confucius.
“Ignorance, when voluntary, is criminal, and that man may be properly charged with that evil which he neglected or refused to learn how to prevent.”—Johnson.
EXPLANATION OF MAN’S IGNORANCE
“Ignorance of things very near to us, and in which we are nearly concerned, may be from two causes:
i. From want of Light. Nothing can be perceived in the dark. If you are in a dark room, though it be richly adorned and furnished, all is lost to you. If you stand in a dark night on the top of a hill that commands a fine prospect, still you are able to see no more than if you were in a valley. Though you were in a dangerous place, with pitfalls, precipices, thieves and murderers all around you, still you might imagine yourself in safety, if you had no light with you.
ii. It may be from some ignorance or obstruction between you and the object. Thus, your dearest friend or greatest enemy might be within a few yards of you, and you know nothing of it, if there were a wall between you.
These comparisons may in some measure represent our state by nature. God is near: “in Him we live and move and have our being! Eternity is near; we stand upon the brink of it. Death is near; advancing towards us with hasty strides. The truths of God’s Word are most certain in themselves, and of the utmost consequence to us, but we perceive none of these things, we are not affected by them, because our understandings are dark, and because thick walls of ignorance, prejudice and unbelief stand before the eyes of our minds, and keep them from our view.”
PARDON
“I believe in the forgiveness of sins”—The article of the creed which brought peace to Luther’s troubled mind when seeking the way of salvation. “Oh my sins! my sins!” was his cry, almost of despair; from which, however, he was greatly relieved by the good counsel and comforting advice of Staupitz. But the work was not yet finished. One day all his fears and terrors bad returned, when an old monk entered his cell, and Luther opened his heart to him. The venerable old man was unable to follow his soul in all its doubts as Staupitz had done, but he knew his creed, and found much consolation in it for his own heart; so he repeated to Luther the cheering article, “I believe in the forgiveness of sins.”
These simple words, pronounced with much sincerity in the decisive moment, diffused great consolation in Luther’s mind. From that instant light sprang up in his rejoicing heart.
“I feel more sure than ever that the right thing is to take each sin the moment the conscience feels it, to the blood of Jesus, and there, having once purged it, to remember it no more. I don’t think of one scriptural example of a sin once forgiven ever being charged upon the conscience again; and I suppose the yearly sins were never expected to be again brought to mind, after the scapegoat had borne them into the land of forgetfulness. Oh for grace to plunge into the ocean of Divine forgiveness.”—A L. Newton.
SCRIPTURE LIGHT
At a missionary meeting in Mangaia, after the whole Bible had been received in their own language, an aged disciple rose up to exhort the people to read the whole Bible through. Lifting his own new Bible before the congregation, he exclaimed, “My brothers and sisters, this is my resolve: the dust shall never cover my new Bible, the moths shall never eat it, the mildew shall never got it! my light, my joy!”
What ignorance of the Bible existed in Europe before printing was introduced! stephanus relates of a certain doctor of Sorbonne, who, speaking of the Reformers, expressed his surprise at their mode of reasoning by exclaiming, “I wonder why these youths are constantly quoting the New Testament. I was more than 50 years old before I knew anything of a New Testament.” And Albert, Archbishop and Elector of Mentz, in the year 1530, accidentally meeting with a Bible, opened it, and having read some pages of it, observed, “I do not indeed know what this book is, but this I see, that everything in it is against us.” Even Carolastadius, who was afterwards one of the Reformers, acknowledged that he had never begun to read the Bible till eight years after he had taken his highest degree in divinity.
Dr. Samuel Johnson, distinguished as writer on morals, and whose writings have seldom been excelled in energy of thought and beauty of expression, said to a young gentleman who visited him on his dying bed “young man, attend to the voice of one who has possessed a certain degree of fame in the world, and will shortly appear before his Maker: read the Bible every day of your life”
Salmasius, one of the most consummate scholars of his time, saw cause to exclaim bitterly against himself: “O, I have lost a world of time—time, the most precious thing in the world! Had I but one year more, it should be spent in perusing David’s Psalms and Paul’s Epistles. O sirs”—addressing those about him—“mind the world lees and God more!”
