“ ‘If anyone sins, in that he hears a public adjuration to testify, he being a witness, whether he has seen or known, if he doesn’t report it, then he shall bear his iniquity.
Parallel Translations
-
“ ‘If anyone sins, in that he hears a public adjuration to testify, he being a witness, whether he has seen or known, if he doesn’t report it, then he shall bear his iniquity.
-
And if a soul sin, and hear the voice of swearing, and is a witness, whether he hath seen or known of it; if he do not utter it, then he shall bear his iniquity.
-
And if any one sin, in that he heareth the voice of adjuration, he being a witness, whether he hath seen or known, if he do not utter it, then he shall bear his iniquity;
Examined in Scripture Analysis
Commandments (1)
The laws of the Torah, each cited and shown as a primary source.
Cross-references (21)
Passages linked to Leviticus 5:1 in the Treasury of Scripture Knowledge, ordered by reader-vote popularity; verse text shown in World English Bible.
- Leviticus 5:17 “If anyone sins, doing any of the things which Yahweh has commanded not to be done, though he didn’t know it, he is still guilty, and shall bear his iniquity.
- Proverbs 29:24 Whoever is an accomplice of a thief is an enemy of his own soul. He takes an oath, but dares not testify.
- Leviticus 7:18 If any of the meat of the sacrifice of his peace offerings is eaten on the third day, it will not be accepted, and it shall not be credited to him who offers it. It will be an abomination, and the soul who eats any of it will bear his iniquity.
- Leviticus 19:8 but everyone who eats it shall bear his iniquity, because he has profaned the holy thing of Yahweh, and that soul shall be cut off from his people.
- Matthew 26:63 But Jesus held his peace. The high priest answered him, “I adjure you by the living God, that you tell us whether you are the Christ, the Son of God.”
- Leviticus 17:16 But if he doesn’t wash them, or bathe his flesh, then he shall bear his iniquity.’ ”
- Leviticus 20:17 “ ‘If a man takes his sister—his father’s daughter, or his mother’s daughter—and sees her nakedness, and she sees his nakedness, it is a shameful thing. They shall be cut off in the sight of the children of their people. He has uncovered his sister’s nakedness. He shall bear his iniquity.
- Numbers 9:13 But the man who is clean, and is not on a journey, and fails to keep the Passover, that soul shall be cut off from his people. Because he didn’t offer the offering of Yahweh in its appointed season, that man shall bear his sin.
- 1 Kings 8:31 “If a man sins against his neighbor, and an oath is laid on him to cause him to swear, and he comes and swears before your altar in this house;
- Isaiah 53:11 After the suffering of his soul, he will see the light and be satisfied. My righteous servant will justify many by the knowledge of himself; and he will bear their iniquities.
- Ezekiel 18:4 Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine. The soul who sins, he shall die.
- Exodus 22:11 the oath of Yahweh shall be between them both, he has not put his hand on his neighbor’s goods; and its owner shall accept it, and he shall not make restitution.
- Leviticus 4:2 “Speak to the children of Israel, saying, ‘If anyone sins unintentionally, in any of the things which Yahweh has commanded not to be done, and does any one of them,
- Leviticus 5:15 “If anyone commits a trespass, and sins unwittingly regarding Yahweh’s holy things, then he shall bring his trespass offering to Yahweh: a ram without defect from the flock, according to your estimation in silver by shekels, according to the shekel of the sanctuary, for a trespass offering.
- Judges 17:2 He said to his mother, “The eleven hundred pieces of silver that were taken from you, about which you uttered a curse, and also spoke it in my ears—behold, the silver is with me. I took it.” His mother said, “May Yahweh bless my son!”
- 1 Kings 22:16 The king said to him, “How many times do I have to adjure you that you speak to me nothing but the truth in Yahweh’s name?”
- 2 Chronicles 18:15 The king said to him, “How many times shall I adjure you that you speak to me nothing but the truth in Yahweh’s name?”
- Psalms 38:4 For my iniquities have gone over my head. As a heavy burden, they are too heavy for me.
- Proverbs 30:9 lest I be full, deny you, and say, ‘Who is Yahweh?’ or lest I be poor, and steal, and so dishonor the name of my God.
- Ezekiel 18:20 The soul who sins, he shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be on him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be on him.
- 1 Peter 2:24 He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we, having died to sins, might live to righteousness. You were healed by his wounds.
Cross-references from openbible.info (CC BY 4.0)
Explain this verse (21 sources)
Historical commentary, presented as a primary source — not an endorsement.
Private notes
Saved on this device only — never synced or sent anywhere.
Geneva Bible translators 1599 · Public Domain Hebrew, a soul.
Hebrew, a soul.
Whereby it is commanded to bear witness to the truth, and disclose the iniquity of the ungodly.
Read full note →
Or, if the judge hath taken an oath of any other.
Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain.
John Trapp 1656 · Public Domain Lev 5:1 And if a soul sin, and hear…
Lev 5:1 And if a soul sin, and hear the voice of swearing, and [is] a witness, whether he hath seen or known [of it]; if he do not utter [it], then he shall bear his iniquity.
Ver. 1. He shall bear his iniquity,] i.e., He shall suffer for his sinful silence; because he could, but would not, help the truth in necessity, but stand as if he were gagged by Satan, - possessed with a dumb devil.
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 Poole 1685 · Public Domain And hear; and for that is, as that particle…
And hear; and for that is, as that particle is often used, as Gen 13:15; 1Ch 21:12, compared with 2Sa 24:13; for this declares in particular what the sin was. The voice of swearing; either,
1. Of adjuration upon oath, when the judge adjures a witness to speak the whole truth; of which see Mat 26:63. But this seems too much to narrow the sense; and this and the other laws, both before and after it, speak of private sins committed through ignorance. Or,
Read full note →
2. Of false swearing before a judge. But that is expressly forbidden, Lev 6:3. Or rather,
3. Of cursing, or blasphemy, or execration, as the word commonly signifies; and that either,
1. Against one’s neighbour, as 2Sa 16:7; or,
2. Against God, as Lev 24:10,11; which may seem to be principally intended here, because the crime here spoken of is of so high a nature, that he who heard it was obliged to reveal it, and prosecute the guilty. And though God be not here mentioned, yet the general word is here to be understood of the most famous particular, as it is frequently in all authors, of which there are many instances.
Whether he hath seen; being present when it was said.
Or known, by sufficient information from others. He shall bear his iniquity, i.e. the punishment of it, as that word is oft used, as Gen 19:15; Num 18:1. See of this phrase Lev 17:16; 20:20; Isa 53:11.
Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Matthew Henry 1710 · Public Domain I. The offences here supposed are, 1. A man's…
I. The offences here supposed are, 1. A man's concealing the truth when he was sworn as a witness to speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Judges among the Jews had power to adjure not only the witnesses, as with us, but the person suspected (contrary to a rule of our law, that no man is bound to accuse himself), as appears by the high priest adjuring our Saviour, who thereupon answered, though before he stood silent, Mat 26:63, Mat 26:64. Now (Lev 5:1), If a soul sin (that is, a person, for the soul is the man), if he hear the voice of swearing (that is, if he be adjured to testify what he knows, by an oath of the Lord upon him, Kg1 8:31), if in such a case, for fear of offending one that either has been his friend or may be his enemy, he refuses to give evidence, or gives it but in part, he shall bear his iniquity. And that is a heavy burden, which, if some course be not taken to get it removed, will sink a man to the lowest hell. He that heareth cursing (that is, that is thus adjured) and betrayeth it not (that is, stifles his evidence, and does not utter it), he is a partner with the sinner, and hateth his own soul; see Pro 29:24. Let all that are called out at any time to bear testimony think of this law, and be free and open in their evidence, and take heed of prevaricating. An oath of the Lord is a sacred thing, and not to be dallied with. 2. A man's touching any thing that was ceremonially unclean, Lev 5:2, Lev 5:3. If a man, polluted by such touch, came into the sanctuary inconsiderately, or if he neglected to wash himself according to the law, then he was to look upon himself as under guilt, and must bring his offering. Though his touching the unclean thing contracted only a ceremonial defilement, yet his neglect to wash himself according to the law was such an instance either of carelessness or contempt as contracted a moral guilt. If at first it be hidden from him, yet when he knows it he shall be guilty. Note, As soon as ever God by his Spirit convinces our consciences of any sin or duty we must immediately set in with the conviction, and prosecute it, as those that are not ashamed to own our former mistake. 3. Rash swearing. If a man binds himself by an oath that he will do or not do such a thing, and the performance of his oath afterwards proves either unlawful or impracticable, by which he is discharged from the obligation, yet he must bring an offering to atone for his fully in swearing so rashly, as David that he would kill Nabal. And then it was that he must say before the angel that it was an error, Ecc 5:6. He shall be guilty in one of these (Lev 5:4), guilty if he do not perform his oath, and yet, if the matter of it were evil, guilty if he do. Such wretched dilemmas as these do some men bring themselves into by their own rashness and folly; go which way they will their consciences are wounded, sin stares them in the face, so sadly are they snared in the words of their mouth. A more sad dilemma this is than that of the lepers, "If we sit still, we die; if we stir, we die." Wisdom and watchfulness beforehand would prevent these straits.
II. Now in these cases, 1. The offender must confess his sin and bring his offering (Lev 5:5, Lev 5:6); and the offering was not accepted unless it was accompanied with a penitential confession and a humble prayer for pardon. Observe, The confession must be particular, that he hath sinned in that thing; such was David's confession (Psa 51:4), I have done this evil; and Achan's (Jos 7:20), Thus and thus have I done. Deceit lies in generals; many will own in general they have sinned, for that all must own, so that it is not any particular reproach to them; but that they have sinned in this thing they stand too much upon their honour to acknowledge: but the way to be well assured of pardon, and to be well armed against sin for the future, is to be particular in our penitent confessions. 2. The priest must make atonement for him. As the atonement was not accepted without his repentance, so his repentance would not justify him without the atonement. Thus, in our reconciliation to God, Christ's part and ours are both needful.
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 if a soul sin,.... The soul is put…
And if a soul sin,.... The soul is put for the person, and is particularly mentioned, as Ben Melech says, because possessed of will and desire:
and hear the voice of swearing; or cursing, or adjuration; not of profane swearing, and taking the name of God in vain, but either of false swearing, or perjury, as when a man hears another swear to a thing which he knows is false; or else of adjuration, either the voice of a magistrate or of a neighbour adjuring another, calling upon him with an oath to bear testimony in such a case; this is what the Jews (r) call the oath of testimony or witness, and which they say (s) is binding in whatsoever language it is heard:
Read full note →
and is a witness; is able to bear witness to the thing he is adjured about:
whether he hath seen or known of it; what he has seen with his eyes, or knows by any means: of such a case, the Jews observe (t), that there may be seeing without knowing, or knowing without seeing, and in either case a man ought to bear witness:
if he do not utter it; tell the truth, declare what he has seen or known:
then he shall bear his iniquity; he shall be charged with sin, and be obliged to acknowledge his offence, and bring a trespass offering for it: it is said (u), that the witnesses are not guilty of the oath of the testimony, but in these ten cases; if they are required; if the testimony is concerning goods; if the goods are movable; if he that requires binds himself to pay for their testimony only, in case they bear witness; if they refuse after required; if they refuse in the sanhedrim; if the adjuration or oath is made there by the name of God, or his titles; if knowledge of the testimony goes before the oath; if he particularizes his witnesses in the time of the oath, or at the time of the requirement; and if the oath is in a language they understood.
(r) Misn. Sotah, c. 7. 1. (s) Maimon. & Bartenora in ib. T. Bab. Sotah, fol. 33. 1. (t) T. Bab. Shebuot, fol. 33. 2. & 34. 1. (u) Maimon. Hilchot, Shebuot, c. 9. sect. 3.
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 trespass-offerings. Both this and the sin- offering…
Directions concerning trespass-offerings. Both this and the sin- offering were intended to make atonement for sin, but the former was more general: The latter was to be offered only in some particular cases. If a man sinned, By hearing and concealing blasphemy, ver. 1. By touching an unclean thing, ver. 2, 3.By swearing, ver. 4. He was to offer a lamb or kid, ver. 5, 6. Or two young pigeons, ver. 7-10. Or fine flour, ver. 11-13. Or a ram, if he had embezzled holy things, ver. 14-19.
And hear - And for that is, as that particle is often used. For this declares in particular what the sin was. Or, namely, that of cursing, or blasphemy, or execration, as the word commonly signifies, and that either against one's neighbour, or against God. This may seem to be principally intended here, because the crime spoken of is of so high a nature, that he who heard it, was obliged to reveal it, and prosecute the guilty. He hath seen - Been present when it was said. Or known - By sufficient information from others. His iniquity - That is, the punishment of it; so that word is oft used, as Gen. xix, 15, Num. xviii, 1.
John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.
Adam Clarke 1810 · Public Domain Concerning witnesses who, being adjured, refuse to tell the
CHAPTER V
Concerning witnesses who, being adjured, refuse to tell the
Read full note →
truth, 1.
Of those who contract defilement by touching unclean things
or persons, 2, 3.
Of those who bind themselves by vows or oaths, and do not
fulfil them, 4, 5.
The trespass-offering prescribed in such cases, a lamb or a
kid, 6;
a turtle-dove or two young pigeons, 7-10;
or an ephah of fine flour with oil and frankincense, 11-13.
