Leviticus 16 - The Day of Atonement (Part 2)

 "3 Thus shall Aaron come into the holy place: with a young bullock for a sin offering, and a ram for a burnt offering. 4 He shall put on the holy linen coat, and he shall have the linen breeches upon his flesh, and shall be girded with a linen girdle, and with the linen mitre shall he be attired: these are holy garments; therefore shall he wash his flesh in water, and so put them on. 5 And he shall take of the congregation of the children of Israel two kids of the goats for a sin offering, and one ram for a burnt offering. 6 And Aaron shall offer his bullock of the sin offering, which is for himself, and make an atonement for himself, and for his house. 7 And he shall take the two goats, and present them before the LORD at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. 8 And Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats; one lot for the LORD, and the other lot for the scapegoat. 9 And Aaron shall bring the goat upon which the LORD’S lot fell, and offer him for a sin offering. 10 But the goat, on which the lot fell to be the scapegoat, shall be presented alive before the LORD, to make an atonement with him, and to let him go for a scapegoat into the wilderness." — Leviticus 16:3-10 KJV.

AN OUTLINE OF THE WHOLE CEREMONIAL, 3-10.

3. Holy place — This is here used, not for the court of the priests, but for the holy of holies. Bullock — The high office of Aaron requires the greatest of the sin offerings. See chap. 4, concluding notes. (4.) Note the presumption, that this high official had so failed to keep the holy law of God that he annually needed an offering not only for his conscious and wilful sins, but also for his inadvertencies, ignorances, and errors. Hebrews 5:2. See concluding notes to chap. 4.

Leviticus 10:12-20

"12 And Moses spake unto Aaron, and unto Eleazar and unto Ithamar, his sons that were left, Take the meat offering that remaineth of the offerings of the LORD made by fire, and eat it without leaven beside the altar: for it is most holy: 13 And ye shall eat it in the holy place, because it is thy due, and thy sons’ due, of the sacrifices of the LORD made by fire: for so I am commanded. 14 And the wave breast and heave shoulder shall ye eat in a clean place; thou, and thy sons, and thy daughters with thee: for they be thy due, and thy sons’ due, which are given out of the sacrifices of peace offerings of the children of Israel. 15 The heave shoulder and the wave breast shall they bring with the offerings made by fire of the fat, to wave it for a wave offering before the LORD; and it shall be thine, and thy sons’ with thee, by a statute for ever; as the LORD hath commanded. 16 And Moses diligently sought the goat of the sin offering, and, behold, it was burnt: and he was angry with Eleazar and Ithamar, the sons of Aaron which were left alive, saying, 17 Wherefore have ye not eaten the sin offering in the holy place, seeing it is most holy, and God hath given it you to bear the iniquity of the congregation, to make atonement for them before the LORD? 18 Behold, the blood of it was not brought in within the holy place: ye should indeed have eaten it in the holy place, as I commanded. 19 And Aaron said unto Moses, Behold, this day have they offered their sin offering and their burnt offering before the LORD; and such things have befallen me: and if I had eaten the sin offering to day, should it have been accepted in the sight of the LORD? 20 And when Moses heard that, he was content." —  Leviticus 10:12-20 KJV.

EATING THE MOST HOLY THINGS, 12-20.

12. Take the meat offering — The appalling stroke of Jehovah’s wrath had disconcerted Aaron so that he had forgotten the prescribed order of the sacrifices. Moses reminds him that the meat offering follows the burnt offering consumed by celestial fire. Leviticus 9:24. See The Order of the Levitical Sacrifices. And eat it — The eating by the priest symbolizes the full acceptance of the oblation. See Leviticus 6:16, note, and Concluding Note (1) of the same chapter. Beside the altar — This was the altar of incense in the priests’ apartment, called the holy place, within the first veil. See chap. 4:7.

13. Thy due, and thy sons’ due — In addition to the meat offering there were other sources of revenue to the priests, enumerated in Numbers 5:9. For so I am commanded — “Moses was not the fountain of authority. God has no dead letters in his law book. The law is alive — tingling, throbbing in every letter and at every point. The commandment is exceeding broad; it never slumbers, never passes into obsoleteness, but stands in perpetual claim of right and insistence of decree. It is convenient to forget laws; but God will not allow any one of his laws to be forgotten.” — Joseph Parker.

15. The heave shoulder… wave breast — See Leviticus 7:14, 30, notes. “All the members of the priestly family, daughters, as well as sons — all, whatever the measure of energy or capacity — are to feed upon the breast and the shoulder, the affections and the strength of the true Peace Offering as raised from the dead and presented before God.” — McIntosh.

16. The goat of the sin offering — This was the people’s sin offering which had been slain and offered by Moses, (Leviticus 9:15,) or by the two younger sons of Aaron, to whom this part of the ritual had been intrusted by Moses. And he was angry — No softer word will import into English the strength of the Hebrew יִּקְצֹף (katzaph) — to snort, to storm. Anger is not a sin when it arises not from personal feeling, but purely in the interest of justice, truth, order, and humanity. The soul which cannot be angry at great wrongs Plato compares to an arm with the chief sinew cut asunder. We do not accept that weak defence of the imprecatory Psalms which explains them as simply declaratory of future judgments upon David’s enemies. They are the proper expression of a righteous indignation breathed out in behalf of God and his righteousness. Hence, the sinless Jesus on one occasion looked around with anger upon his foes lurking in ambush for his life. Mark 3:5. It remains for us to inquire whether Moses had sufficient provocation to just anger. We reply that stupidity and gross carelessness in handling interests of vast importance are such a provocation. The sins of the whole Hebrew nation were to be taken away by virtue of their incorporation into the priests by eating the people’s sin offering. Such was the sanctifying power of the priests’ office that by this act they were enabled to bear away the iniquity of the congregation. By the blunder of these young priests the people’s sins were still resting upon them. See chap. 6:26, note. Heedlessness in respect to our own interests is culpable, but in respect to the well-being of others it is criminal.

17. To bear the iniquity — The Hebrew שֵׂאת֙, he bore, with its derivatives, occurs in the Old Testament eight hundred and ninety-five times, or about once to every chapter. In relation to sin it occurs sixty-four times. It may be interpreted by portare peccatum, to bear or suffer the penalty of sin, or by auferre peccata, to remove sins. The predominant signification is that of removal; yet the other, of bearing, is by no means excluded thereby; rather was the bearing in this case a removal. “When the priests ate they incorporated sin, as it were, and the people received forgiveness unto themselves, that it might be prefigured that at some time the priest and the victim would be one person, namely, the Messiah, a prediction exactly fulfilled in Jesus of Nazareth.” — Deyling. This singular episode between Moses and Aaron sheds much light upon the sacrifices. The goat of the sin offering and whatever touched it were most holy. The priests were to eat it, and thus the sins of the people, having been transferred through the animal to the priests, were representatively borne. See Numbers 9:13, note. Atonement — Leviticus 1:4, and 4:20, notes.