The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary (gen. ed. Joseph S. Exell; Funk & Wagnalls, c. 1892) — public domain (pre-1929). A full-Bible homiletical/sermon-outline anthology covering 65 of 66 books (2 John is absent from the source module). Text from a community e-Sword module.
J. R. Dummelow 1909 · Public Domain The Sin Offering (4:1-5:13) and the Guilt Offering (5:14-6:7)
The Sin Offering (4:1-5:13) and the Guilt Offering (5:14-6:7)
These are later and specialised forms of the Burnt Offering. They presuppose a state of matters in which the good relationship between God and the offerer has been interrupted by sin, and the purpose of both is to make atonement for, or cover, the sin of the guilty person or persons. The difference between the two seems to be that while the sin offering is provided for those offences which could not be undone or repaired, the guilt offering is provided for those cases where reparation and restitution are possible, a fine or penalty being imposed on the transgressor in the latter instance (Lev_5:16; Lev_6:4-5). The ritual of the two sacrifices is different. While the victim of the guilt offering is usually a ram (Lev_5:15) and sometimes a he-lamb (Num_15:24), the victim of the sin offering varies according to the rank of the offender. For the high priest it is a young bullock (Lev_4:3), for the congregation the same (Lev_4:14) or a he-goat (Num_15:24), for a ruler a he-goat (Lev_4:23), and for an ordinary person a she-goat (Lev_4:28), a ewe-lamb (Lev_4:32), a pigeon (Lev_5:7), or a meal offering (Lev_5:11). The important feature of the sin offering is the manipulation of the blood. Part of it is applied to the horns of the altar of incense and the rest poured out at the base of the altar of burnt offering. But when the sin offering is on behalf of the high priest or congregation, part of the blood is also carried into the tent and sprinkled seven times before the veil of the sanctuary (Lev_4:5-6, Lev_4:16-17). On the great Day of Atonement the sprinkling takes place within the veil, on or before the mercy seat (Lev_16:14 : see notes on that chapter).
Read full note →
2. Through ignorance] RV 'unwittingly.' The word applies to sins not only of ignorance but also of weakness and rashness. It must, however, be observed that the Levitical law provides no sacrifice for deliberate or presumptuous sins, sins committed 'with a high hand' (Num_15:30, cp. Heb_10:26).
3. The priest that is anointed] i.e. the high priest: see on Exo_29:21. According to the sin of the people] RV 'so as to bring guilt on the people.'
Horns] see on Exo_27:2. Altar of sweet incense] see on Exo_30:1-10.
15. Elders of the congregation] The representatives of the people.
26. The flesh of the sin offering for a ruler or ordinary person is eaten by the priests (Lev_6:26), who, however, must not eat their own sin offering nor that of the congregation which is to be entirely burned (Lev_4:11-12, Lev_4:21; Lev_6:30).
35. According to] RV 'upon': see on Lev_3:5.
J. R. Dummelow, A Commentary on the Holy Bible (Macmillan, 1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Arno C. Gaebelein 1922 · Public Domain 4. The Sin Offering
4. The Sin Offering
CHAPTERS 4-5:13
Read full note →
1. The second utterance of Jehovah (Lev 4:1-2)
2. The sin offering for the high priest (Lev 4:3-12)
3. The sin offering for the congregation (Lev 4:13-21)
4. The sin offering for the ruler (Lev 4:22-26)
5. The sin offering for one of the people (Lev 4:27-35)
6. The sin offering for special inadvertent offences (Lev 5:1-13)
The burnt offering, meal offering, and peace offering typified the absolute and blessed perfection and devotion of Christ, and are therefore the sweet savour offerings. The remaining offerings, the sin and trespass offerings, are not called a sweet savour. In these offerings we see Christ typified as the bearer of the sins of His people. And as such He had to take upon Himself the judgment of God. This, no doubt, is the reason why these two offerings are not called a “sweet savour”; for God does not delight in judgment. Judgment is His strange work (Isa 28:21). Note also that the preceding three offerings were voluntary, the two remaining were compulsory. Forgiveness had to be sought and secured by them. In the actual approach of man to God, the sin offering always occupied the first place; the burnt offering followed. As we have seen the burnt offering is mentioned first, because it tells out the perfection and infinite worth of Him in whom, according to the eternal purpose of God, we are accepted. And now as accepted in the Beloved One, made nigh and brought into fellowship with God, the need which we have on account of our sins is fully met in the work of Christ, who bore our sins in His own body on the tree.