Other laws relative to trespasses, through ignorance in holy
things, 14-16.
Of trespasses in things unknown, 17-19.
NOTES ON CHAP. V
Verse 1. If a soul sin] It is generally supposed that the case referred to here is that of a person who, being demanded by the civil magistrate to answer upon oath, refuses to tell what he knows concerning the subject; such a one shall bear his iniquity - shall be considered as guilty in the sight of God, of the transgression which he has endeavoured to conceal, and must expect to be punished by him for hiding the iniquity to which he was privy, or suppressing the truth which, being discovered, would have led to the exculpation of the innocent, and the punishment of the guilty.
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 5:1. And hear the voice of swearing, and…
Lev 5:1. And hear the voice of swearing, and is a witness — The meaning seems to be, If a person sin, in not revealing the voice of swearing, which he has seen, that is, been a witness to, or been present when it was said, or known by sufficient information from others. But it must be observed, that the word, אלה, alah, here used, probably means cursing, blasphemy, or execration, and that either against one’s neighbour, or against God. This seems to be principally intended here, if not also, as many suppose, false swearing, for the crime spoken of is of so high a nature, that he who heard it was obliged to reveal it, and prosecute the guilty. Some think the expression ought to be rendered, The voice of adjuration, or being adjured in the name of God, when he is called to be a witness in a cause, to speak the truth. For in those countries the judges were wont to demand, in court, of accused persons or witnesses, in the name of God, to declare the whole truth; and this laid the same obligation upon them, as the administering an oath now does with us. See instances of this, Num 5:21; 1Ki 8:31; 1Ki 22:16; Pro 29:24; Mat 26:63. Whether he hath seen or known — That is, according to this last sense of the expression, if he be adjured to declare what he can say of the matter in question, whether upon his own knowledge, or from information of credible persons. If he do not utter it — If he suppress the truth, or be guilty of prevaricating, or dissimulation. He shall bear his iniquity — That is, the punishment of his iniquity; for the word עונ, gnavon, has frequently that meaning. Let him not think it is no offence to suppress the truth, when so solemnly called upon to declare it. He is unclean and guilty, and in token of his repentance let him offer such a sacrifice for his sin as is prescribed, (Lev 5:6,) which belongs to this and all the following cases. The expression, Shall bear his iniquity, is very emphatic, and imports that guilt, like a grievous burden, shall lie heavy upon him. Houbigant, however, an acknowledged critic, prefers the former interpretation.
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 Special occasions are mentioned on which sin-offerings are to…
Special occasions are mentioned on which sin-offerings are to be made with a particular confession of the offence for which atonement is sought Lev 5:5.
Lev 5:1
Read full note →
Swearing - Adjuration. The case appears to be that of one who has been put upon his oath as a witness by a magistrate, and fails to utter all he has seen and heard (compare the marginal references. and Pro 29:24; Num 5:21).
Lev 5:2-3
Hid from him - Either through forgetfulness or indifference, so that purification had been neglected. In such a case there had been a guilty negligence, and a sin-offering was required. On the essential connection between impurity and the sin-offering, see Lev 12:1.
Lev 5:4
Pronouncing - Idly speaking Psa 106:33. The reference is to an oath to do something uttered in recklessness or passion and forgotten as soon as uttered.
Lev 5:6
His trespass offering - Rather, as his forfeit, that is, whatever is due for his offence. The term “trespass-offering” is out of place here, since it has become the current designation for a distinct kind of sin-offering mentioned in the next section (see Lev 5:14 note).
A lamb or a kid of the goats - A sheep Lev 4:32 or a shaggy she-goat Lev 4:23.
Lev 5:7-10
See Lev 1:14-16; Lev 12:8. In the larger offerings of the ox and the sheep, the fat which was burned upon the altar represented, like the burnt-offering, the dedication of the worshipper; in this case, the same meaning was conveyed by one of the birds being treated as a distinct burnt-offering.
Lev 5:7
A lamb - One of the flock, either a sheep or a goat.
For his trespass, which he hath committed - As his forfeit for the sin he hath committed.
Lev 5:11
tenth part of an ephah i. e. - “the tenth deal;” probably less than half a gallon. See Lev 19:36 note. This sin-offering of meal was distinguished from the ordinary מנחה mı̂nchāh Lev 2:1 by the absence of oil and frankincense.
Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary 1859 · Public Domain Swearing. We are accountable for the sins of others,…
Swearing. We are accountable for the sins of others, to which we are accessory, as appears from this and part of the following chapter. No distinction of persons is here noticed. If any one, therefore, be witness to another’s promise, confirmed by oath, and, being cited to the bar, refuse to speak, he shall be guilty of sin, and offer the sacrifice proscribed (ver. 6,) for all the preceding cases. Restitution must also be made to the injured person. (Menochius) --- But others suppose that no sacrifice was allowed for such an obstinate wretch as when not answered when the judge swore or adjured him. He was liable to be put to death. The associate of the thief fell under the like punishment as the thief himself, when he would not reveal the theft to the judge, Proverbs xxix. 24. Others again understand this swearing to mean blaspheming God. If the hearer do not reprehend him, he shall suffer as his accomplice. (Origen; Philo) --- Junius thinks that the neglect of fraternal correction, was to be expiated by the sacrifice prescribed for the sins of ignorance, concerning which Moses is treating. But it seems that the person here mentioned was to die, as the words he shall bear his iniquity, commonly denote, chap. xix. 8.; &c. (Calmet) --- When perjury prejudiceth another’s cause, we are bound to reveal what we know to the judge, if it can be done so as to avoid scandal. (Worthington) --- Not. Hebrew editions read loa, instead of la, both here and in 34 other places; an irregularity unknown in some manuscripts, and to the Samaritan copy. Perhaps it may have been occasioned by lu, "to him," being of the same sound with la. (Kennicott)
George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).
Daniel D. Whedon 1874 · Public Domain SIN AGAINST JUSTICE — CONCEALING TESTIMONY, Lev_5:1.
SIN AGAINST JUSTICE — CONCEALING TESTIMONY, Lev_5:1.
1. Hear the voice of swearing — This does not refer to profaning the Divine name, but to the case of a witness who hears the magistrate adjuring the people to utter the truth for the promotion of justice.
Read full note →
If he do not utter — If he refuses to testify. This is not perjury, but a suppressio veri, a withholding of the truth, which in law is regarded as culpable as the suggestion of a falsehood. Since justice depends on evidence, concealment of evidence is indicative of a sympathy with injustice.
Bear his iniquity — The right word is used; it is iniquity — in-equity — a crime against right, the primordial basis of human society, which would be subverted by the universal practice of keeping back evidence. The iniquity which he shall bear is that which he screens from punishment by his silence. He has made himself a partaker of the crime.
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_5:1-13 [47]. Three cases in which a Sin-Offering must…
Lev_5:1-13 [47]. Three cases in which a Sin-Offering must be brought
[47] For the reasons which have led critics to assign Lev_5:1-6 to a source other than that of 4. see App. 1 (a).
Read full note →
1. The first case. A man who has either seen a crime perpetrated (e.g. one stealing another’s property), or heard something that would assist in detecting the criminal, is bound to declare what he knows when a solemn appeal is made in his hearing (he heareth the voice of adjuration). If he do not utter it (i.e. if he remain silent though capable of bearing witness) then he is guilty and a Sin-Offering is necessary. Note the reply of Jesus to the high priest’s adjuration after having remained silent (Mat_26:63).
bear his iniquity] incur the punishment due to such transgression.
The mother of Micah (Jdg_17:2 R.V. mg.) uttered an adjuration when eleven hundred pieces of silver were stolen from her. She lifted up her voice (according to the custom of those times which was for a long time preserved among the Arabs) calling in the name of God on anyone who knew anything about the matter to reveal it. This appeal her son heard, and in response acknowledged himself to be the thief. The appeal might be made by the person wronged to the bystanders, or if an appeal were made to a judge, he might utter an adjuration. According to the traditional interpretation, the text refers to a case brought into court. In Pro_29:24 reference is made to one who is silent when thus appealed to: the words of A.V. ‘he heareth cursing, and bewrayeth it not’ should be rendered ‘he heareth the adjuration and uttereth nothing’ (as R.V. with marg. ref. to Lev_5:1).
This is different from the previous and following cases in which the sin is committed unwittingly.
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.
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers 1878 · Public Domain (1) And hear the voice of swearing.—Better, because he…
V
(1) And hear the voice of swearing.—Better, because he heard the voice of adjuration, and might be a witness, whether he hath seen the offence or known of it, if he doth not tell it. Having laid dawn in the former chapter the regulations about the sin offering, and having shown how these regulations are to be carried out when the offence against the Divine law is inadvertently committed by the spiritual head of the people, by the whole congregation, by the sovereign ruler of the nation, and by the individual members of the community, the lawgiver now proceeds to set forth in Lev_5:1-13 of this chapter the trespass offering which every Israelite is to bring when he has violated certain precepts here specified. The first instance adduced is that of failing to come forward as witness after the judicial adjuration has been uttered. It was the duty of every member of the community to aid the authorities in maintaining the integrity of the Divine law. Hence, when an offence was committed which the constituted tribunals were unable to bring home to the offender for want of evidence, a solemn adjuration was addressed by the judge to individual members, to a district, or to the whole community. If after such an adjuration, anyone who was cognizant of the offence failed to come forward to testify what he knew, he was considered in the sight of God as participating in the transgression which he had thus concealed. It is with reference to this law that we are told, “whoso is partner with a thief, hateth his own soul, he heareth cursing and betrayeth it not,” i.e., he hears the adjuration of the judges, and yet stifles his evidence, and thus becomes a partner with the culprit. An instance of this adjuration is recorded in Mat_26:63, where the high priest said to Jesus, “I adjure thee by the living God that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the son of God,” and it was in recognition of the solemn obligation of this adjuration that Jesus answered the question.
Read full note →
Then he shall bear his iniquity.—Better, and he beareth his iniquity; that is, he is sensible that he bears the load of this guilt, he has become conscious of his sin, without which he could not bring the sacrifice here prescribed. The phrase, “and he beareth his guilt,” has the same meaning as and “he,” or “they are guilty” in Lev_4:13; Lev_4:22, &c. Unlike the sins committed inadvertently, spoken of in the preceding chapter, where the sin offering is prescribed, the guilt here described is that of designed and culpable silence, and of deliberately concealing a crime.
A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — 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 OFFERINGcontinued (verses 1-13). The subject of the…
THE SIN OFFERINGcontinued (verses 1-13). The subject of the next thirteen verses is still the sin offering, not the trespass offering, as has been supposed by some. The first six verses state three specific cases for which sin offerings are required, and the remaining seven verses detail the concessions made to poverty in respect to the offerings required. The cases are those of a witness, of one ceremonially defiled, and of one who had sworn thoughtlessly. The concessions granted are two: two turtledoves or young pigeons are allowed instead of a lamb, and the tenth part of an ephah of fine flour, without oil or frankincense, is allowed instead of the two turtle-doves or young pigeons. The latter concession is the more remarkable as the sacrifice by its means changes its character from a bloody to an unbloody offering.
The case of a witness on oath. If a man hear the voice of swearing, that is, if he was one of a number of persons adjured to speak according to the manner in which oaths were administered in Jewish courts of justice, (see Mat_26:63 2Ch_18:15) and he did not give evidence of what he had seen or heard, he had to bear his iniquity, that is, he was regarded as guilty; and as this was an offense which could be atoned for by a sacrifice, he was to offer as a sin offering an ewe lamb, or a female kid, or two turtle-doves, or two pigeons, or the tenth part of an ephah of flour. This injunction is a direct condemnation of the approved teaching of Italian moral theologians of paramount authority throughout the Roman Church, who maintain that, in case a crime is not known to others, a witness in a court of justice "may, nay, he is bound to, say that the accused has not committed it" (St. Alfonso de" Liguori, "Theol. Mor.," 4:154).
Read full note →
HOMILIES BY S.R. ALDRIDGE Vers. 1-13. Guilt removed.
The Psalmist cried out, "Who can understand his errors? cleanse thou me from secret faults." To dwell upon the manner in which sin may be committed, and to try to deepen our sense of its flagrancy, is not a pleasant employment, but it is highly necessary. And, blessed be God! a rainbow of cheerful hope spans the dark cloud of transgression; the same page that speaks of sin tells also of forgiveness.
I This chapter reminds the Israelites of several ways in which, without having been resolutely determined upon, sin might result. Through silence and concealment of knowledge (verse 1), through defilement by contact with uncleanness of man or beast (verse 2), or through rash declarations (verse 4), it was possible inadvertently to transgress the laws of God. SIN ASSUMES MANY FORMS. It may be of the voice or the finger, by word or deed. It may be by forcible repression of the truth or by careless voluble utterance. It may be incurred in connection with the noblest or the lowest parts of God"s creation. This thought should beget constant watchfulness in speaking and acting. We can never be sure of preserving ourselves from contamination with evil. "Let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall." The abolition by the gospel of ceremonial restrictions has rather increased than diminished the strictness of the universally obligatory precepts, making them more searching in character. Our Lord taught that there may be adultery in a look, murder in a thought.