18. Blood… not brought — See Leviticus 6:30, note. In the passage referred to it will be seen that it was a law of the sin offering that it should not be eaten when the blood was brought into the tabernacle, for this is the meaning of the holy place in this place. This verse proves the converse to be true, namely, that every sin sacrifice shall be eaten whose blood was not brought into the holy place. In the first case the sprinkled blood expiated, and in the second, the eaten flesh removed sin.

19. Such things have befallen me — “Aaron here supplies the ‘one touch of nature’ which ‘makes the whole world kin.’ The deeper laws assert themselves against the more superficial statutes and ordinances.” — Joseph Parker. Aaron, forbidden to mourn in public, could not restrain his grief. His bursting heart finds relief in this one sentence whispered in the ear of his irate brother as an apology for his own neglect to eat the sin offering. He had been deterred by his sense of unworthiness and by his fear of committing an impropriety which might call down still greater judgments. This soft answer turned away wrath, for when Moses heard… he was content. “They were all, in a sense, unclean, even though the anointing oil of the Lord was upon them. They might eat the meat offering which was their due, but could not make atonement for the sins of the people.” — Bib. Sac. It is far better to be real in our confession of failure than to put forth pretensions to spiritual power without foundation. This chapter opens with positive sin, and closes with negative failure, the former dishonouring God, and the latter forfeiting his blessing.

Leviticus 8:14-30

"And he brought the bullock for the sin offering: and Aaron and his sons laid their hands upon the head of the bullock for the sin offering. And he slew it; and Moses took the blood, and put it upon the horns of the altar round about with his finger, and purified the altar, and poured the blood at the bottom of the altar, and sanctified it, to make reconciliation upon it. And he took all the fat that was upon the inwards, and the caul above the liver, and the two kidneys, and their fat, and Moses burned it upon the altar. But the bullock, and his hide, his flesh, and his dung, he burnt with fire without the camp; as the LORD commanded Moses. And he brought the ram for the burnt offering: and Aaron and his sons laid their hands upon the head of the ram. And he killed it; and Moses sprinkled the blood upon the altar round about. And he cut the ram into pieces; and Moses burnt the head, and the pieces, and the fat. And he washed the inwards and the legs in water; and Moses burnt the whole ram upon the altar: it was a burnt sacrifice for a sweet savour, and an offering made by fire unto the LORD; as the LORD commanded Moses. And he brought the other ram, the ram of consecration: and Aaron and his sons laid their hands upon the head of the ram. And he slew it; and Moses took of the blood of it, and put it upon the tip of Aaron’s right ear, and upon the thumb of his right hand, and upon the great toe of his right foot. And he brought Aaron’s sons, and Moses put of the blood upon the tip of their right ear, and upon the thumbs of their right hands, and upon the great toes of their right feet: and Moses sprinkled the blood upon the altar round about. And he took the fat, and the rump, and all the fat that was upon the inwards, and the caul above the liver, and the two kidneys, and their fat, and the right shoulder: And out of the basket of unleavened bread, that was before the LORD, he took one unleavened cake, and a cake of oiled bread, and one wafer, and put them on the fat, and upon the right shoulder: And he put all upon Aaron’s hands, and upon his sons’ hands, and waved them for a wave offering before the LORD. And Moses took them from off their hands, and burnt them on the altar upon the burnt offering: they were consecrations for a sweet savour: it is an offering made by fire unto the LORD. And Moses took the breast, and waved it for a wave offering before the LORD: for of the ram of consecration it was Moses’ part; as the LORD commanded Moses. And Moses took of the anointing oil, and of the blood which was upon the altar, and sprinkled it upon Aaron, and upon his garments, and upon his sons, and upon his sons’ garments with him; and sanctified Aaron, and his garments, and his sons, and his sons’ garments with him." — Leviticus 8:14-30 KJV.

14. Sin offering — See Leviticus 4:3, note, and concluding notes of chap. 4. Note the order of the sacrifices in this service of consecration; first, sin must be expiated, and, secondly, the surrender of self unto Jehovah must be set forth by the whole burnt offering; then the bread offering is presented, symbolizing joyful communion with the Lord through the fruits of holiness. See The Order of the Levitical Sacrifices.  Hands upon the head — See Leviticus 1:4, note.

15. Blood… horns — Leviticus 4:7, note. Purified the altar — The altar, the work of the hands of sinful men, is viewed as sinful. In verse 11 it is sanctified, and now it is expiated with blood. A holy life cannot be maintained on the earth without the blood of atonement being constantly sprinkled upon it. 1 John 1:7. Sanctified — The sanctification by oil is a setting apart, the blood sanctification is a thorough purgation of the very nature. To make reconciliation upon it — The Hebrew is capable of this construction. But precisely the same words in Leviticus 1:4, are rendered to make atonement for him. The personified altar needs an atonement as much as its imperfect minister.

18. Burnt offering — Leviticus 1:3, note. Laid their hands upon the head — This act cannot here signify the transmission of sin to the victim, for this had already been done in the sin offering. Verse 14. It is rather a typical ascription of glory to the Lamb of God which taketh away the sins of the world. Whether the Hebrew confessed his sins, consecrated self, or gave thanks, he laid his hand upon the head of the victim. Thus, both in prayers and praises to God the Father, the believer lays his hand upon Jesus, the great Sacrifice. He is the medium through whom all acceptable worship is offered. “He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father.” See Leviticus 1:4, note.

19. And Moses sprinkled the blood — In this consecration Moses performs all the functions of the priesthood. The first high priest was ordained by Moses as “mediator.” “In the history of the Church of Christ priests have often corrupted it, and laymen have often purified it. It is a melancholy fact that the great introducers of errors have not generally been the laity — they have had their share — but the priests, or the ministry, so called, have introduced far more errors, and said more subtle things to defend them, in one century, than all the laity have said for eighteen. The ministry of the Gospel is so very prone to magnify itself that it needs the diluting presence of other and resistant elements to keep it in order.”

21. In the sweet savour offerings the Hebrew came to present an offering which, as a sweet feast to God, was consumed upon his altar. In the sin offerings (verse 14) he came as a sinner, and his offering, as charged with sin, was cast out and burnt, not on the altar, but on the ground without the camp. Verse 17. In the one the offerer came as an accepted worshipper; in the other as a condemned sinner. Both parties may meet in Christ.

22. Consecration — This literally signifies filling; as meeting all requirements. Verses 27, 28; Numbers 3:3.

23. Blood… upon the tip of Aaron’s right ear — The consecration was not only general, but specific. The ear must be dedicated that it may be open to the divine voice; the hand and foot, that they may be efficient in sacred services. Eminent saints have practised self consecration by the enumeration of all their faculties and capacities in detail. See the Life of Dr. Payson.