It is impossible to follow all the manifold types in connection with the sin offering for the priest, the ruler, and the congregation. The details of it demand a very careful and minute study which we cannot attempt here. We can treat the sin offering only in a general way. The bullock is the sin offering for the anointed priest and for the whole congregation (verses 4 and 13). Like in the burnt offering, the offerers had to identify themselves with the offering by laying their hands on the head of the bullock. But this difference must be noticed: in the burnt offering the believer is seen identified with Christ and accepted in Christ; in the sin offering Christ became identified with us in our sin. Sin was transferred to Him as our substitute. “The Lord hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all.” The blood then was sprinkled seven times before the Lord. Some of it was put upon the horns of the altar of incense; while the blood of the bullock, the greater portion of it, was poured at the bottom of the altar of burnt offering.
The skin of the bullock with the whole bullock was burned without the camp. The Hebrew word for “burned” is different from that used in the burnt offering. The word used in connection with the sin offering is “saraph”; it speaks of the burning of judgment. The commentary to this is Heb 13:11-12. “The bodies of those beasts whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high priest for sin, are burned without the camp. Wherefore Jesus also, that He might sanctify the people with His own blood suffered without the gate.” With the case of a ruler having sinned the offering was a kid of the goats, a male; and in the case of any one of the common people having sinned through ignorance still other instructions are given.
“It is evident, therefore, that there is a graduated scale in these different instances. Why so? Because of a most solemn principle. The gravity of sin depends on the position of him that sins. It is not so, that man is prone to adjust matters, though his conscience feels its rectitude. How often man would screen the offense of him that is great, if he could! The same might be hard on the poor, friendless, and despised. The life of such at any rate seems of no great account. It is not so with God, nor ought it to be in the minds and estimate of His saints. And another witness of this in the last instance is not without interest for our souls. Only to one of the common people is allowed the alternative of a female lamb instead of a kid (verses 32-35), the offering of which for his sin is reiterated with the same minute care.
“When the anointed priest sinned, the result was precisely such as if the whole congregation sinned. When a prince sinned, it was a different matter, though a stronger case for sacrifice than where it was a private man. In short, therefore, the relationship of the person that was guilty determines the relative extent of the sin, though none was obscure enough for his sin to be passed by. Our blessed Lord on the other hand meets each and all, Himself the true anointed priest, the only One who needs no offering--who could therefore be the offering for all, for any. This is the general truth, at least on the surface of the sin offering. The offence that was brought forward, confessed, and judged becomes the substitute in this case for him that was guilty; and the blood was put in the care of individuals on the brazen altar, as it only needed to be dealt with in the place of sinful man’s access to God.” (W. Kelly, Introduction to the Pentateuch.)
In studying the interesting details of the sin offerings it must be remembered that all is the “shadow of good things to come,” and that the good things which have come, and which we now enjoy, as believers in Christ, are far higher and more blessed than the types could reveal.
Arno C. Gaebelein, The Annotated Bible (1913–1922) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Paul E. Kretzmann 1924 · Public Domain For a Priest
For a Priest
v. 1. And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,
Read full note →
v. 2. Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, if a soul shall sin through ignorance, in an unintentional offense, against any of the commandments of the Lord concerning things which ought not to be done, and shall do against any of them; (the sacrifices enumerated till now were free-will offerings and could be brought even when there was no specific occasion, whenever the heart of the individual prompted him to seek the Lord’s fellowship in sacrifice, prayer, and sacrificial meal; but there were times and occasions when certain sacrifices had to be made, as when an unintentional trespass had occurred. This included all sins of weakness, not only such as had been committed in ignorance, haste, and negligence, but also such in which the weakness of the flesh had overcome the good intention of the believer);
v. 3. if the priest that is anointed do sin according to the sin of the people, the reference here very probably being to the high priest, who was in a special sense the anointed of the Lord among the priests; if this high priest in his official capacity, as the representative of the people, should become guilty of such an unintentional sin, then let him bring for his sin which he hath sinned a young bullock without blemish unto the Lord for a sin-offering, the most conspicuous sacrificial animal because of the priest’s high position.