II We find one law applicable to these different cases, one sentence pronounced, one ordinance appointed. THE IMPORTANT FACT COMMON TO ALL FORMS OF SIN IS THAT THEY INVOLVE THE OFFENDER IN GUILT. About the particular sin we need not trouble so much as about the fact of transgression and consequent demerit. "He shall bear his iniquity" (verse 1). "He shall be unclean and guilty" (verse 2). Jehovah can no longer look upon his subject with favour; sin places him under a cloud, mars him in the sight of God. Only ignorance can keep a man at ease under such circumstances. The awakened soul exclaims, "I have sinned: for I have transgressed the commandment of the Lord." The peace of the wicked is like the calm that often precedes the tempest. It is the office of the Word of God to convince the ungodly of their hard speeches and ungodly deeds, and the question the preacher loves to hear is that which shows that the arrow has reached its mark, when the agonized sinner inquires, "What must I do to be saved?
III "By the Law is the knowledge of sin," but to leave the matter here would be to subject the transgressor to intolerable anguish. THERE IS A TWOFOLD METHOD OF EXPIATION, to restore communion with God. There must be confession of blameworthiness. "I have sinned against heaven and before thee." "He shall confess that he hath sinned in that thing" (verse 5). This acknowledgment by the individual is due to the majesty of God, and is the first step towards obliterating the injury caused by sin. The forces of government have not henceforth to fear assault by the criminal; once arrayed against him in hostile phalanx, they now wear a milder look. The rebel has voluntarily put the yoke of submission upon his neck, and this public token goes far to countervail the damage suffered by the king"s honour. And, secondly, there must be the presentation of an atonement by the priest. The transgressor is not holy enough to appease offended Deity himself; an unblemished offering is demanded, which must be slaughtered by God"s servant and its blood sprinkled upon the altar, and the other rites of a sin offering duly performed. It is not sufficient to acknowledge and repent of our misdeeds; we want a sin offering, the Lamb of God, so that we can make mention of his righteousness and enjoy the atoning virtue of his precious blood. It is not the offender but the priest who makes atonement (verse 6). Apart from our great High Priest, our prayers, confessions, vows, and. gifts are of no avail. "No man cometh unto the Father but by me.
IV Either a lamb or a kid, two turtle-doves or pigeons, or a homer of fine flour would be accepted as a propitiatory offering. No CLASS OF THE COMMUNITY IS DEBARRED FROM AN ATONEMENT BY LACK OF MEANS. Regard is here paid to the resources of the humblest ranks. The same end is attained under the gospel by providing a way of salvation accessible to all, suited to the illiterate and the learned, the men of substance and the poor. And in each case the forgiveness is complete. "It shall be forgiven him." The deed done cannot be undone, but its consequences may be averted. God treats the believer as if he had never sinned; his iniquities are cast behind the back of Deity and remembered no more. Fears are banished, fellowship is resumed. With every subsequent transgression the same course must be adopted. Whilst in the world stains are frequent, and frequent must be our resort to the crimson tide that flows from the cross of Christ. What unity of plan and procedure is visible in the Law and the gospel! S.R.A.
HOMILIES BY J.A. MACDONALD Vers. 1-13. The trespass offering.
This was very much of the nature of the sin offering. Julius Bate translates the word (asham) "guilt offering." Possibly the "sin offering" and the "burnt offering" may be here comprehended under the general expression, "trespass offering" (see verse 7). We have here brought under our notice
I EXAMPLES OF the TRESPASS. Verses 1-4, Taken in order these are:
1. Concealing the truth when adjured.
(1) The Hebrew law recognized a power of adjuration. This is assumed in the words "And if a soul sin," etc. (verse 1). The adjuration in such a case is called the "oath of the Lord". (see Exo_22:11) Paul refers to this law when he says, "An oath for confirmation is the end of all strife". (Heb_6:16)
(2) The Hebrew history furnishes notable examples of adjuration. Saul, pursuing the Philistines, "adjured the people, saying, Cursed be the man that eateth food until the evening, that I may be avenged on mine enemies". (1Sa_14:24) Caiaphas said to Jesus, "I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell me whether thou he the Christ, the Son of God". (Mat_26:63)
(3) To conceal the truth when adjured was a crime meriting death. Achan and his family perished in the valley of Achor for his crime in concealing the "accursed thing". (see Jos_6:17-19 Jos_7:11, Jos_7:23-26) Jonathan, in unwittingly trespassing in the adjuration of Saul, was in danger of losing his life. (1Sa_14:43)
2. Touching an unclean thing.
(1) The law of the case was that whoever touched any unclean thing, the carcass of an unclean animal, a living person who was leprous or otherwise unclean, or the corpse of a man, became unclean. The purpose was to show how scrupulously we should avoid social contact with those whose influence would be demoralizing. (see Jam_4:4)
(2) Being thus unclean, before he can appear in the sanctuary, he must "wash his clothes, and be unclean until the even," viz. when the daily sacrifice was offered. This shows how we must be purified by the washing of regeneration before we can mingle in the congregation of the heavenly temple.
(3) But if a person had inconsiderately entered the sanctuary unclean, not knowing that he was polluted, he has trespassed against the Law, and is guilty. As soon as he becomes aware of his guilt he must bring a trespass offering or bear his sin.
3. Swearing rashly.
(1) Verse 4 is somewhat obscure, but this appears to be the meaning: If a man swear to do something without knowing whether it be good or evil, but afterwards it becomes evident that to carry out his oath would be evil; now he is in a dilemma: If he perform his oath he is guilty of doing evil; if he refrain he is guilty of violating his oath.
(2) In either case, then, he has to bring a trespass offering with a humble confession of his sin. If he fail in this then his guilt is upon him. The lesson is that we should be slow to swear, lest our oaths should prove rash and involve us in humiliation or ruin.
II PROVISIONS OF MERCY.
1. Confession must be made.
(1) Not of sin in general. There is comparatively little humiliation in general confession. Individuality loses itself in the multitude.
(2) But in particular, "that he hath sinned in this thing." Sin thus carried home humbles us into the dust. Such was the confession of Achan, (Jos_7:20) who, though his sin was "unto death," may yet have found the mercy of God to his soul. Such was the confession of David. (Psa_51:4)
2. It must be accompanied with sacrifice.
(1) "And he shall bring," etc. (verse 6). Here the "trespass offering" is also called a "sin offering." It is in this case specified to be "a female from the flock, a lamb or kid of the goats." This was the sin offering for any of the common people. The presumption therefore is that for a ruler a male kid should be brought for a trespass as for a sin offering; and for a priest, a bullock. (Lev_4:4, Lev_4:23, Lev_4:28)
(2) Confession without atonement will not be accepted. If Achan found acceptance with God in the spirit it must have been immediately through the atonement of Calvary. Atonement without confession will not avail. We have to "work out our own salvation;" meanwhile "God worketh in us both to will and to do.
3. The poor have special consideration.
(1) Those who may not be able to furnish a lamb may bring either a pair of turtle-doves or a brace of young pigeons. The alternative here appears to be because in certain seasons pigeons in the East are hard and unfit for eating. Turtle-doves are then very good. That must not be given to God which would not be acceptable to man.
(2) Two are specified, which are to be thus disposed of: one is offered for a sin offering, the other for a burnt offering; and they are offered in this order. The sin offering goes first to make an atonement; then follows the burnt offering, which is a sacrifice of adoration. Before we can properly praise God we must be at peace with him.
(3) Those so very poor as not to be able to bring a brace of pigeons may bring a tenth part of an ephah (about three quarts) of flour. A memorial of this is burnt upon the altar. There must be no oil in the flour to render it tasteful; no frankincense with it to give it fragrance: "it is a sin offering," and sin is distasteful and odious. The remnant is the priest"s as a "meat offering.
The interchanging of these offerings, sin and trespass, sin and burnt, sin and meat, shows how they are intended to represent the same great subject under its various aspects. No one typical sacrifice could sufficiently body forth all the merits of that blessed Person who "made his soul a (asham) trespass offering". J.A.M. (Isa_53:10)
HOMILIES BY W. CLARKSON Ver. 1. Fidelity in bearing witness.
The sinfulness of withholding evidence in a court of law is here formally and solemnly incorporated in the divine statutes. We may remind ourselves
I THAT WE SPEND OUR LIFE IN THE SIGHT OF MAN AS WELL AS UNDER THE EYE OF GOD. That we do everything in God"s view is a truth the fullness and the greatness of which we cannot exaggerate. "Thou God seest me" should be as a frontlet for every man to wear between the eyes of his soul. But not unimportant is the truth that we act daily and hourly in the sight of man.
1. A very large proportion of our deeds is done obviously and consciously before man.
2. Many that we think are wrought in secret are seen by some unknown witness.
3. Many leave traces which point unmistakably to our agency. "Be sure your sin will find you out." Sooner or later, in unsuspected ways, our evil doings come under the eye of human observation, and under the ban of human condemnation.
III THAT IT IS OFTEN OUR DUTY TO SCREEN AN OFFENDER FROM PUBLIC NOTICE. This is not in the text, but it belongs to the subject. He who would "do what wrong and sorrow claim" must sometimes "conquer sin and cover shame ." There are many cases in which public justice does not demand inquiry and reprobation, but private consideration does call for tenderness and mercy. (Joh_8:7) "Of some have compassion, making a difference". (Jud_1:22)
III THAT IT IS OFTEN OUR DUTY TO BEAR WITNESS AGAINST A WRONG-DOER.
1. It is our duty to God, for he has ordained human justice. "The powers that be are ordained of God". (Rom_13:1-4) The Jewish judges had the right to adjure a witness to speak the truth in the name of the Supreme Judge. ("hear the voice of swearing:" see 1Ki_8:31 Mat_26:63, Mat_26:64) If, therefore, under an oath we withhold what we know, we are disregarding a demand that comes indirectly and ultimately from God himself.
2. It is also our duty to society. The commonwealth of which we are members has a right to expect that we shall take our share in the necessary conviction and punishment of crime. When solemnly summoned to state what we know, and especially when an oath of the Lord is upon us, we are not free to keep back evidence, but are bound to disclose it.
3. It may be our duty to the offender himself. For it is better for him that he should bear the penalty due to his crime than that he should elude justice and be encouraged in transgression.
4. It is further our duty to ourselves, for if we are called on to bear witness, and if we undertake, or are even supposed to undertake, to speak all we know, and if then we suppress important testimony, we are consciously misleading those who hear; we are not "doing the truth," but are acting falsely, and are injuring our own soul thereby.
IV THAT NEGLIGENCE IN SUCH SOCIAL OBLIGATIONS IS A SERIOUS OFFENSE IN the SIGHT OF GOD. It is sin. It is a thing to be repented of and to be forgiven. C.
HOMILIES BY R.A. REDFORD Vers. 1-13. Cases of concealment of knowledge and ceremonial uncleanness.
They are in some sense trespasses, although not properly under the head of trespass offerings. The ground of guilt is covenant relation violated. We may take this in its twofold aspect
I As revealing THE POSITIVE VALUE OF THAT COVENANT RELATION.
1. It separated from the unclean, and therefore enforced holiness.
2. It maintained society. Man"s duty to his fellows was exalted. He must speak the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth; for we are members one of another.
3. It promoted vigilance and circumspection in conduct, both personal and relative. See that you are pure both in your intentional acts and in your circumstances; walk in wisdom towards them that are without.
II The offering provided and the atonement possible in all cases, even the most minute, plainly said, "GOD WILL ABUNDANTLY PARDON; HIS LAW is LIBERTY." The covenant was not intended to be bondage; it was salvation, not destruction. If any man sin, there is forgiveness. But this waited to be gloriously illustrated when the perfect fulfillment of the Law was set forth in him who offered himself without spot, "able to save unto the uttermost all who come unto God through him. R.
The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Biblical Illustrator 1887 · Public Domain If he do not utter it.
Lev_5:1
If he do not utter it.
Read full note →
Of the difference between these laws in the fifth and those in the fourth chapter
1. The former laws seem to concern the Israelites specially, where it said (verse 27), If any people of the land; but these concern all whomsoever they see or know to offend.
2. The sins of ignorance there are propounded generally, here instance is given in some special and particular sins.
3. There sins are mentioned which a man committeth by himself, here such as are done by others whereby one may be defiled.
4. Beside these laws are set forth without any distinction of persons, as in the former chapter of the priest, the congregation, and prince, because the vulgar people are here understood, every law beginning thus, If any soul, as Lev_4:27. If any soul of the people, by this phrase, then, are meant of private persons of the vulgar sort; as for the special persons as of the priest and prince, they must be understood here as in the former laws to make satisfaction for these sins also with the rite proscribed in their privileges.
5. Add hereunto the reason which is yielded by Tostatus that whereas sins of ignorance are incident both unto the priest, prince, and people, and differ in degree according to the quality of their persons, as it is more grievous for the high priest to fall by error or ignorance than the congregation, and for them rather than the prince, yet for sins committed of malice and passion there cannot be the like difference, for the whole multitude cannot offend in passion as of ignorance as a particular person may (Lev_4:1). But I resolve rather with Cajetane, that these laws are specially understood of private persons, and of private offences.
6. And this further difference there is between the sins rehearsed in this chapter and the former--that there the sins of ignorance are by name expressed, here such as proceed of passion; which kind of sins must be understood with some kind of limitation, for there is no sin committed, though of malice, but there is some passion in it, as he which for fear or hope of reward forsweareth himself is led by some passion, yet it cannot properly be called a sin of passion.