“Welcome, welcome, dear Redeemer,
Welcome to this heart of mine;
Lord, I make a full surrender;
Every power and thought be thine,
Thine entirely, through eternal ages thine.”

25. The fat — The suet, Leviticus 3:3. The rump — The tail, Leviticus 3:9, note. The two kidneys — Leviticus 3:4, note. The burnt offering is evidently an object lesson inculcating the first great commandment, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart,” etc. Hence the enumeration of all the parts: the head as an emblem of the thoughts; the legs, an emblem of the walk; the kidneys and the inwards, the constant and familiar symbol of the affections. The meaning of the fat may not be quite so obvious, but it doubtless represents the energy not of one limb or faculty, but the general health and vigour of the whole. 

 26. Oiled bread — Here are all the elements of the מִנְחָה (mincha), meat offering, or meal offering, (R.V.,) except the frankincense. Leviticus 2:1.

27, 29. He put all upon Aaron’s hands — By this symbolism the priestly office was handed over to the candidates. Numbers 3:3, note. Wave offering — Leviticus 7:30, note. Moses’s part — The ram of consecration is treated as a peace offering. As Moses is acting in the capacity of a priest, the priestly portion belongs to him. This was the right shoulder. Leviticus 7:33, note.

30. The anointing oil — For its elements see Exodus 30:23, 24. These spices beautifully typify the gifts and graces of the Holy Spirit, which impart no acerbity of disposition, no acid tempers, but only gentle qualities and benevolent affections. And of the blood — Since both oil and blood prefigure, the first the consecration and the second the purifying of the soul, their union typifies the blending of the office of the atoning Saviour, who hath redeemed us by his blood, with that of the Holy Spirit, who transforms and sanctifies by his cleansing power. Hence, since under the Gospel all believers are dignified as priests, we are exhorted to “draw near with a true heart, in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience,” by the blood of the Lamb, “and our bodies washed with pure water,” the symbol of purification by the Holy Spirit. Hebrews 10:22; see Leviticus 14:5, note. Sacrifice for sin alone does not suffice; there must be an inward cleansing by the Spirit. To pardon sin is to leave the house swept and garnished but unoccupied; to fill with the Holy Ghost is to put in a keeper. Upon Aaron, and upon his garments — The person and the garments were sprinkled to prefigure both inward and outward purification, holiness of heart and of life. When the blood and the oil could be connected together, then Aaron and his sons could be anointed and sanctified together. Thus Jesus set himself apart as a bleeding sacrifice for the purchase of the holy unction for all believers, made priests unto God. This explains John 17:19.

Leviticus 7:35-38 with Concluding Note

 "This is the portion of the anointing of Aaron, and of the anointing of his sons, out of the offerings of the LORD made by fire, in the day when he presented them to minister unto the LORD in the priest’s office; Which the LORD commanded to be given them of the children of Israel, in the day that he anointed them, by a statute for ever throughout their generations. This is the law of the burnt offering, of the meat offering, and of the sin offering, and of the trespass offering, and of the consecrations, and of the sacrifice of the peace offerings; Which the LORD commanded Moses in mount Sinai, in the day that he commanded the children of Israel to offer their oblations unto the LORD, in the wilderness of Sinai." — Leviticus 7:35-38 KJV.

SUMMARY OF PRECEDING LAWS, 35-38.

35. This is the portion of the anointing of Aaron — This is the provision made for those who are anointed priests — the perquisite by virtue of the holy office. The abstract anointing is put for the concrete, the anointed.

36. In the day that he anointed them — The command given on that day extends over the whole period of the Aaronic priesthood. A statute for ever — See Leviticus 3:17, note.

37. Burnt offering — Chap. 1, notes, and Leviticus 6:8-13, notes. Meat offering — Chap. 2, and Leviticus 6:14-18, notes. Sin offering — Chap. 4, notes, and Leviticus 6:25-30. Trespass offering — Chapter 5-6:7; 7:1-7, notes. The consecrations — This consisted in filling the hands of the priests with the things which they were to offer. See Numbers 3:3, note. It is an expressive mode of inducting them into office. This ordinance is not distinctly spoken of in the previous chapters except in part in Leviticus 6:19-23, but the offerings of which the consecration is made up have been already detailed, as will be seen in chap. 8. Peace offerings — Chaps. 3, 7:11-34. notes. “The sacrificial law, therefore, with the five species of sacrifices which it enjoins, embraces every aspect in which Israel was to manifest its true relation to the Lord its God. While the expiatory sacrifices furnished the means of removing the barrier which sins and trespasses had set up between the sinner and the holy God, and procured the forgiveness of sin and guilt, so that the sinner could attain once more to the unrestricted enjoyment of the covenanted grace, the sanctification of the whole man in self-surrender to the Lord was shadowed forth in the burnt offerings, the fruits of this sanctification in the meat offerings, and the blessedness of the possession and enjoyment of saving grace in the peace offerings. Nevertheless the sacrifices could not make those who drew near to God with them and in them “perfect as pertaining to the conscience,” (Hebrews 9:9; 10:1,) because the blood of bulls and of goats could not possibly take away sin. Hebrews 10:4. The forgiveness of sin which the atoning sacrifices procured was only a paresiv (a passing by) of past sins through the forbearance of God, (Romans 3:25, 26,) in anticipation of the true sacrifice of Christ, of which the animal sacrifices were only a type, and by which the justice of God is satisfied, and the way opened for full forgiveness of sin and complete reconciliation to God.” — Keil. See Introduction, 5, 6, 7.

CONCLUDING NOTE.

That this sacrificial code was burdensome will not be denied by those who have enjoyed the more glorious dispensation of the Spirit. There is a striking contrast between the sacrificial law and “the law of liberty” in Christ Jesus our Lord. The great purpose of the first was the ushering in of the second. In this regard not only the moral law but the ceremonial, also, was our paidagwgov, child-leader, to bring us to Christ. All the shadows adumbrate him; all the types prefigure him in his various mediatorial offices. This will account for the variety of the sacrifices containing an expiatory element. A subordinate purpose of this variety may have been to prevent that tedium which would have attended one invariable form of sacrifice. Rationalism suggests that this complicated and elaborate system was devised simply to keep the Israelites so busily employed that they would have no inclination to adopt the idolatries of the surrounding nations, especially the religious rites with which they had become familiar in Egypt. But the suggestion that God has created any thing for the sole purpose of filling a vacuum is not only a reflection on his wisdom, but a glaring indication of a lack, on the part of Rationalism, of that true spirit of philosophy which is satisfied only with the discovery of worthy final causes of things. “These rites and ceremonies were minute, in order to impress upon the Jewish mind, and upon the mind of humanity itself, the great ideas of substitution, atonement, vicarious sacrifice; till this idea became so familiarized to the hearts of mankind that they should be able not only to appreciate, but to hail with joy and gratitude that perfect atonement of which these were the shadows, saying, each of them, ‘We are voices crying in the wilderness, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world!’” — Dr. Cummings.