v. 4. And he shall bring the bullock unto the door of the Tabernacle of the Congregation, where all the sacrificial animals were officially delivered, before the Lord, and shall lay his hand up on the bullock’s head, in the gesture signifying the transmission of his own guilt upon the substitute victim, and kill the bullock before the Lord, the animal taking the place of the guilty man.
v. 5. And the priest that is anointed, the high priest, shall take of the bullock’s blood, and bring it to the Tabernacle of the Congregation, into the Holy Place;
v. 6. and the priest shall dip his finger in the blood, and sprinkle of the blood seven times before the Lord, before the veil of the Sanctuary, the heavy curtain that screened the ark in the Most Holy Place.
v. 7. And the priest shall put some of the blood up on the horns of the altar of sweet incense before the Lord, which is in the Tabernacle of the Congregation, the horns of the golden altar being used only in this case and when the entire nation was concerned, since the offense was considered especially grave; and shall pour all the blood of the bullock, the great bulk of it, but little haying been used for the ceremonies of the Holy Place, at the bottom of the altar of the burnt offering, which is at the door of the Tabernacle of the Congregation, out in the open court. The sacrificial blood, which was to expiate the sin, was thus placed very prominently before the eyes of the Lord, in order to plead for His forgiveness.
v. 8. And he shall take off from it all the fat of the bullock for the sin-offering; the fat that covereth the inwards, the large net of adipose membrane in the abdominal cavity, and all the fat that is up on the inwards, the loose fat along the intestines,
v. 9. and the two kidneys, and the fat that is up on them, which is by the flanks, attached to the muscles of the upper pelvic region, and the caul above the liver, the small net of adipose membrane which extends from the liver to the kidneys, with the kidneys, it shall he take away,
v. 10. as it was taken off from the bullock of the sacrifice of peace-offerings, Lev 3:3-4;and the priest shall burn them upon the altar of the burnt offering.
v. 11. And the skin of the bullock, and all his flesh, with his head, and with his legs, and his inwards, and his dung,
v. 12. even the whole bullock shall he carry forth without the camp unto a clean place, where the ashes are poured out when they were carried out from time to time out of the court of the Tabernacle,and burn him on the wood with fire; where the ashes are poured out shall he be burned. This complete removal of the sacrifice of sin-offering signified that the sin for which it was brought was now put away entirely, and the whole ceremony was intended to express the fact that the fellowship with God, which had been disturbed or severed by the sinful act, was now once more restored to its original integrity.
Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
unfoldingWord translationNotes 2017 · CC BY-SA 4.0 Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying, "Tell the people of…
Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying, "Tell the people of Israel, 'When anyone sins
This has a quotation within a quotation. A direct quotation can be stated as an indirect quotation. AT: "Yahweh spoke to Moses and told him to tell the people of Israel this: 'When anyone sins" (See:Quotes Within Quotes and Direct and Indirect Quotations)
Read full note →
that Yahweh has commanded not to be done
This can be stated in active form. AT: "that Yahweh has commanded the people not to do" (See: Active or Passive)
if he does something that is prohibited
This can be translated in active form. AT: "if he does something that Yahweh does not allow" (See: Active or Passive)
the following must be done
This can be translated in active form. AT: "he must do the following" (See: Active or Passive)
so as to bring guilt on the people
The abstract noun "guilt" can be stated as an adjective. AT: "so as to cause the people to be guilty" (See: Abstract Nouns)
translationWords
Yahweh
Moses
people group
Israel
sin
command
high priest
guilt
cow
blemish
sin offering
unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.
Tyndale Open Study Notes 2022 · CC BY-SA 4.0 4:1–5:13 The sin offering (Hebrew khatta’t, from the root…
4:1–5:13 The sin offering (Hebrew khatta’t, from the root khata’, meaning “to lack, fall short, miss, fail”) was for specific unintentional violations of God’s commands (see also Num 15:22-29), intended to repair a loss or remedy a failure (e.g., Lev 5:1-4). Although we all sin, God will forgive us if we confess it (Gal 6:1; 1 Jn 1:8-9). But we are warned against sinning “brazenly” or “deliberately” (Num 15:30-31; Heb 6:4-6; 10:26-29).
Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.