(1) It must be a strong and forcible passion which are either wrath or lust--the love of money is none of them.
(2) It must be a passion suddenly rising, not inveterate, as he that is suddenly enraged sinneth of passion, not he which doth any evil of hatred which is a settled, festered, and inveterate passion, for such an one deliberately offendeth, and not of passion. (A. Willet, D. D.)
Sins of silence
The spiritual truth underlying the Mosaic law is that man is under the direct eye of God, and his life is, therefore, lifted into direct responsibility to God. God sees us, and God sees everything about us and within us. Sins of silence and secrecy, sins of public error and notoriety, which go before a man to judgment, are alike open and naked to Him with whom we have to do. Moses taught that the life of the meanest man fulfilled itself under the open eye of heaven. He was no mere atom in the human ant-hill, no insignificant unit of humanity, lost in the vast ebb and flow of universal life, for insignificance is impossible to man, and obscurity is denied him. He was a person, active, powerful, working woe or weal to others; and just as the calling of a mans voice, or the footfall of a childs step, stir the waves of sound which travel onward and ever onward, till they may be said to break upon the shores of the furthest stars, so the influences of a mans life are boundless. This passage is a striking illustration of these principles. It recognises that sin may lie in silence as in speech, that to hear the word of swearing and not rebuke it is to share the guilt of it; that men are responsible to each other because they are responsible to God. There are three forces in human life, the action of which is illustrated by this passage.
I. The first is influence--that intangible personal atmosphere which clothes every man, an invisible belt of magnetism, as it were, which he carries with him. Every human being seems to possess a moral atmosphere quite peculiar to himself, which invests and interprets him, and the presence of which others readily detect. For instance, a pure woman carries a moral and ennobling atmosphere with her. The atmosphere which clothes her seems to flood the room, and the coarse weeds of vicious thought and talk cannot thrive in it. Or look on the other side of the illustration. Picture a type of man but too common--the fast man of society. There is an exhalation of evil which goes before him and spreads around him. That is influence: something subtle, indefinable, yet real; without lips, yet speaking; without visible shape, yet acting with tremendous potency, like the magnetic forces which throb and travel unseen around us, bidden in the dewdrop and uttered in the thunder; influence, which streams out from every human being, and shapes others, and moulds and makes them; influence, which is stronger than action, more eloquent than speech, more enduring than life, which being holy sows the centuries with the seeds of holy life, and being evil multiplies, indeed, transgressors in the earth!
II. The second force is example. Every man sets a copy for his neighbour, and his neighbour is quick to reproduce it. The covetous man has a miser for his son, the light woman has a daughter hastening towards the ways of shame, the drunkard infects a whole neighbourhood with his vices.
III. And then, from influence and example there results responsibility. You can as easily evade the law of gravitation as the law of human responsibility. If you cease to speak that will not rid you of the burden; you must cease to be to do that. Nay, even death itself is powerless to destroy influence. Often it multiplies it a thousandfold. Is the life of the heroes, the patriots, the martyrs really closed? They were never so much alive as now; the fire that slew them freed them, and the steps of their scaffolds were the staircase of immortality. Thus influence and example bring with them responsibility to God and responsibility to man.
IV. Let us mark further the precise way in which these forces work.
1. First, it is clear that personal sin always involves others. If a man hear the voice of swearing, if he even knows of it, he shares the complicity of the sin. There is always some one who hears, who witnesses, who shares. Here is the most tragic and awful aspect of sin--we share our sins! We have involved others in our guilt, and if we forget they will go remembering. It is well that thou shouldest stand in Gods house to-day, clothed with decorous reverence, unsuspected, and with no scar of fire upon thee; but what of the poor soiled body of that other one, the sharer of thy sin and shame? For there is a dreadful comradeship in guilt--often intentional, for men love company in their sins, but often unintentional, for others share what they concealed and know what they did secretly. It is the most appalling aspect sin assumes; it is never sterile, it is always multiplying and prolific, passing like a fever-taint from man to man; till from one sin a world is infected and corrupt.
2. Notice again, that he who sees a sin and does not rebuke it shares the sin and bears its iniquity. The only way to purge ones self of the contaminating complicity of another mans guilt is instantly to witness against it. There is no other course open to a spiritual honesty.
(1) Look, for instance, at this truth personally. No one need go very far for an illustration. You are a youth employed in a warehouse or office where religion is at a discount. In the warehouse there is sure to be a fast set, a group of youths whose habitual talk is seasoned with profanity or impurity, and who are always eager to get an audience for their shameful recitals. You were silent, you blushed, you were indignant, you turned aside full of abhorrence for the sin and contempt for the sinner, and no doubt you flattered yourself you must be very virtuous and good to feel such virtuous anger, and there you were content to rest. But this text puts an entirely new meaning on your conduct; because you did not witness against that sin you shared it. Blushing is one thing, confessing Christ quite another.
(2) Look at this matter nationally. Look at what is going on at the present time in India, Hong Kong, the Barbadoes, wherever the flag of Britain is flying. What is going on, do you ask? This, that wherever that flag goes the shame of British vice follows. And now, mark, who is responsible for all this? According to my text, all who know the facts, and therefore from this hour all who hear these words are responsible for the existence of this licensed infamy. This passage particularly rebukes, then, sins of silence. To be silent when you should speak is as evil as to speak when you should be silent. To be tongue-tied by cowardice when wrong discovers its hideous nakedness to us, is as vile a thing as to praise wrong and sing the coronation song of wickedness. (W. J. Dawson.)
The sin of conniving at wrong-doings
I. That the sins of men cannot evade witnesses. An old writer has forcibly said that to every sin there must be at least two witnesses, viz., a mans own conscience and the great God.
II. That it is the duty of witnesses to give evidence when justice demands it. When a witness heard the words of adjuration he was required at the proper place to give the needed information. It was his duty because--
(1) The law of the Lord commanded it, and
(2) The purity of society demanded it.
III. That in concealing evidence against sin we involve ourselves in serious guilt. The guilt of concealing evidence is seen, in that by so doing we--
1. Dishonour Gods voice, which speaks within us.
2. Disobey Gods published laws.
3. Decrease our own antipathy to sin.
4. Encourage the trespasser in his wrong-doing. All sin ought to be acknowledged and expiated for the sake of the sinner and the wronged. (F. W. Brown.)
Lessons
1. Not to conceal, or consent to other mens sins.
2. Gods dishonour not to be endured.
3. Confession of our sins unto God necessary (Lev_5:5). This is the beginning of amendment.
4. Against negligent hearers of the Word (Lev_5:15).
5. Against sacrilege.
6. To take hold of the sleights and subtle temptations of Satan.
7. To appear before the Lord in sincerity and simplicity of heart. (A. Willet, D. D.)
The voice of swearing repudiated
When the late Rev. Mr. K--was settled in his congregation of S--, they could not furnish him with lodgings. In these circumstances, a Captain P--, in the neighbourhood, though a stranger to religion, took him into his family. But our young clergyman soon found himself in very unpleasant circumstances, owing to the captains practice of swearing. One day at table, after a very liberal volley of oaths from the captain, he observed calmly, Captain, you have certainly made use of a number of very improper terms. The captain, who was rather a choleric man, was instantly in a blaze. Pray, sir, what improper terms have I used? Surely, captain, you must know, replied the clergyman with greater coolness; and having already put me to the pain of hearing them, you cannot be in earnest in imposing upon me the additional pain of repeating them. You are right, sir, resumed the captain, you are right. Support your character, and we will respect you. We have a parcel of clergymen around us here who seem quite uneasy till they get us to understand that we may use any freedom we please before them, and we despise them.
Guilty silence deplored and amended
Kilstein, a pious German minister, once heard a labouring man use the most awful curses and imprecations in a fit of passion, without reproving him for it. This so troubled him that he could scarcely sleep the following night. In the morning he arose early, soon saw the man coming along, and addressed him as follows: My friend, it is you I am waiting to see. You are mistaken, replied the man; you have never seen me before. Yes, I saw you yesterday, said Kilstein, whilst returning from your work, and heard you praying. What! heard me pray? said the man. I am sure now that you are mistaken, for I never prayed in my life. And yet, calmly but earnestly replied the minister, if God had heard your prayer, you would not be here, but in hell; for I heard you beseeching God that He might strike you with blindness and condemn you unto hell fire. The man turned pale, and trembling said: Dear sir, do you call this prayer? Yes, it is true, I did this very thing. Now, my friend, continued Kilstein, as you acknowledge it, it is my duty to beseech you to seek with the same earnestness the salvation of your soul as you have hitherto its damnation, and I will pray to God that He will have mercy upon you. From this time the man regularly attended upon the ministry of Kilstein, and ere long was brought in humble repentance to Christ as a true believer. A word in season how good it is. Be instant in season and out of season; rebuke, reprove, exhort, with all long-suffering and patience.
Sister Doras noble rebuke of swearing
Sister Dora was once travelling, as usual, third class, when a number of half-drunken navvies got in after her, and before she could change her carriage the train was in motion. She recollected that her dress, a black gown and cloak, with a quiet black bonnet and veil, would probably, as on former encounters with half-intoxicated men, protect her from insult. Her fellow-travellers began to talk, and at last one of them swore several blasphemous oaths. Sister Doras whole soul burnt within her, and she thought, Shall I sit and hear this? but then came the reflection, What will they do to me if I interfere? and this dread kept her quiet a moment or two longer. But the language became more and more violent, and it passed through her mind, What must these men think of any woman who can sit by and hear such words unmoved; but, above all, what will they think of a woman in my dress who is afraid to speak to them? At once she stood up her full height in the carriage and called out loudly, I will not hear the Master whom I serve spoken of in this way. Immediately they dragged her down into her seat, with a torrent of oaths, and one of the most violent roared, Hold your jaw, you fool; do you want your face smashed in? They held her down on the seat between them; nor did she attempt to struggle, satisfied with having made her open protest. At the next station they let her go, and she quickly got out of the carriage. A minute after, while she was standing on the platform, she heard a rough voice behind her, Shake hands, mum! youre a good-plucked one, you are! You were right and we were wrong. She gave her hand to the man, who hurried away, for fear, no doubt, that his comrades should jeer at him.
Sins of ignorance classified
If we compare the fourth and the sixth chapters of Leviticus, it is very evident that the first broad distinction between them is that the former treats of sins committed ignorantly, the latter of sins committed knowingly. The division, however, into sins ignorantly, and sins knowingly committed, is not alone sufficient. Sins committed ignorantly, greatly vary, not only in the degree, but also in the kind of ignorance; and for such ignorance, we may be in different degrees responsible. In order, therefore, to mark that such differences are appreciated by God, and that He desires that we, too, should appreciate them, various classifications of sins of ignorance are given in the fifth chapter; in some of which there is so much of self-caused ignorance that they very nearly approach, in the character of their guilt, to sins knowingly committed, Indeed in the first example given in the fifth chapter, there is so much that is voluntary in the action supposed, that we may perhaps wonder how such an action can at all be placed in the same rank with sins of ignorance. The case supposed is that of a person, who having committed a sin, and being adjured to declare it, refuses. It is evident that terror, or forgetfulness, or carelessness, or some plausible sophistry whereby we may deceive ourselves into the belief that our particular case is an exception to the general rule, may prevent such a sin from being committed with the deliberate voluntariness that marks the trespasses of the sixth chapter. But it stands in striking contrast with sins that spring from that deep universal ignorance which characterises the sins of the fourth chapter. The second case is that of unconsciously touching something that is unclean. Here, again, there is evidently no ignorance of any general principle. The ignorance concerns a specific fact, and is, more or less, the result of carelessness or failure in applying the tests which we possess. There are, however, cases in which ignorance of particulars is the immediate result of being imbued with false general principles. He whose mind has been from his youth up trained in the school of error, and thence received principles which have formed his habits of thought and action, will be found very incapable of determining what is clean or unclean in the particulars of action. The eye of his conscience is blinded; his moral sense is paralysed. The wandering or inattentive eye may be recalled to observation; the slumbering eye may be aroused; but how can we gain the attention of an eye, over which the film of thick darkness has firmly formed? Sins committed in such darkness as this would properly be traced to ignorance as their root, and would be classed with the sins of the fifth chapter, requiring the sin-offering as there described. (B. W. Newton.)
Complacent ignorance
Transgression may ensue from lack of knowledge that such conduct is forbidden; or it may be that, knowing the prohibition, disobedience is speciously excused on some vague plea that circumstances warrant it or expediency condones it In such cases ignorance, if it be really ignorance at all, is self-induced, and is therefore the more culpable. Amid such reprehensible forms of ignorance may be placed--
I. Carelessness; the mind too placid to rouse itself to inquiry.
II. Indiscrimination; the habit of ignoring vital principles and conniving at inconsistencies.
III. Self-excusing; finding exceptional circumstances which extenuate faults and condone misconduct.
IV. Neglect of scripture; not coming to the light lest their deeds should be reproved (Joh_3:20).
V. Satisfaction with a state of conscious darkness; indifference to precise regulations of religion, indisposition of heart towards perfect holiness; a loose and easy content over failings and negligence. Ignorance is by some persons consciously cherished: it allows them a covert from the exactions of a lofty and honest piety.