Leviticus 6:14-30

"14 And this is the law of the meat offering: the sons of Aaron shall offer it before the LORD, before the altar. 15 And he shall take of it his handful, of the flour of the meat offering, and of the oil thereof, and all the frankincense which is upon the meat offering, and shall burn it upon the altar for a sweet savour, even the memorial of it, unto the LORD. 16 And the remainder thereof shall Aaron and his sons eat: with unleavened bread shall it be eaten in the holy place; in the court of the tabernacle of the congregation they shall eat it. 17 It shall not be baken with leaven. I have given it unto them for their portion of my offerings made by fire; it is most holy, as is the sin offering, and as the trespass offering. 18 All the males among the children of Aaron shall eat of it. It shall be a statute for ever in your generations concerning the offerings of the LORD made by fire: every one that toucheth them shall be holy. 19 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 20 This is the offering of Aaron and of his sons, which they shall offer unto the LORD in the day when he is anointed; the tenth part of an ephah of fine flour for a meat offering perpetual, half of it in the morning, and half thereof at night. 21 In a pan it shall be made with oil; and when it is baken, thou shalt bring it in: and the baken pieces of the meat offering shalt thou offer for a sweet savour unto the LORD. 22 And the priest of his sons that is anointed in his stead shall offer it: it is a statute for ever unto the LORD; it shall be wholly burnt. 23 For every meat offering for the priest shall be wholly burnt: it shall not be eaten. 24 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 25 Speak unto Aaron and to his sons, saying, 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. 26 The priest that offereth it for sin shall eat it: in the holy place shall it be eaten, in the court of the tabernacle of the congregation. 27 Whatsoever shall touch the flesh thereof shall be holy: and when there is sprinkled of the blood thereof upon any garment, thou shalt wash that whereon it was sprinkled in the holy place. 28 But the earthen vessel wherein it is sodden shall be broken: and if it be sodden in a brasen pot, it shall be both scoured, and rinsed in water. 29 All the males among the priests shall eat thereof: it is most holy. 30 And 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." — Leviticus 6:14-30 KJV.

14. The meat offering — See Leviticus 2:1, note.

16. The remainder… shall Aaron and his sons eat — The reason of this requirement is “because it is most holy.” For a discussion of the question whether the priests were able to eat all the most holy things commanded them, see Concluding Note, chap. 7.

17. Not be baken with leaven — See Leviticus 2:4, note.

18. Statute for ever — Chap. 17, note. Every one that toucheth them shall be holy — This applies to persons and to things. The priest is forbidden to eat these oblations while ceremonially defiled, and the sacred utensils brought in contact with them must not be put to any secular use. Every layman who touched the most holy things became holy through contact, so that he must henceforth guard against defilement as scrupulously as the priests, but without their rights and prerogatives. This placed him in an awkward relation to secular things.

20. The offering of Aaron — Aaron, at his induction into the high priest’s office, and, according to Josephus, on every day of his continuance therein, and his successors, as we here interpret the words his sons, must offer three quarts of fine flour, half in the morning and half at night, as an oblation appropriate to the high priesthood. In the day — Some understand this to be only a consecratory oblation limited to one day; but those who credit the testimony of Josephus construe these words to signify from the day, or day by day.

21. In a pan… with oil — See Leviticus 2:5.

22. The priest of his sons — This justifies our note on verse 20, limiting the expression “his sons” to Aaron’s successors in the office of high priest as heads of the hierarchy. They had no technical designation in the Pentateuch — the word גָּד֨וֹל (gadhol), great, Leviticus 21:10, is not yet wholly technical — but were defined by the definite article the and the following relative clause. That is anointed — In the books subsequent to the Pentateuch we find the high priest indicated by the Hebrew words for great, or head. All the priests were anointed, but the high priest received a more copious unction. Leviticus 16:32; Psalm 133:1.

23. Wholly burnt… not be eaten — Since it was a thank offering to Jehovah it would be improper for the priest to eat it. To appropriate it to himself after presenting it to the Lord would destroy the vital element of sacrifice, self-denial. This law applies to all offerings of the priest, especially to his sin offering, the eating of which would imply that he could atone for his own sins, and that he had no need of a substitute prefiguring “the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.” The sin offering for a private individual or for a prince was to be eaten by the priesthood. That for the whole nation, since the priests were included, could not be eaten.

25. Sin offering — See Leviticus 4, notes. Before the Lord — See Leviticus 1:3, note. It is most holy — Literally, it is holiness of holinesses; a strong form of Hebrew superlative. See Leviticus 2:3, note.

26. The priest… shall eat — God required the priests to eat the flesh in order that they might “bear (away, or expiate) the iniquity of the congregation, to make atonement for them.” Leviticus 10:17. Eating symbolizes the complete reception of any thing. Jeremiah 15:16; John 6:51. Hence the priests, as God’s representatives, by their incorporation with the sin offering gave assurance of the completeness of the reconciliation, and demonstrated that the sacrifice which entirely removes guilt, is converted even into the nutriment of the holiest life. Jesus is both our propitiation and our bread of life. That offereth it for sin — Or expiates sin by it. The word expiates sin, in the Hebrew, is from the same radicals with sin offering. See 2 Corinthians 5:21.

27. Whatsoever shall touch the flesh thereof — Of this “most holy” sacrifice. No one but a consecrated person was knowingly allowed “to touch” or handle the offering. Shall be holy — Be deemed devoted to God’s service. When there is sprinkled upon any garment — Not intentionally, but accidentally, in the slaying of the sacrifice or otherwise. So sacred was the blood of the sin offering that not a drop was to be treated as common. Thou shalt wash… in the holy place — So that nothing connected with, or any wise belonging to, this holy service should be contaminated by contact with unsanctified persons or things. “As the sin offering in special sort figured Christ, who was made sin for us, (2 Corinthians 5:21,) so this ordinance taught a holy use of the mystery of our redemption.” The sacredness which was deemed to appertain to “the blood” of this most holy offering is strikingly typical of that most “precious blood” of our great sacrificial Victim of which Peter speaks in his epistle. 1 Peter 1:18, 19.