VI. Plausible sophistry; entertaining the delusion that because there is not determined wilfulness in sinning, Or not fullest knowledge of Gods prohibitions of sin, they are less responsible, less to be condemned. Note: Many persons, trained from youth in a school of error, grow up with false principles dominating their judgments and consciences, or with ignorance of the application of right principles to particular incidents and actions. Thus Luther, trained amid the blinding theories of Romanism, groped on till manhood in delusions and dimness. Thus Paul, brought up amid the traditions of Judaism, found his soul clouded with wholly wrong thoughts concerning what was doing God service. It is our duty to undeceive ourselves, to inquire after knowledge, to seek full light, that our dimness may yield to discernment. A complacent ignorance is as the softly gliding stream which flows onwards to the rapids. To be able to rest in such self-satisfied ignorance indicates that self-delusion has began, portending doom. Whom the gods would destroy they first dement.
1. Search the Scriptures.
2. Seek the Spirits illumination.
3. Culture a pure and enlightened conscience.
4. Exercise the judgment and will in efforts to cease from evil and learn to do well. (W. H. Jellie.)
Adjuration
Our translation suggests, if it suggests at all, a very obscure and imperfect meaning. It is not, If a soul hear a person swear, and do not rebuke the swearer, or tell of the swearer, which seems to be suggested by our version; but, If a person summoned to a court of law, under the ancient Jewish economy, adjured by the officiating judge to tell the truth, should not so tell the truth, and all that he knew, then he should be guilty. We have an illustration of this verse in such a passage as that where the high priest came to our blessed Lord, as recorded in Mat_26:63, and said, I adjure thee by the living God, that Thou tell us whether Thou be the Christ, the Son of God. Now, that was the high priest acting upon the first verse of this very chapter. And our Lord then heard what is called the swearing in this verse, or what in that case was the adjuration of the high priest; and as you notice, so obedient was the true Lamb, the true Saviour, to all the requirements of the ceremonial law, that though He had been dumb when asked previously, yet the moment that the high priest adjured Him, that moment, in obedience to the first verse of this chapter, our blessed Lord answered the question addressed to Him; as if it was impossible that He could fail in the observance of the least jot or tittle of the ceremonial law, any more than in the weightiest requirement of Gods moral law. We have in Pro_29:1-27. an allusion to this: He heareth an adjuration, and telleth not,--that is laid down as a sin, or, in other words, the violation of this verse. (J. C. Cumming, D. D.)
The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary 1892 · Public Domain Trespasses Heedlessly Committed
Trespasses Heedlessly Committed
SUGGESTIVE READINGS
Read full note →
Lev_5:1.—If the soul … hear the voice of swearing. Sins may be acted out consciously and defiantly; for such there was no expiation provided. But sins may be committed without realising their sinfulness; of these the preceding chapter deals, and for such there was expiatory sacrifice and assured forgiveness. Yet, also, sins may be contracted where no volition or action occurs, by passive non-resistance, by tacit connivance, by incautious heedlessness: and such are the sins this chapter interdicts while it also prescribes expiation. Sin may come in through the ear: “hear the voice of swearing”; albeit it is no sin in itself to hear, unless we shut it in wilfully and become accessory thereto. It should be let out through the lips: “utter it”: give it no harbour, but prompt escape; for it defiles the soul which retains it as a secret. Let no evil thing find a quiet chamber in our thoughts; expose it, and thereby exorcise and condemn it. Impurity must ensue from entertaining secretly what God bids us renounce and denounce.
Lev_5:2.—Touch any unclean thing. God would have His people untainted by uncleanness. With minute care He had defined what were unclean things. From every contagion they must keep free, if they were to remain ceremonially holy. Shall not we also shun contact with forbidden things? “For God hath not called us unto uncleanness, but unto holiness.” There are institutions in society, companionships and friendships, indulgences and pastimes, recreations and books, which would defile a Christian life and lower the sanctities of existence. “Wherefore, come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing” (2Co_6:17).
It be hidden from him. How often do we touch defilement unconsciously! And having by contact derived the contagion (in pure thoughts sullied, our sensitive recoil from evil blunted, elevated aims lowered, and Christward affections decoyed) how do we forget that we have touched! How constantly we argue with our own consciences that the tainted pleasures and pastimes we foster are outside the interdicted list. Yet this self-excusing is vain; “he also shall be unclean and guilty.”
Lev_5:4.—Whatsoever a man shall pronounce with an oath. Vows which bind us to lines of conduct should never be made in ignorance. It is perilous to society as well as to individual honour for a man to make himself subject to a vow whose issues are “hid from him.” This reprehensible plan prevails in those “secret societies” and “brotherhoods” whose programme is the destruction of civil institutions and State stability. If a man blindly swears away his liberty, and binds himself by oath to any confederation, he is “guilty” of any and all the deeds done by the associates of such organisations. Oaths should only be taken when their issues are fully discerned; certainly no right-minded man will allow himself to become the dupe of bad associates, or the accomplice of evil designs, under the specious plea that the effects of his oath were “hid from him” when he bound himself thereby. Prudence and piety will warn us against being thus “rash with our mouth.” [Compare Ecc_5:2; Ecc_5:6; Act_23:12-14.]
Lev_5:5.—He shall bring his trespass offering. Rash oaths incurred guiltiness, and must be atoned for; the folly of taking an oath to “do evil” was an offence to be expiated; whereas the neglect of an oath to “do good” was equally a trespass. God’s requirement of an expiatory offering for both misdemeanours acted beneficially on the community, by restraining persons from taking hasty and inconsiderate oaths. “This served very effectually (says Michaelis) to maintain the honour of oaths, inasmuch as every oath, however inconsiderate, or unlawful, or impossible, was regarded so far obligatory that it was necessary to expiate its non-fulfilment by an offering; and it was, at the same time, the best possible means of weaning the people from rash oaths, because a man who had grown addicted to the unbecoming practice would find himself too frequently obliged either to keep his oaths, how great soever the inconvenience, or else to make an offering for their atonement.”
Lev_5:15.—Ignorance in the holy things of the Lord. There were dues or debts to the sanctuary of God, and he who failed to bring his tithes and first-fruits, even though unintentionally and “through ignorance,” was a transgressor. A costly “amends” (Lev_5:16) was to be made for this oversight, if his trespass was to be forgiven him. Thus jealous is God that we withhold no duty from Him, that we “enter into His presence with thanksgiving,” i.e., with gifts as thank offerings. Every soul, spared in the land of the living, succoured by Divine goodness and grace, overshadowed by the Fatherhood of God, shepherded by the patient care of Christ, upheld by the energy of the Spirit, owes offerings to Heaven, and should enter the sanctuary with the acknowledgments of all the mercy received. Our grateful souls should seek to fulfil “something of the debt we owe.” “What shall I render unto the Lord for all His benefits towards me?” God asks sanctuary presents from every one of His people.
Lev_5:17.—Forbidden to be done. For the Lord had prohibited the profane use, or the appropriation to personal ends, of “holy things” dedicated to the sanctuary and its services. If a soul had reason only to suspect his misuse thereof, he must seek forgiveness by trespass offering. All such stern requirements tended to enforce a recognition of the supreme claims of Jehovah and the sanctity of religion. No trifling, no forgetfulness, no error was excusable. Shall not we “stand in awe and sin not,” guarding ourselves from “presumptuous sins” and inadvertent negligence by “watching unto prayer” and by swift fulfilment of our obligations to Heaven!
SECTIONAL HOMILIES
Topic: COMPLACENT IGNORANCE (Lev_5:1-5)
Sins of ignorance differ greatly in kind and in degree. Transgression may ensue from lack of knowledge that such conduct is forbidden; or it may be that, knowing the prohibition, disobedience is speciously excused on some vague plea that circumstances warrant it or expediency condones it. In such cases ignorance, if it be really ignorance at all, is self-induced, and is therefore the more culpable. Amid such reprehensible forms of ignorance may be placed—
I. CARELESSNESS; the mind too placid to rouse itself to inquiry.
II. INDISCRIMINATION; the habit of ignoring vital principles and conniving at inconsistencies.
III. SELF-EXCUSING; finding exceptional circumstances which extenuate faults and condone misconduct.
IV. NEGLECT OF SCRIPTURE; not “coming to the light lest their deeds should be reproved” (Joh_3:20).
V. SATISFACTION WITH A STATE OF CONSCIOUS DARKNESS; indifference to precise regulations of religion, indisposition of heart towards “perfect holiness”; a loose and easy content over failings and negligence. Ignorance is by some persons consciously cherished: it allows them a covert from the exactions of a lofty and honest piety.
VI. PLAUSIBLE SOPHISTRY; entertaining the delusion that because there is not determined wilfulness in sinning, or not fullest knowledge of God’s prohibitions of sin, they are less responsible, loss to be condemned.
Note: Many persons, trained from youth in a school of error, grow up with false principles dominating their judgments and consciences, or with ignorance of the application of right principles to particular incidents and actions. The perception of righteousness is vague and dim, the moral sense is feeble and faltering, “darkness in part” has happened to them. Thus Luther, trained amid the blinding theories of Romanism, groped on till manhood in delusions and dimness. Thus Paul, brought up amid the traditions of Judaism, found his soul clouded with wholly wrong thoughts concerning what was “doing God service.”
It is our duty to undeceive ourselves, to inquire after knowledge, to seek full light, that our dimness may yield to discernment.
A complacent ignorance is as the softly gliding stream which flows onwards to the rapids. To be able to rest in such self-satisfied ignorance indicates that self-delusion has begun, portending doom. “Whom the gods would destroy they first dement” And such contentment, while in error of the very way of godly obedience and acceptance, betokens a demented state ominous of worst issues. Therefore:—
1. Search the Scriptures.
2. Seek the Spirit’s illumination.
3. Culture a pure and enlightened conscience.
4. Exercise the judgment and will in efforts to “cease from evil and learn to do well.”
Topic: THE SIN OF CONNIVING AT WRONG-DOINGS (Lev_5:1)
The trespass offering atoned for voluntary offences, thus fitly supplementing the offerings for sins of ignorance. All crime—i.e., wrong done to men—is sin in the sight of God, and needs to be followed by repentance as well as reparation. Here we are taught that a person committed sin in withholding knowledge when able and judicially commanded to divulge it.
The camp of Israel in the wilderness was not only a Church, but a Commonwealth; the interests of the people were mutual, and their duties reciprocal. It was the duty of the rulers to defend and promote the-right, and to expose and denounce the wrong. When an evil doer was arrested, a proclamation was made calling upon any who could furnish evidence (that the ends of justice might not be defeated) to present themselves as witnesses in the court. If any such person, through fear or neglect, failed to furnish the information in his possession he was a partaker in the sin. The safety and sanctity of society demanded that evidence should not wilfully be withheld. Jehovah here required His people to co-operate with Him in protesting against and exposing sin. Observe—
I. THAT THE SINS OF MEN CANNOT EVADE WITNESSES.
An old writer has forcibly said “that to every sin there must be at least two witnesses,” viz, “a man’s own conscience and the great God.” Wrong-doing so confuses and condemns a man, except he be very degraded and hardened, that even though he was not really observed in the act, he will so betray himself to others that evidence of a presumptive or positive kind, circumstantial or self-evident can be presented.
Living together as the Israelites did in the wilderness, they would be constantly under each other’s eye, wrong-doing would be easily detected, its guilt easily proved.
We are all daily revealing ourselves more or less to each other, and persons who observe our conduct are tacitly gathering evidence to accuse or excuse, to commend or condemn our conduct and character. This world is a place of trial, a place of judgment. We are not only arraigned before the tribunal of our own consciences, but also before the bar of public observation and opinion.
II. THAT IT IS THE DUTY OF WITNESSES TO GIVE EVIDENCE WHEN JUSTICE DEMANDS IT.
When a witness heard the words of adjuration he was required at the proper place to give the needed information. It was his duty because
(1) the law of the Lord commanded it, and
(2) the purity of society demanded it. It would also be an injustice to a wrong-doer, for the sake of shielding him from present punishment, by conniving at his sin to encourage him in evil ways. Moreover, a witness owes the duty to himself to testify against sin, for if he does not expose it and bring it to condemnation, he may foster even in himself a careless unconcern about wrong. By bearing witness against evil doing we utter our protest against the wrong, and if we do it in the right spirit and “speak the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,” we are serving righteously and faithfully our day and generation, and we therein discharge a duty we owe to God against whom all sin in a transgression, and who has appointed rulers to administer justice for the praise of those who do well, and to be a terror to evil doers.
III. THAT IN CONCEALING EVIDENCE AGAINST SIN WE INVOLVE OURSELVES IN SERIOUS GUILT.
By withholding evidence we may think to cover over sins, and so we may; but we do not remove them. We may prevent them coming to light and meeting their merited punishment, but the sins remain, and will take deeper root and throw out wider branches. It is a trespass, a breach of the Divine law, when we allow sin to go unaccused and unexposed; we thereby offer an inducement to sin, and tacitly encourage indulgence in transgression. The guilt of concealing evidence is seen, in that by so doing we—
1. Dishonour God’s voice, which speaks within us.
2. Disobey God’s published laws.
3. Decrease our own antipathy to sin.
4. Encourage the trespasser in his wrong-doing.
All sin ought to be acknowledged and expiated for the sake of the sinner and the wronged. A person refusing to give evidence makes himself an accessory to a wicked deed after its accomplishment, and becomes an accomplice in its guilt. Divine revelation teaches us that we have duties we owe to ourselves, to society, and to God.—F. W. B.
Topic: THE CONTAGIOUSNESS OF SIN (Lev_5:2-3)
The sin of touching an unclean person or thing is here described. The whole of the directions given respecting ceremonial defilement were to teach most emphatically the holiness of God, and His deep concern for the holiness of His creatures. The children of Israel were not only to obey Him, but also to worship Him, and as their service was to be a sacrament and their work worship, it was necessary that they should be taught the utmost scrupulousness in ceremonial, as well as inward, purity. These regulations and requirements would not only teach the people who were immediately affected by them the most salutary lessons, but would also teach (through them) the world valuable truths. We learn—
I. THE IMPORTANCE OF CIRCUMSPECTION IN OUR OUTWARD BEHAVIOUR.
The Israelites would feel that the greatest possible vigilance would be needed as they went in and out the camp and mixed with the congregation, lest they should become defiled by contact with some unclean thing. As we mingle with our fellow-men, and discharge our duties in the world, although we are not under the restrictions and regulations of the Levitical law, yet we are in a world where the moral atmosphere is tainted, and where we are in constant danger of being morally defiled. We are not only ourselves surrounded by a sympathetic moral influence, which affects all with whom we have contact, but we also in turn receive influence, good or ill, from others with whom we associate. We learn that the greatest possible circumspection is essential as we move amid the busy throngs.
II. THE POSSIBILITY OF CONTAMINATION, EVEN THOUGH WE PRACTISE CIRCUMSPECTION IN OUR OUTWARD CONDUCT.
The text shows that it was possible for people to become defiled and be unconscious of it. A man might find even that his extreme caution had ensnared him. He might not always be able to discriminate between the clean and the unclean, especially at first sight. So, as we pass through the world, we are so closely surrounded by morally contaminating influences that sometimes we may acquire infection before we are aware of it. Even the most innocent pleasures and pursuits may be perverted by us, becoming suggestive and ministrant of sin; in our ignorance or simplicity we may get a wrong bias, wicked thoughts may be awakened. For such defilement we shall need to make expiation; also seek forgiveness and cleansing, that the impurity of our heart and conscience may be removed, and the progress of moral depravity and deterioration be arrested.—F. W. B.
Topic: THE RESPONSIBILITY OF WORDS (Lev_5:4-5)
Here is taught the sin of a person making a rash oath. In their conversation with each other the people were to beware of uttering idle words, especially when calling upon God to witness what they said; also, they were to be careful how they committed themselves by solemn engagements to do evil or to do good. The people were at present rude and unpolished, and one of the objects of the ritual was to elevate and refine them. Words are often spoken as if they were of no importance, vows made and oaths uttered as if they were unnoticed by God; but this law shows us that He does take strict notice of them, and that though forgotten by us, they are not forgotten by Him. Though spoken heedlessly and easily forgotten, yet God would hold them responsible. The gospel has not repealed the law’s condemnation of rash speaking, for Christ taught that “for every idle word that men speak they shall give an account at the day of judgment.” And we are taught, moreover, to “swear not at all, neither by heaven, for it is God’s throne, nor by earth, for it is His footstool, neither by our heads, for we cannot make one hair black or white.” The influence of this Levitical injunction would be to lead the people to make an oath—
I. RARELY. There would be no need for oaths if they cultivated veracity, if their simple word was known to be their bond. To employ oaths frequently would be taking God’s name in vain, and incurring danger of frequently transgressing one of the great commandments. God was in their midst as their Law-giver and King; they must not use too frequently and familiarly His holy name in connection with their common, ordinary conversation and conduct.
II. DELIBERATELY. Even when circumstances seemed to require that they should call God to witness and confirm what they affirmed, the act was so solemn that they would need to do so with great caution and deliberateness, pondering what they were about to affirm or deny, and estimating the probability that they could promptly perform their purpose. An oath deliberately made would be impressed upon the memory; if not fulfilled, no excuse could be offered. The nature of an oath, of the pledge with which it is accompanied, should be thoroughly weighed before God is called upon to help and witness.
III. CONDITIONALLY. There may be some cases and instances where an unconditional oath may be safely pronounced; but it is more prudent to associate with it qualifying conditions. Such a course would not make the oath less binding for all reasonable intents, and ought to meet the requirements of any ordinary case. Our proneness to err, the impossibility of our meeting exorbitant demands, the probability of after-thought showing us that what we had engaged to do was impracticable or undesirable, ought to be taken into account. Conditions and circumstances may so change as to relieve us from promises which, at the time, we made in good faith. When wise men make oaths, they will make them cautiously.
1. Cultivate transparency and veracity of speech, so that our communications may require to be simply yea, and nay; for when more is required it indicates that we have become unreliable, so that our word cannot be trusted.
2. If pledges made between man and man are thus solemn and binding, and the breach of them so blameworthy, pledges to God in solemn sacrament must be more solemn and binding, and their non-fulfilment more culpable.—F. W. B.
Topic: THE WAY OF PARDON (Lev_5:6-13)
In the fifth verse it is enjoined that when any person shall be guilty of any of the trespasses specified, he shall confess that he had thus sinned; from which we at once see that confession was to immediately follow conviction, and the next step—as we learn from the succeeding verse—would be contrition. The offender was to bring his trespass offering unto the Lord for his sin, and the priest would present it to the Lord as an atonement for the sin. The offering was to be one of the flock, or a fowl, or of flour. From this arrangement we learn that—
I. THE WAY OF PARDON WAS MADE EASY. The circumstances of the transgressor were mercifuily considered.’ The gradation of the offerings from a bullock down to the tenth part of an ephah of fine flour showed that God would allow no difficulty to stand in the way of transgressors seeking expiation. For the various gradations of wrong-doing there was pardon on confession and contrition. The offerings could be easily obtained, and the priest and altar were close at hand, so that at any moment the needed confession and atonement could be made. In the Mosaic, as well as the Christian dispensation, the way of forgiveness is made easy.
II. THE WAY OF PARDON WAS MADE EXPLICIT. Full and clear directions are given, even to minute details, in the way the victim was to be slain, and its various parts disposed of, and each direction (meaningless and useless as some at first sight appeared) had some symbolical or typical import. In every instance assurance was given of forgiveness, if only the required conditions were complied with. The unsavouriness of the offering—from the absence of sweet oil and frankincense—suggests the loathsomeness of sin: that it is displeasing to God, ought to be offensive to man, and is to those truly humble and contrite.
(a) The mercy of God displayed in
(1) providing remedy to arrest the course of sin;
(2) providing remedy to arrest the consequences of sin. Man’s ignorance of sin proves his utter inability to put it away of himself.
(b) The misery of sin discovered in that it
(1) produces separation from God and all real good;
(2) necessitates suffering and atonement before it can be forgiven. In the rites and ceremonies of the Levitical economy we get God’s provision for man’s need—a sacrifice appointed for man’s sin; a priest to present the sacrifice for man’s sin; and a place of worship where the sacrifice may be offered and accepted.—F. W. B.
OUTLINES ON VERSES OF CHAPTER Lev_5:1-13
Lev_5:2.—Theme: CONTRACTION OF DEFILEMENT. “If a soul touch an unclean thing … he also shall be unclean, and guilty.”
Human depravity, inherent—universal—“Out of the heart proceed evil thoughts,” etc. Depravity may be deepened and developed by outward influences and circumstances. The body and mind may generate or acquire disease; so, with the soul. We are surrounded by a magnetic circle of influence which affects us, and through it we affect others for good or evil. Hence importance of guarding our sympathies, susceptibilities, senses, and every avenue and vehicle of our being. “Touch not the unclean thing.”
We learn the importance—
I. OF ABSENCE FROM EVIL ASSOCIATIONS. “Enter not into the path of the wicked, and walk not in the way of evil men.” [See Psalms 1]
II. OF ABSTINENCE FROM APPEARANCE OF EVIL. Beware of every infections infectious thing. “Taste not, touch not, handle not.”
Christ could mix with sinners, could touch lepers and the dead without defilement, because there was nothing in Him to respond to, or to be laid hold on, by temptation or corruption. As the needle leaps to the loadstone, so our hearts leap to meet temptation by the law of attractive affinities. For every stain of defilement we contract, even though as deep as crimson or scarlet, there is a remedy: “The blood of Jesus Christ cleanses from all sin,” and can make our souls as white as snow.—F. W. B.
Lev_5:7.—Theme: WHAT GOD EXPECTS OF US. “If he be not able to bring a lamb, then he shall bring for his trespass two turtle doves, or two young pigeons, unto the Lord.”
There is nothing exacting or exorbitant in the claims of God upon His creatures. He expects of us only what we can render according to talents, circumstances, opportunity, claims. He regards our purposes, and accepts them as acts performed when performance is impossible, e.g., He said of David’s purpose to erect the Temple, “It was well that it was in thine heart.” Christ commended the act of the woman in the gospels because “she had done what she could.”
If God expects of us only what we can render—
I. THEN NONE ARE EXEMPT FROM HIS SERVICE. Doves and pigeons were accepted where lambs could not be furnished. The widow’s two mites were as acceptable as the box of precious ointment and Solomon’s Temple.
II. THEN HIS SERVICE IS PERFECT FREEDOM. The offerer had to judge and choose what he would offer. God expects voluntary cheerful gifts, not simply from a sense of duty but from impulses of a generous love. If we give ourselves to the Lord, all we have will be laid upon the altar that sanctifies both the giver and the gift.—F. W. B.
Lev_5:8.—Theme: MEDIATION. “He shall bring them unto the priest, who shall offer,” etc.
The sin offering taught that guilt separated between the sinner and his Sovereign Lord:—Priest came between to connect, and be medium of communication. Such an arrangement would (a) inspire courage, and (b) impart comfort to the offerer.
The offerer brought his offering to the priest, yet—
I. THE VALUE OF THE OBLATION WAS NOT ENHANCED BY ANY MERIT OF THE PRIEST. But the infinite dignity of our High Priest gave infinite dignity to His sacrifice.
II. THE PRIEST OFFERED SACRIFICE PROVIDED BY ANOTHER: our High Priest offered Himself, once for all.
In the hands of the priest the sinner’s sacrifice was acceptable: through Christ our offerings are well-pleasing to God. The only thing that God hates, and that can separate between Jehovah and His creatures is sin. Its removal restores harmony, holiness, happiness in man, and the universe—F.W.B.
Lev_5:10.—Theme: DIVINE FORGIVENESS. “The priest shall make atonement for him for his sin which he hath sinned, and it shall be forgiven him”.
Nature is unable to show how sin may be forgiven. By an inevitable and almost universal law reaping follows sowing, both in quality and quantity. Retribution follows wrong-doing. Nature is stern, unrelenting; only in revealed religion can we learn how God can be just and yet forgive the sinner. The Bible alone teaches that there is forgiveness with God that He may be feared. The offerer was assured that if he presented the prescribed oblation, his sin would “be forgiven him.” This arrangement teaches.
I. THAT SATISFACTION MUST BE OFFERED BY THE SINNER HIMSELF, OR BY HIS ACCREDITED SUBSTITUTE. Pardon costs something both to God and man.
II. THAT THE SINNER MUST BE SINCERELY SORRY FOR HIS SINS. The offerings were to be presented in a manner which would denote reverence and repentance. Only forsaken sin is forgiven.
III. THAT IN THE FORGIVENESS OF SIN THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD IS VINDICATED. The demands of His justice were met—His broken law honoured—atonement sufficient and satisfactory made.
In the Gospels all these points are exemplified and enforced.—F. W. B.
SECTIONAL HOMILIES
Topic: TRESPASSES, DONE IGNORANTLY, AGAINST THE LORD (Lev_5:14-19)
Scarcely is it possible to accredit absolute ignorance to trespassers in these “holy things of the Lord”: for God’s declarations respecting. His rights were neither unintelligible nor obscure. They ought to have been known thoroughly, they must have been known to some degree. The ignorance was, therefore, in some sense wilful; certainly it was conscious, and was even preferred to knowledge.
Still, it is noteworthy that ignorance is predicated of these trespassers against the Lord, whereas there is no allowance of ignorance in the trespasses done against men. [Compare chap. 6] This marks a melancholy fact in the conduct of wrong-doers. We defraud God of His due carelessly and without giving it a thought; whereas we are too cautious to trespass against a neighbour without knowing it. For the fear of man is more operative over us than the fear of God.
I. FRAUDULENT CONDUCT AGAINST THE LORD.
1. Israel’s history for ages illustrates the ready ease with which men could “rob God” (Mal_3:8-10). Commanded to appear repeatedly every year before the Lord and celebrate His feasts, yet era upon era passed without their keeping those sacred feasts at all—until, in the times of Ezra and Nehemiah, they read the Scriptures (long closed and neglected) and discovered their omissions to have been so numerous, so grievous, so long continued, that the people all lifted up their voices and wept.
Fifty years later, again Israel is described as habitually defrauding God of His due, and even justifying themselves in their “robbery,” asking with effrontery, “Wherein have we robbed Thee?” (Mal_3:8).