30. Blood… brought into the tabernacle — This refers to the sin offerings for the high priest and for the whole congregation, Leviticus 4:5, 16, the blood of which was brought into the tabernacle and the bodies burnt without the camp. The complete propitiation symbolized by the sprinkled blood and the flesh eaten by the priest could not be effected under the Levitical dispensation. When the flesh was eaten, the blood-sprinkling within the tabernacle was lacking; and when the blood was thus sacrificially treated, eating the flesh was prohibited. For the imperfection in the Old Testament remission of sins, see The Temporal and Spiritual Benefits of the Levitical Sacrifices. Jesus Christ made a complete atonement, having carried his blood into the holy place, “the true tabernacle,” and given his flesh to be the bread of eternal life to all believers. John 6:32-58.

CONCLUDING NOTES.

(1.) Modern scepticism finds a difficulty in that portion of the ritual of the altar which requires that the priest should eat in the sanctuary those sacrifices pronounced “most holy.” They were of eight kinds: (1.) The flesh of the sin offering for private individuals and princes. Leviticus 6:25, 26. (2.) The flesh of the trespass offering. Leviticus 7:1-6. (3.) The peace offering of the whole congregation. Leviticus 23:19, 20. (4.) The remainder of the sheaf. Leviticus 23:10. (5.) The remnant of the meat offering. Leviticus 6:16. (6.) The two loaves. Leviticus 23:17. (7.) The show-bread. Leviticus 24:9. (8.) The log of oil offered by the leper. Leviticus 14:10. There were at least fifteen other sources of revenue; some to be eaten by the priest’s family and others which might be sold. The chief difficulty arises from the offerings to be eaten by the males only while they were very few in number, Aaron, his two sons, three in all, as Colenso assumes. The following considerations may throw some light upon this subject: (1.) In the natural order of events Aaron, the older brother of Moses, would have had grandsons when he was approaching ninety years. These, though not consecrated priests, were permitted to eat the most holy things. Leviticus 7:6. (2.) The sacrifices were probably very infrequent till after the conquest of Canaan. Some writers infer from Amos 5:25, 26, the omission of all legal sacrifices in the wilderness. (3.) There is positive proof that the Levites, numbering more than eight thousand, (Numbers 4:48,) did eat of the fire-sacrifices, by some broad construction of the law. Joshua 13:14. Possibly the tasting of each sacrifice by the priest, and its assignment to the Levites on guard about the tabernacle, was a constructive priestly eating of the offerings. (4.) It seems to have been overlooked by all the objectors that “the children of Israel eat not of the sinew which shrank,” (Genesis 32:32,) and that the modern Jews not knowing what sinew this was, nor even which thigh was dislocated, judge it obligatory upon them to abstain from both the hind-quarters, the largest portion of the animal. It is reasonable to suppose that the modern Israelites are copying the practice of their fathers in the days of Moses, which, by virtue of its traditional authority, did not need to be enforced by a positive statute. These suggestions, while they do not entirely remove all objections, very much alleviate the difficulties of this subject.

(2.) A careful study of the law of sacrifices, in which provisions so ample are made for those who minister about holy things, would enforce upon the Christian Church the duty of affording an adequate support to the Gospel ministry, in accordance with St. Paul’s argument in 1 Corinthians 9:7-14, showing that in this particular Judaism was an exemplar to Christianity.

Leviticus 4:13-35 (Sin Offering) with Concluding Notes

"And if the whole congregation of Israel sin through ignorance, and the thing be hid from the eyes of the assembly, and they have done somewhat against any of the commandments of the LORD concerning things which should not be done, and are guilty; When the sin, which they have sinned against it, is known, then the congregation shall offer a young bullock for the sin, and bring him before the tabernacle of the congregation. And the elders of the congregation shall lay their hands upon the head of the bullock before the LORD: and the bullock shall be killed before the LORD. And the priest that is anointed shall bring of the bullock’s blood to the tabernacle of the congregation: And the priest shall dip his finger in some of the blood, and sprinkle it seven times before the LORD, even before the vail. And he shall put some of the blood upon the horns of the altar which is before the LORD, that is in the tabernacle of the congregation, and shall pour out all the blood at the bottom of the altar of the burnt offering, which is at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. And he shall take all his fat from him, and burn it upon the altar. And he shall do with the bullock as he did with the bullock for a sin offering, so shall he do with this: and the priest shall make an atonement for them, and it shall be forgiven them. And he shall carry forth the bullock without the camp, and burn him as he burned the first bullock: it is a sin offering for the congregation.

"When a ruler hath sinned, and done somewhat through ignorance against any of the commandments of the LORD his God concerning things which should not be done, and is guilty; Or if his sin, wherein he hath sinned, come to his knowledge; he shall bring his offering, a kid of the goats, a male without blemish: And he shall lay his hand upon the head of the goat, and kill it in the place where they kill the burnt offering before the LORD: it is a sin offering. And the priest shall take of the blood of the sin offering with his finger, and put it upon the horns of the altar of burnt offering, and shall pour out his blood at the bottom of the altar of burnt offering. And he shall burn all his fat upon the altar, as the fat of the sacrifice of peace offerings: and the priest shall make an atonement for him as concerning his sin, and it shall be forgiven him.

"And if any one of the common people sin through ignorance, while he doeth somewhat against any of the commandments of the LORD concerning things which ought not to be done, and be guilty; Or if his sin, which he hath sinned, come to his knowledge: then he shall bring his offering, a kid of the goats, a female without blemish, for his sin which he hath sinned. And he shall lay his hand upon the head of the sin offering, and slay the sin offering in the place of the burnt offering. And the priest shall take of the blood thereof with his finger, and put it upon the horns of the altar of burnt offering, and shall pour out all the blood thereof at the bottom of the altar. And he shall take away all the fat thereof, as the fat is taken away from off the sacrifice of peace offerings; and the priest shall burn it upon the altar for a sweet savour unto the LORD; and the priest shall make an atonement for him, and it shall be forgiven him. And if he bring a lamb for a sin offering, he shall bring it a female without blemish. And he shall lay his hand upon the head of the sin offering, and slay it for a sin offering in the place where they kill the burnt offering. And the priest shall take of the blood of the sin offering with his finger, and put it upon the horns of the altar of burnt offering, and shall pour out all the blood thereof at the bottom of the altar: And he shall take away all the fat thereof, as the fat of the lamb is taken away from the sacrifice of the peace offerings; and the priest shall burn them upon the altar, according to the offerings made by fire unto the LORD: and the priest shall make an atonement for his sin that he hath committed, and it shall be forgiven him. —  Leviticus 4:13-35 KJV.

SIN OF THE CONGREGATION, 13-21.

13. Whole congregation… sin — It is not to be supposed that so great a multitude should each be guilty of the same inadvertent sin, except it be some defect in worship or some deviation from the letter of the law arising out of their peculiar circumstances, as in 1 Samuel 14:32-35. It is this presumptive sin of the whole congregation of Christian worshippers which renders it eminently appropriate for the Lord’s Prayer, with its petition for forgiveness of debts, to be repeated in every assembly. The sin of the whole congregation was to be expiated in the same way with the sin of the priest, except that the elders, as their representatives, laid their hands upon the victim.