Such warning incidents Should have aroused the Church of Christ to greater watchfulness in later days. Yet—
2. The present conduct of Christians repeats the trespass of the ancient Church. Is there not a defrauding “of the holy things of the Lord” still rampant? Consider—
(a) Doctrines suppressed and truths silenced which ought to be “sounded out” clearly.
(b) Worship rendered perfunctorily, and void of “spirit and truth”; “the form of godliness without the power thereof.”
(c) Open allegiance to Christ withheld; a careless and compromising profession supplanting whole consecration.
(d) The selfish retention of our gains and possessions, spending so freely upon ourselves that we have little or nothing to give God.
II. RESTITUTION DEMANDED AS THE CONDITION OF PARDON.
Unlike the sin offering, the “trespass offering” must not be presented until reparation had been made.
1. Satisfaction was to precede sacrifice. Man is a debtor, having withheld dues from the Lord. Those dues were not to be set aside by substituting contrition or expiatory offerings. It were easy to trespass if all could be righted by penitential confessions. But God says, “Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice.” “He shall make amends”: such is Jehovah’s fiat (Lev_5:16).
2. In Christ’s obedient life satisfaction did precede sacrifice. Man “had nothing to pay”; but Jesus paid the debt. In His own career He “fulfilled all righteousness” on man’s behalf. Then, having perfectly satisfied the Divine requirements in His life, He bore man’s merited punishment for long disobedience.
3. Divine forgiveness differs essentially from connivance at man’s sin. God can pardon all manner of trespasses, but can gloss over not one jot or tittle of iniquity. “His grace is perfect, and therefore He can forgive all: His holiness is perfect, and therefore he cannot pass over anything. He cannot sanction iniquity, but He can blot it out.”—C. H. M.
4. Restitution by obedience is a law which still incites believers to a diligent piety. Not by the merit of their acts to justify themselves with God, but to make such “amends” as a soul reclaimed from disloyalty naturally desires to make to its gracious Lord and King. “The love of Christ constrains us”; and by every act of sacrifice and service we aim to set right all wrong we have done, to counteract the follies of past years, to benefit those whom we may have harmed, to redeem the time by diligent use of opportunities remaining, and “henceforth to live not unto ourselves, but unto Him who loved us and gave Himself for us.” By such earnest efforts to “do good as he has opportunity” does the Christian seal his salvation, and enjoy the “Well done” of his Lord. [See Addenda, p. 71, Reparation.]
Topic: “AMENDS” MADE BY CHRIST FOR MAN’S FAULTS (Lev_5:15-16)
Think of all the wrong and all the trespass which have been done against the Lord.
I. GOD HAS BEEN WRONGED OF HIS RIGHTS IN THIS WICKED WORLD.
1. What are the just rights of Jehovah in His creature, man?
2. What are man’s returns to Jehovah in actual obedience and righteousness?
3. What amazing outrage and transgression have defrauded God of His due!
4. What shortcomings and blemishes have marred even the best lives of His redeemed people!
II. GOD HAS GAINED MORE BY CHRIST’S REDEMPTION THAN HE LOST BY MAN’S FALL.
The trespass offerer adds a surplus! But who can weigh the surplus Christ brings?
1. Jehovah reaps a richer harvest of glory, honour and praise in the fields of redemption than ever. He could have reaped in those of creation.
2. The “sons of God” would raise a loftier song of praise around the empty tomb of Jesus than ever they raised in view of the Creator’s accomplished work.
3. The wrong has not only been perfectly atoned for, but an eternal advantage has been gained by the work of the Cross. God is gainer by the work of Calvary.
III. ALL HONOUR TO JESUS, IN WHOSE CROSS SUCH VAST “AMENDS” WERE MADE.
1. No wonder that around the Crucified One the affections of patriarchs, prophets, apostles, martyrs, and saints have ever entwined themselves.
2. No marvel that the Holy Ghost should have given forth that solemn but just decree, “If any man love not our Lord Jesus Christ, let him be anathema, maranatha” (1Co_16:22). Heaven and earth shall echo forth a loud and eternal amen to this anathema.
3. No marvel that it should be the fixed and immutable purpose of the Divine mind that “at the name of Jesus every knee should bow of things in heaven and things on earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father” (Php_2:10-11). [Compare Notes on Leviticus, by C. H. M.]
Topic: TRESPASSERS AND THE TRESPASS PENALTY (Lev_5:15-16)
(a) Sin has many forms: breaks out into trespasses.
(b) The trespass offerings are manifold: meet with penalty and satisfaction all wrongs done.
I. THE DUES OF HEAVEN ARE WITHHELD: God’s will is transgressed, His law infringed.
1. Creation’s law makes man God’s sole possession. No faculty of mind or frame, no power of intellect or thought, no talent of influence or time, no opportunity, no gift, no grace, is property of our own. All, then, should serve the cause of one Sovereign Lord. Reason should plan, and eyes should see, and hands should work, and feet should run, to do Him honour and augment His praise. Our every energy should fly abroad with morning light to gather fruits of glory for His name. Each night should prove that faith and love have laboured to advance His Kingdom upon earth.
2. Instead of this, self mounts the great Creator’s throne. We rise, enter on the day, journey on, as if self-seeking were legitimate employ. Whether we rest or toil it is “unto ourselves.” Is not this trespass? It robs our God; wastes His dues. It brands us as purloining from a Father’s and a Benefactor’s store.
3. Judgment must follow upon such trespasses. The fire must consume. Life must be laid on the altar. Blood must flow. Trespass brings death. No soul can sin and escape wrath.
II. MAN CAN MAKE NO TRUE AMENDS.
1. Devotedness cannot repay the debt. That is a vast conceit. If not one thought of any moment ever swerved from a pure effort for the Lord, it would but be that moment’s due.
2. Surplus of merit there is none. That is a papist’s dream. Our best acts are only increase of our debt. Hence all our works make bankruptcy more deep. When Justice calls to the white throne, the fairest reckoning is one huge debt. Who, then, can stay arrest?
III. THE TRESPASS OFFERING PRESENTS RELIEF.
1. Jesus is satisfaction to the full. Hence death for sin is not the whole of His grand work. That decks us with no merit; it fills no hand with fruits of righteousness. He pays then a whole life’s homage to the law. He gives compliance to its largest rule. It asked for one undeviating course of love. Jesus was love without one straying step.
2. This pure fulfilment is for those who are Christ’s. For such Christ wrought it; to their account he puts it. Unsullied righteousness by Him avails for believers.
Such is the Gospel which pervades this rite. It declares in emphatic terms that—
(1) Trespass stains your life, your heart, soul, and mind, every day, every hour.
(2) It warns that trespass strengthens Satan’s claims, places a vast barrier between you and God.
(3) Shows a full recovery. Christ’s cross and life are both pictured. You see Him dying to pay the trespass penalty: you see His righteousness supplying trespass wrongs.—Homiletically arranged from the Dean of Gloucester’s Christ is all.
Topic: SACRILEGE (Lev_5:14-19)
The former offerings may be regarded as both sin and trespass offerings; these in the closing verses of this fifth chapter, and in the opening seven verses of the sixth, are particularly and exclusively trespass offerings. Wrong has been done to God and man; and for that trespass contrition must be shown, an offering made, and restitution given. The trespass here indicated is sacrilege—mistake and misappropriation in the use of sacred things: a culpable trespass, whether done wittingly or unwittingly. From this rite we are taught—
I. THE JEALOUSY OF JEHOVAH FOR THE HONOUR OF HIS WORSHIP IN THE TABERNACLE.
By the Levitical ritual the people were taught that worship was only rendered acceptable when associated with Divinely prescribed sacrifices. There would be danger of the people becoming formal in their worship; that they would fall short of the full requirements of the ritual. The holy things here spoken of were the tithes, first-fruits, gifts, etc., demanded of the Lord. Such things were His before they were devoted as sacrifices, but they were doubly His when He claimed them as offerings unto Himself in connection with the worship of the tabernacle. To withhold would be to rob and wrong God; the honour of His worship would be insulted, His law outraged. Whether the sacrilege was committed knowingly or unknowingly it mattered not: the worship was marred, and for the trespass an offering must be presented. The trespasser was to bring a ram without blemish out of his flocks, and the priest was to make an atonement for him. Restitution was to accompany his contrition. He must make amends for the wrong he had done in the holy thing; and then his trespass was to be forgiven him.
Worship is a privilege we are permitted to enjoy, a duty we are bound to discharge. When we draw near to God to pay our vows and commune with Him in prayer and praise, we draw near to give to Him the glory that is due to His name. Under the gospel dispensation we have not to erect a material altar and present offerings such as the Israelites did under the law. No definitely prescribed portion of our substance is required of us, as was required under the old economy, but we are expected to give unto the Lord of our means in proportion as He hath prospered us. Yet, however liberal we may be, and conscientious in discharging our trust as stewards of the Kingdom, we constantly fall short of our duty as indicated in the gospel; we trespass, wittingly and unwittingly, and need constantly to seek, in confession and contrition, the pardon of our religious defalcations, and to make, in so far as we are able, some restitution to God, some humble amends, by bringing “forth fruits meet for repentance.”
II. THE INFLUENCE THIS JEALOUSY WAS CALCULATED TO EXERT UPON THE WORSHIPPERS IN THE TABERNACLE.
Such scrupulous concern on the part of Jehovah about the sanctity of His service would teach the people to cultivate—
(1) Sensitiveness of feeling. It would be evident that indifference or carelessness would render the worshipper liable to a breach of trust, to make mistake or misapply the things devoted to the Lord.
(2) Tenderness of conscience. It would be easy for conscience to become perverted and hardened in the midst of so many privileges and in the abundance of blessings.
(3) Scrupulousness of conduct. The worshipper would find that merely good intentions would not suffice; contrition and confession would not be enough: there was to be implicit and complete obedience—nothing wanting of all that the Lord commanded. None of the sacrifice kept back, none of the holy things be employed or used for their own gain. If they did, even though they wist it not, they were guilty, and should bear their iniquity.
Watch that we trespass not against God as Achan did, and as Ananias and Sapphira did in the early Christian Church. Beware of trespassing through contempt, carelessness, or presumption. Aim to be suspiciously, as well as scrupulously, sensitive of doing wrong. Pray for pardon of inadvertent and unknown sins. God does not pass over, but forgives trespasses for the sake of our great Trespass Offering. This is the gospel order of blessing to the penitent: repentance, reformation, restitution, then reconciliation to God’s favour, and restoration to His family, here and hereafter.—F. W. B.
OUTLINES ON VERSES, CHAPTER Lev_5:14-19
Lev_5:16.—Theme: REPARATION. “And he shall make amends for the harm that he hath done in the holy thing,” etc.
In forgiving sins God does not teach that transgression of His law is a trivial matter; for, atonement not only expiates but makes amends. Amends must be made, for—
I. SIN IS A WRONG DONE TO GOD.
II. SIN IS A WRONG DONE TO MAN.
Amends must be made by—
(1) Appropriate contrition.
(2) Personal sacrifice.
(3) Unreserved consecration:—evincing itself in a holy, useful, Christly life.—.F. W. B. [See Addenda, p. 71, Reparation.]
Lev_5:17.—Theme: ERROR, THOUGH INADVERTENT, IS GUILTY. “If a soul sin, and commit things forbidden, though he wist it not, yet is he guilty, and shall bear his iniquity.”
God required a trespass offering for the smallest error in relation to any of His ordinances, however unwittingly that error was committed.
Yet so multitudinous were the rights of the ceremonial law, that its requirements wore heavily and anxiously upon the lives and consciences of God’s people. Righteousness by the law, therefore, became a weary a fruitless hope.
By this very weariness and failure, Israel was led to crave and look for release from this “yoke,” which was promised when Messiah brought in the “better covenant.”
The gospel age promised release from the oppression of a ritual righteousness, and freedom for a more spiritual service.
I. A SOPHISTRY NEEDING CORRECTION.
This: that invention constitutes the quality of an action; whether conduct is criminal or not. But this declaration of “guilt,” though in the action he “wist it not,” testifies against a sweeping and all-inclusive application of that principle, viz., that intention qualifies action.
1. Ignorance may and does extenuate the guilt of an action. Knowledge deepens guilt (Joh_9:41; Joh_15:22). Ignorance alleviates it (Luk_23:34; Act_3:17; 1Ti_1:13).
2. Yet ignorance cannot excuse guilt.
A man is not excused for breaking the laws of the land because he was ignorant of them. Nor is a servant’s ignorance of his master’s will, when he might and ought to have known it, a sufficient plea.
Nor is he innocent who trespasses, through error, against any ordinance of the Lord. And, if so in respect of ceremonial observances, much more so in relation to moral duties. Hence the curse stands against “every one that continueth not in all things written in the book of the law to do them” (Gal_3:10).
3. God Himself refuses to condone such ignorance. His Word declares that men “perish for lack of knowledge” (Hos_4:6); and that though “a people be of no understanding, He will not have mercy on them, and will show them no favour” (Isa_27:11). [Comp. Simeon’s Sermons].
II. MAN’S UNCOMPUTED GUILT.
1. Reckon up our remembered sins. “They are more in number than the hairs of our head.”
2. Add the sins realised at the time but now forgotten. Memory lets slip multitudinous trespasses.
3. Yet what can represent the number of our unrecognised sins, done in ignorance, done in error?
4. Deviations and defects also, which God’s eye alone detected, and which we too self-indulgently condoned.
Eliphaz charges the inquiry on Job, and on us, “Is not thy wickedness great, and thine iniquities infinite?” (Job_22:5).
God’s Word declares, “There is not a just man upon earth that doeth good and sinneth not” (Ecc_7:20), that “in many things we all offend” (Jas_3:2; Pro_24:16).
In estimating our guiltiness we fail: “Who can understand his errors?” (Psa_19:12).
To extenuate guilt by saying “It is an error” (Ecc_5:6), is to add to sin: rather let us humble ourselves in shame before God.
III. VAST VIRTUE NEEDED IN ATONEMENT.
1. Under the ceremonial arrangements for expiation, how manifold and minute and numerous were the regulations and provisions necessary to make atonement for sin! “Without shedding of blood there was no remission.” And to that were added costly offerings and exacting observances.
2. When all sin had to be expiated by Christ’s one offering, what value it must needs possess! Yet “by one offering” the Saviour “purged our sins.”
(a) It summons us to faith. “Look unto Me and be ye saved.” “Behold the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world.”
(b) It incites us to grateful adoration. “Unto Him that loved us and washed us from our sin in His own blood,” etc. (Rev_1:5-6).
(c) It assures us of perfect redemption. “There remaineth no more offering for sin,” for “the blood of Jesus Christ, God’s Son, cleanseth us from all sin” (1Jn_1:7). [See Addenda, p. 71, Redemption).
ILLUSTRATIVE ADDENDA TO CHAPTER 5
TAKING OATHS
The judicial oaths taken in courts of justice are administered variously: “The usual practice in England and Ireland is, for the witness, after hearing the oath repeated by the officer of the court, to kiss the four gospels by way of assent: and in Scotland, the witness repeats similar words after the judge, standing and holding up his right hand, ‘swearing by Almighty God, as he shall answer to God at the great day of judgment,’ but without kissing the book. Jews are sworn on the Pentateuch, keeping on their hats, and the oath ends with the words, ‘So help you, Jehovah.’ A Mohammedan is sworn on the Koran. A Chinese witness has been sworn by kneeling and breaking a china saucer against the witness-box. Thus, the mere form of taking the oath is immaterial; the witness is allowed to take it in whatever form he considers most binding upon his own conscience—the essential thing being, however, that the witness acknowledge some binding effect derived from his belief in a God and a future state.… The objections of Quakers, Moravians, and Separatists to taking an oath have long been respected as not being fundamentally at variance with a due sense of religious feeling, and hence they have been allowed to make an affirmation instead of taking the oath. In 1854 another concession was made to those who, not being Quakers, yet refuse to take the oath for sincere conscientious motives; and these are now also allowed to affirm instead of to swear. But the law remains as before, that atheists and persons who admit that they have no religious belief whatever, are excluded from giving evidence in courts of justice.”—Chamber’s Ency.
“UNLAWFUL OATHS generally mean oaths taken by members of secret and illegal societies of a treasonable description: and statutes long ago were passed to inflict penalties on all who took or administered such oaths.”—Ibid.
PROFANE OATHS.—Louis the French king was taken prisoner by Meletisaka the Sultan and conditions of peace being concluded between them, for more assurance thereof the Sultan offered to swear, “if he failed in performance of anything, to renounce his Mohammed,” requiring likewise of the king to swear, if he failed in anything he had promised, to deny his Christ to be God: which profane oath the king detesting, and wishing rather to die than to give the same, the Sultan, wondering at his constancy, took his word without an oath at all, and so published the league.
As, on the other side, King John of England, being overlaid in his barons’ wars, when he sent ambassadors to the monarch of Morocco for aid, offered to swear fealty to him and to receive the law of Mohammed; and thereby the monarch grew into such dislike of the king that ever after he abhorred the mention of him.—Trapp.
“It is a great sin to swear unto a sin;
But greater sin to keep a sinful oath.”
Henry VI., II. Lev_5:1.
SINCERE OATHS
“His words are bonds, his oaths are oracles;
His love sincere, his thoughts immaculate;
His heart as far from fraud as heaven from earth.”—Two Gentlemen of Verona, II. 7.
“An oath, an oath, I have an oath in heaven:
Shall I lay perjury upon my soul?
No, not for Venice.”
Merchant of Venice, IV. 1.
“Tis not the many oaths that make the truth:
But the plain single vow, that is vow’d true.”
All’s well that ends well, IV. 2.
“Unheedful vows may heedfully be broken.”
Shakespeare.
INDIFFERENCE.—Idle swimmers who go floating carelessly down the stream, reckless of the nearing peril until they get beyond reach of the bank.
“I asked a young man, ‘Are you in anxiety about yourself and your salvation?’ He replied, ‘I have little concern or feeling on the subject.’
“ ‘Are you not trying to do what God commands you as well as you are able, and with such light as you have?’ ”
“ ‘Oh no; it would seem absurd for one who feels so little as I do to attempt any religious duty!’ ”
“ ‘Yet, you admit that God does require of you repentance, and faith, and worship, and a holy life; do you not?’
“ ‘Yes, I admit all this, but do not feel interested, or troubled, or concerned, respecting it.’
“ ‘What would you advise a customer to do who had contracted a debt with you, who admits his debt, and that he ought to pay it, but says he knows it all, yet is so void of interest or feeling about it?’
“In an instant he replied, ‘I would advise him to pay it, not waiting for feeling.’ ”
REDEMPTION
“Heavenly powers where shall we find such love?
Which of ye will be mortal to redeem
Man’s mortal crime; and just th’ unjust to save?”
Paradise Lost, III. 213.
“The Cross,
There, and there only (tho’ the deist rave,
And atheist, if earth bears so base a slave),
There, and there only, is the power to save.”
COWPER, Progress of Error, 613.
“Why, all the souls that were, were forfeit once;
And he that might the vantage best have took
Found out the remedy.”
Measure for Measure, II. 2.
REPARATION
“Restore to God His due, in tithe and time;
A tithe purloined cankers the whole estate.”
G. HERBERT, The Temple
“God is much displeased
That you take with unthankfulness His doing:
In common worldly things ′tis called ungrateful,
With dull unwillingness to repay a debt
Which with a bounteous hand was kindly lent;
Much more to be thus opposite with heaven:
For it requires the royal debt it lent you.”
Richard III., II. 2.
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 and the Guilt Ofeering (continued)
The Sin Offering and the Guilt Ofeering (continued)
1-6. Special cases in which it is proper to offer a Sin Offering. Such are the withholding of testimony (Lev_5:1), touching a carcase or unclean person or thing (Lev_5:2-3), making rash oaths (Lev_5:4).
Read full note →
1. Sin, and hear] RV 'sin, in that he heareth': cp. Pro_29:24; Jdg_17:2.
2. See Lev_11:27-28, Lev_11:31-40; Lev_15:7. If it be hidden from him] Vulgate renders, 'if he forgetteth his uncleauness,' i.e. omits to make the prescribed ablutions.
7-13. Substitutes for the goat or lamb of the Sin Offering in cases of poverty. The Mosaic Law is always considerate of the poor, and makes special provision for such in sacrifices of atonement and purification, so that a man's poverty may be no excuse for his remaining under sin or disability connected with ceremonial impurity, or any bar to his obtaining forgiveness: see also Lev_1:14-17; Lev_12:8; Lev_14:21.
11. Ephah] about a bushel.
J. R. Dummelow, A Commentary on the Holy Bible (Macmillan, 1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Paul E. Kretzmann 1924 · Public Domain Special Cases of Sin-offerings.
Special Cases of Sin-offerings.
v. 1. And if a soul sin, and hear the voice of swearing, and is a witness, whether he hath seen or known of it; if he do not utter it, then he shall bear his iniquity. This is the first of several special cases in which a sin-offering was commanded. In the Jewish forms of trial the judge adjured those present, those summoned for that purpose, to tell the whole truth concerning the case, as they knew it, whether their knowledge was that of eye-witnesses or had been derived from other reliable sources. To feign ignorance at such a time and not to perform one’s duty as required of witnesses made a person guilty before God, and unless this guilt was removed, the person in question had to suffer the consequences. Among these are mentioned sickness, childlessness, and even total extirpation of the family.
Read full note →
v. 2. Or if a soul touch any unclean thing, whether it be a carcass of an unclean beast, of some wild animal, or a carcass of unclean cattle, of domestic animals, or the carcass of unclean creeping things, of reptiles, and if it be hidden from him, if he is not aware of it at the time, he also shall be unclean and guilty.
v. 3. Or if he touch the uncleanness of man, anything which caused a man to be ceremonially unclean, whatsoever uncleanness it be that a man shall be defiled withal, and it be hid from him; when he knoweth of it, that is, when he finds out about the defilement and yet omits the simple forms of purification which were provided in such cases, Lev 11:24-40; Lev 15:5-8; Num 19:22, then he shall be guilty, atonement should be made for the sin which he committed, for the guilt which he heaped upon himself.
v. 4. Or if a soul swear, pronouncing with his lips to do evil, or to do good, whatsoever it be that a man shall pronounce with an oath, and it be hid from him; this is said of oaths as they are often made in trivial, foolish, unimportant matters, in heedlessness, recklessness, or passion, the person afterward forgetting or neglecting to keep the solemn promises and lightly disregarding the fact that such playing with sacred matters is sinful; when he knoweth of it, when it is brought to his attention and he does nothing to remove the sin, then he shall be guilty in one of these, in one of the three cases here enumerated.
v. 5. And it shall be, when he shall be guilty in one of these things, that he shall confess that he hath sinned in that thing, acknowledge the particular fault concerned before presenting the sacrificial animal.
v. 6. And he shall bring his trespass-offering (or guilt-offering)unto the Lord for his sin which he hath sinned, for the expiation of the guilt which he has loaded upon himself, a female from the flock, a lamb or a kid of the goats, for a sin-offering; and the priest shall make an atonement for him concerning his sin, cause his sin to be covered over before the face of the just and righteous God by virtue of the sacrifice which pointed forward to the perfect sacrifice of Jesus Christ.
v. 7. And if he be not able to bring a lamb, if, on account of poverty, he cannot afford the more expensive animal, then he shall bring for his trespass which he hath committed two turtle-doves or two young pigeons unto the Lord, one for a sin-offering and the other for a burnt offering, the two together forming a full sin-offering, and being given different names only on account of the different treatment which they received.
v. 8. And he shall bring them unto the priest, who shall offer that which is for the sin-offering first, and wring off his head from his neck, kill the bird by pinching off his neck immediately behind his head, but shall not divide it asunder, not sever it entirely;
v. 9. and he shall sprinkle of the blood of the sin-offering upon the side of the altar, none of it, in this case, being smeared on the horns, probably because the amount was so small; and the rest of the blood shall be wrung out at the bottom of the altar; it is a sin-offering.
v. 10. And he shall offer the second for a burnt offering, according to the manner, as the ordinance of the Lord prescribed: and the priest shall make an atonement for him for his sin which he hath sinned, and it shall be forgiven him. The ritual in this case was the same as when birds were offered for a burnt offering, Lev 1:15-17. Through the symbolic rite of the atonement by blood the forgiveness of sins was secured for the believer.
v. 11. But if he be not able to bring two turtle-doves or two young pigeons, if the condition of poverty be very extreme, then he that sinned shall bring for his offering the tenth part of an ephah of fine flour (about two and one half quarts) for a sin-offering. He shall put no oil upon it, neither shall he put any frankincense thereon, as in the case of the meat-offerings; for it is a sin-offering and, although offered without blood, was permitted in exceptional instances, since it was supplemented by the annual sacrifice on the Day of Atonement.
v. 12. Then shall he bring it to the priest, and the priest shall take his handful of it, even a memorial thereof, and burn it on the altar, the intention being to bring the worshiper into remembrance before God, according to the offerings made by fire unto the Lord; it is a sin-offering, and such an offering must not be mingled with the symbols of the Spirit and of the praise of God.
v. 13. And the priest shall make an atonement for him as touching his sin that he hath sinned in one of these, in the instances named above, and it shall be forgiven him; and the remnant shall be the priest’s, as a meat-offering. This part was consecrated or set apart to be food for the priests in the holy place of the Sanctuary.
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 General Information:
General Information:
Yahweh continues telling Moses what the people must do.
Read full note →
something about which he is required to testify
Jewish law and leaders both required the people to testify if they were witnesses to a crime. This can be stated in active form. AT: "something about which a judge has required him to testify" (See: Active or Passive)
God has designated as unclean
Something that God has declared to be unfit for people to touch or eat is spoken of as if it were physically unclean. (See: Metaphor)
the carcass
"the dead body"
he is unclean
A person who is unacceptable for God's purposes is spoken of as if the person were physically unclean. (See: Metaphor)
translationWords
sin
testimony
testimony
God
clean
livestock
guilt
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 5:1-6 These verses list examples of sins covered by…
5:1-6 These verses list examples of sins covered by the sin offering (4:2). When a person realized he or she had committed an offense, the next step was to make it right by admitting guilt and bringing a sin offering.
5:1 The first infraction was the failure to testify when called as a witness before a court. Failure to testify was not a passive act because it actively aided the criminal. • you will be punished (literally you become guilty or you realize your guilt): Anticipating God’s punishment for the sin, the guilty party offered the sacrifice to remove the guilt and escape the punishment.
Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.