20. Make… atonement for them — The radical significance of this term is to cover the sinner from the holiness of God lest he be consumed because of his sin. The term atonement in the Old Testament corresponds not to the Greek of which atonement is the translation in Romans 5:11, καταλλαγὴν (katallaghn), reconciliation, or a state of harmonized variance, irrespective of the means, but to propitiation, ἱλαστήριον (ilasthrion), (Romans 3:25,) and ἱλασμὸν (ilasmov). 1 John 2:2; 4:10. See note on Leviticus 1:4. It shall be forgiven — For the nature of the Old Testament forgiveness, see The Temporal and Spiritual Benefits of the Levitical Sacrifices.

SIN OF A PRINCE, 22-26.

22. A ruler — This term signifies any high political officer, especially the heads of the tribes, or phylarchs. The rabbins generally understand that under the monarchy it referred only to the king. The ritual for a prince is like that for the priest and for the congregation, except that the victim was a kid of the goats, and that the fat was burned as was that of the peace offering. Instead of being burnt without the camp, the flesh was to be eaten by the priest. Leviticus 6:26.

SIN OF A PRIVATE PERSON, 27-35.

The only difference between the method of expiating the sin of a private person and that of a ruler is, that the offering of the former being a female kid is supposed to be inferior to that of the ruler.

CONCLUDING NOTES.

(1.) Ethical writers insist that the moral sense of mankind pronounces innocent the inadvertent doer of an act wrong in itself. They declare that there is a broad distinction between wrong and guilt, on the one hand, and right and innocence on the other, and that guilt always involves a knowledge of the wrong and an intention to commit it. Hence in the light of the moral philosophies filling our libraries and taught in our colleges a sin of inadvertence or ignorance needs no expiation. The punishment of such sins by human judicatories, it is asserted, would be an outrage against which every good man would cry out. Nevertheless, so great are the interests intrusted to men in certain positions that severe penalties are attached to carelessness, as in the handling of poisons by physicians and apothecaries, the involuntary sleep of a weary sentinel at his post, or in the case of the bridge-tender, who, through a misapprehension of the hour of the day, has the draw open when the express train arrives. These are inadvertent sins which men regard and punish as crimes. Now what the exigencies of human society require in a few cases, the perfect moral government of God demands in all cases — satisfaction for involuntary sins. But there is this difference. God always provides an atonement for such sins, and never executes sentence till the atonement has been rejected. Where the expiation cannot be known and applied he forbears to inflict the penalty. The time of this ignorance God overlooked. Acts 17:30. Hence the law of God is more merciful than the law of man, which, in the cases specified, makes no provision for escaping the punishment of involuntary offences. The objection which some have raised against the Divine government for holding errors and inadvertencies as culpable and penal, falls to the ground when we find the first announcement of this fact accompanied by the institution of the sin offering.

(2.) Though a well-meant mistake does not defile the conscience and bring the soul into condemnation, it nevertheless demands a penitent confession and a presentation of the great Sin Offering unto a God of absolute holiness. The refusal to do this, since the sin offering is provided, involves positive guilt. Says John Wesley, 

“Not only sin, properly so called, that is, a voluntary transgression of a known law; but sin improperly so called, that is, an involuntary transgression of a Divine law, known or unknown, needs the atoning blood. I believe there is no such perfection in this life as excludes these involuntary transgressions which I apprehend to be naturally consequent on the ignorance and mistakes inseparable from mortality. Therefore sinless perfection is a phrase I never use, lest I should seem to contradict myself. I believe a person filled with the love of God is still liable to these involuntary transgressions.” 

Hence Chas. Wesley sings, 

“Every moment, Lord, I want
The merit of thy death.”

(3.) The Jewish teachers were thorough literalists, as is seen in their definition of the sin of ignorance: 1.) It must be involuntary. 2.) Against a prohibition. 3.) An outward act and not a word or a thought. 4.) The deed must be worthy of capital punishment when wilfully committed. We believe that this is taking too narrow a view of the broad field of inadvertent sins. The New Testament here illumines the Old. In Acts 3:17, St. Peter, after boldly charging the Jewish authorities with the denial of the Holy One and the Just, the liberation of a murderer, and the killing of the Prince of life, throws the mantle of charity over these flagrant and wilful sins by saying, “Brethren, I wot that through ignorance ye did it, as did also your rulers.” Then after having brought their sins within the efficacy of the great sin offering, if they will avail themselves of the blood of sprinkling, he exhorts them to repent that their sins may be blotted out. Peter speaks in the same strain in his epistolary exhortation to the Church not to fashion themselves “according to the former lusts in your ignorance.” 1 Peter 1:14. St. Paul repeatedly palliates his wilful sin of violent persecution of the Church by the declaration that he did it ignorantly. 1 Timothy 1:13; Acts 26:9. Hence Archbishop Magee infers that the sin of ignorance “includes all such as were the consequence of human frailty and inconsideration, whether committed knowingly and wilfully, or otherwise. It stands opposed to sins committed with a high hand, (Numbers 15:22-31,) that is, deliberately and presumptuously, for which no atonement was admitted. So that the efficacy of the atonement was extended to all sins which flowed from the infirmities and passions of human nature, and was withheld only from those which sprang from deliberate and audacious defiance of the Divine authority. “This view is also confirmed by the example given of particular sins which called for the atonement — fraud, lying, rash swearing or perjury, and licentiousness.” This throws light upon the sin “for which there is no more sacrifice,” (Hebrews 10:26-29;) the sin unto death, (1 John 5:16;) the irremissible sin, (Mark 3:29;) and clearly identifies it with the sin committed “with a high hand” for which the “soul shall be utterly cut off.” The contrast between the two Testaments, which makes the Old the embodiment of unmitigated severity and the New the impersonation of mercy, is groundless. There is mercy in the dispensation of the law; there is in the dispensation of grace “the wrath of the Lamb” flashing out to consume incorrigible offenders.

(4.) The diversity in the victims appointed for sin offerings was evidently intended to mark the different degrees of offensiveness in the sin to be atoned, except the alternative conceded to poverty. Thus we have an ascending scale: a female kid, or pair of pigeons, a male kid, a young bullock, respectively, for a private person, a prince, a high priest, or the whole people, show that the heinousness of sin increases with the rank and number of the transgressors. “Begin at my sanctuary.” Ezekiel 9:6.

Leviticus 4:1-12 (Sin Offering).

"And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a soul shall sin through ignorance against any of the commandments of the LORD concerning things which ought not to be done, and shall do against any of them: If the priest that is anointed do sin according to the sin of the people; then let him bring for his sin, which he hath sinned, a young bullock without blemish unto the LORD for a sin offering. And he shall bring the bullock unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation before the LORD; and shall lay his hand upon the bullock’s head, and kill the bullock before the LORD. And the priest that is anointed shall take of the bullock’s blood, and bring it to the tabernacle of the congregation: And the priest shall dip his finger in the blood, and sprinkle of the blood seven times before the LORD, before the vail of the sanctuary. And 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; and 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. 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 offerings: and the priest shall burn them upon the altar of the burnt offering. And the skin of the bullock, and all his flesh, with his head, and with his legs, and his inwards, and his dung, Even the whole bullock shall he carry forth without the camp unto a clean place, where the ashes are poured out, and burn him on the wood with fire: where the ashes are poured out shall he be burnt." — Leviticus 4:1-12 KJV.

INTRODUCTORY

Having discussed the three traditional offerings, we now approach two which are the creation of positive statute — the sin offering and the trespass offering. They are introduced by explaining their nature and stating the occasion on which they are to be resorted to, as if they were entirely unknown before. Sin burdening the conscience, or resting on the unconscious soul, is made prominent, and its turpitude is magnified by the very law which provides for its atonement. As the sun, pouring his beams into a dark room, reveals its filth and its need of cleansing, so the Sinaitic law disclosed to the eye of conscience the manifold spots and stains of sin hitherto unseen, and, by its high requirements, was the occasion of the commission of many sins. “The law entered that the offence might abound.” But in the gracious provision for the purgation of the conscience from a sense of guilt in the sin-expiating sacrifices, we find that “where sin abounded grace did much more abound.” Romans 5:20. See Temporal and Spiritual Benefits of Sacrifices.

ORDINARY SINS OF INADVERTENCE, 1, 2.

2. If a soul shall sin — It is a noteworthy fact that throughout this entire description of sacrifices Jehovah makes provision not for bodies, nor for men, but for souls. He would thus early direct the attention of the Hebrews away from the visible form to the immaterial and spiritual person which it enshrines. Through ignorance — The Hebrew word בִשְׁגָגָה֙ (b’shaggah) — in error — occurs here for the first time in the Bible. In the Authorized Version it is translated by the word ignorance twelve times, by unawares four times, once by unwittingly, and twice by error. It occurs only in Leviticus, Numbers, Joshua, and Ecclesiastes. Furst prefers to render it by the adverb: inadvertently. Up to this time Jehovah had overlooked the sins of his people which arose from lack of knowledge and imperfection of judgment. But that every mouth may be stopped and all may be guilty before him, he pronounces sentence of condemnation upon them for their unconscious deviations from his law. There can be no high attainments in holiness until the cry is extorted, Who can understand his inadvertencies? Cleanse thou me from unknown errors. Psalm 19:12. He who is satisfied so long as his conscience does not condemn him, needs to be taught that the decisions of an approving conscience, involving, as they may, erroneous intellectual judgments, are not a safe ground of justification to him who has access to the written revelation of God’s will. Hence says St. Paul, (1 Corinthians 4:4,) as rendered by Alford, “For I am conscious to myself of no delinquency, but I am not hereby justified.” Compare Hebrews 5:2, 3; 9:7. Against any… commandments — The Hebrew is not against but from — in deviation from. As the law is made up of prohibitions and precepts, it may be broken by doing a forbidden act, which is a sin of commission, and by failing to perform a required deed, which is called a sin of omission. In other words the law may be transgressed, or stepped over, and it may be swerved from. The sin of in-advertence is most frequently committed in the latter way, though there are also involuntary sins of commission. Such are distinctly referred to in the latter part of the verse.

SIN OF A PRIEST, 3-12.

3. The priest — The term priest in the original signifies a performer of the offices of worship. In the English it is derived from presbyter, referring more to the order than to the duties. That is anointed — The anointing at the consecration of the Aaronic priest symbolized his setting apart to a sacred office, and prefigured the inward unction of the Holy Ghost, which, after Jesus was glorified, should be poured upon all perfect believers in Christ, making them “kings and priests unto God.” Revelation 1:6. The original is the word messiah, adumbrating the only Priest who mediates between the believer and the Father in the Gospel dispensation. The high priest is here intended, because he had the anointing in a pre-eminent sense. Leviticus 16:32; note on 6:22; Psalm 133:2. The anointing oil was composed of pure myrrh, sweet cinnamon, calamus, cassia, and olive oil, (Exodus 30:23,) emblematic of the gifts and graces of the Holy Spirit. St. Chrysostom never opened his “golden mouth” for a more terse and truthful sentence than this: “The Law was the Gospel in anticipation; the Gospel is the Law in fulfilment.” Do sin — The radical notion of sin, in both the Hebrew and Greek mind, is that of missing the mark. The priest “taken from among men is compassed with infirmities,” and is so liable to miss the mark by any involuntary unsteadiness of aim that he is regarded as a presumptive sinner, (Leviticus 8:14,) and provision is made for the expiation of his offences before he can acceptably officiate at the altar in behalf of others, who, like himself, are unwittingly “out of the way.” According to the sin of the people — Rather, to the fault of the people, so that they incur guilt. If the high priest sins, the propitiation which he attempts to make is null and void, and the people are left in a state of guilt exposed to the penalty of the law. Hence provision is made to secure an atonement for the atoner. At no point does the superiority of our great High Priest to the frail and sinning head of the Levitical hierarchy shine forth with greater brightness. He is not obliged to present an offering first for himself and then for us. “We have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.” Without blemish — See note on Leviticus 1:3. Sin offering — The Hebrew חָטָא (chattath) signifies sin, sinner, sacrifice for sin, repentance, or punishment. This explains 2 Corinthians 5:21. The idea of rendering satisfaction for the transgression of the law lies on the very surface of the sin offering. The blood of the bullock is the life. The life of the animal must be substituted for the forfeited life of the sinner. See The Ceremonial Function of the Blood.

4. Shall lay his hand… and kill — Since the priest is also the offerer these acts must be performed by him. For the significance of the laying on of the hand, see Leviticus 1:4. From later Jewish authorities we learn that there was added the following confession of sin, and prayer that the victim might be accepted as its expiation: “I have sinned, I have done iniquity, I have trespassed, and done thus and thus; and do return by repentance before thee, and with this I make atonement.” This confession, if it was not a part of the original ritual, was a pardonable addition; the proper — we may say necessary — expression of the penitent soul.

6. Dip his finger in the blood — Some explain the shedding of blood in sacrifice by the theory that evil rests in that which is material, and that blood is the representation of that evil principle in matter. Hence these modern Gnostics see in the shedding of blood the putting away of moral evil. In addition to other objections to this view, is the command to the priest to come into immediate contact with the blood which would have ceremonially defiled him, if it was the representation of all impurity. Sprinkle… seven times — This number represented perfection. The origin of the symbolism of seven has been much discussed. It is reasonable to suppose that the first idea associated with seven would be that of religious periodicity arising from the sabbath, and that the notion of the completeness of a religious act arose from this. We certainly cannot agree with Bahr’s fanciful division of seven into its component elements, three and four, the first of which=Divinity, and the second=Humanity, whence Seven =Divinity+Humanity=the God-man. The more we have of such exegesis of the Holy Scriptures, the more will sceptics be confirmed in unbelief, and thoughtful believers be perplexed. The sanctuary — The most holy place or the holy of holies. Behind the vail the visible presence of Jehovah was enthroned above the ark of the covenant and between the outspread wings of the cherubim. The nearest that the ordinary priest could come to this throne of Jehovah was to the vail. There he might sprinkle the blood to make propitiation for sin. Within the vail only the high priest could go, one day in the year, to sprinkle the mercy-seat. Leviticus 16:14.

7. Blood… horns of the altar — These horns are not supposed to have been made of horn, but to have been projections from the four corners covered with the metal with which the altar was overlaid. Josephus describes the altars in use in his day as having these projections in the shape of horns. Others are of the opinion that the horns of the original altars were perpendicular cones rising from each corner of the altar to half its height. There is much discussion respecting their purpose. They could not, in the case of the altar of incense, have been for binding the victim before killing it, (Psalm 118:27,) because no victim was ever burned on this altar. The horn is with the Hebrews a favourite symbol of power. Its presence on every altar may have been to suggest the glory of Jehovah’s omnipotence. Previous to the appointment of the six cities of refuge, the altar was the asylum for the accidental manslayer. Exodus 21:14. The refugee was accustomed to lay hold of the horns of the altar. 1 Kings 1:50. The horns were to be smeared with blood, perhaps to set forth the great truth that the blood of Christ is the only inviolable refuge, and that the penitent sinner can lay hold of the protecting power of God only as he lays hold of sacrificial blood. See The Ceremonial Function of the Blood. Altar of sweet incense — This, being covered with gold, was called the golden altar, to distinguish it from the brazen altar of burnt offering. Exodus 38:30; 39:38. The Hebrew name for altar, signifying “the killing-place,” as applied to the altar of incense is not strictly appropriate. It is not here used in its etymological sense. Before the Lord — This altar was situated in the holy place. In apparent contradiction to this, the writer to the Hebrews (Hebrews 9:4) enumerates it among the objects which were within the second vail, that is, in the holy of holies. In 1 Kings 6:21, 22, it is said to belong to “the oracle,” or most holy place. The best explanation is that suggested by Bleek and adopted by Tholuck, namely, that the author of the epistle “treats the holy of holies, irrespective of the vail, as symbolical of the heavenly sanctuary, and had also a motive to include in it the altar of incense, whose offerings of incense are the symbol of the prayers of the saints. Pour all the blood… bottom of the altar — In the temple there was a duct by which the blood was conveyed to the brook Kedron. There was doubtless some such way of disposing of the blood in the tabernacle, of which the temple was only an enlarged copy.

8. All the fat — Suet. See notes on Leviticus 3:3, 17.

9. The two kidneys… caul — See note on Leviticus 3:4.

11. The skin — This, in the whole burnt offering, was the perquisite of the priest. See note on Leviticus 7:8. In the sin offering for a priest or the congregation it was to be burned. But in the sin offering for a prince or a private person it is left doubtful.

12. The whole bullock shall he carry forth — Bishop Colenso finds a physical impossibility here, and in his estimation a conclusive proof that Leviticus is “unhistorical,” a bungling fabrication of a later age. But the Hebrew does not require the priest personally to carry forth the bullock, but “to cause it to go forth,” by the agency of others, probably the Levites. Without the camp — The reason for this requirement is not recorded. Says Fairbairn, “It is true that all impure things were carried without the camp, but it does not follow that every thing carried out of the camp was impure.” A clean place in which it was to be burned implies that it is most holy. But the usual treatment of the most holy things, namely, eating by the priests could not be resorted to, because it was a sin offering for a priest. The only other way in which Jehovah signified his acceptance was by receiving the sweet odour when consumed by fire. But if burned on the altar there would be nothing to distinguish it from the burnt offering. Hence, though most holy, it was borne without the camp and consumed in a clean place, yet where carrion and other impurities were found near at hand. The holy Son of God, the great Sin Offering, suffered between two malefactors, himself separate from sinners. “Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate,” (Hebrews 13:12,) after “the Lord had laid on him the iniquity of us all.” Isaiah 53:6. Where the ashes are poured out — At a little distance from Jerusalem are several large mounds of ashes, one of them forty feet high, which some conjecture may be as old as the age of the temple, having been built up by the ashes carried out thither from the altar of sacrifice. Professor Liebig has proved them to be composed largely of animal elements. And burn him — “The word ‘burn,’ here, is different from that which is used to denote turning into odour or perfume on the altar. It signifies to destroy by fire; whereas the other means to incend or consume as incense.” There is something very peculiar and exceptional about the treatment of the sin offering for the people and for the high priest, their representative; it was most holy, and yet was committed not to the slow altar-fires to sweeten the sky with its odour, but to the devouring flames in a place surrounded by impurities. How unique and mysterious the sufferings of Christ when forsaken by the Father!

 

The Temporal and Spiritual Benefits of the Levitical Sacrifices

We propound a question of more than ordinary interest when we inquire into the precise benefit which accrued to the devout Hebrew from his faithful observance of the law of offerings. The answer to this inquiry will elucidate the important question of the nature and extent of the blessing promised to the believer in Jesus Christ, who presents him to the Father as his great sin offering. The moral delinquencies of man are of two kinds — offenses against society, which are called crimes, and are punishable with temporal penalties, and offenses purely spiritual, or sins, which await the fires of the judgment day. The Levitical law added, also, ceremonial offenses or impurities. Under the theocracy this distinction is in a measure lost, the different kinds of offenses being blended together and treated as sins. The first benefit to the sincere offerer was exemption from the temporal punishment of death. Yet all crimes could not be so expiated as to escape judicial death. Offenses which disorganize and destroy society — murder, adultery, and cursing of parents, and sins especially offensive to God, as profanation of his holy day and blasphemy of his holy name were beyond the efficacy of the sacrifices as to their power to screen the guilty from physical death. But minor offenses — usually punished by the civil magistrate — if freely confessed with all possible restitution, together with ceremonial impurities, found an exemption from death in the blood sprinkled on the altar. But what did those blood sprinklings and those blazing altars do for guilty souls? Did they relieve the burdened conscience, effecting exactly such a change as penitent believers in Christ now experience in the pardon of their sins and the witness of the Spirit of adoption? There are several answers. First, that there was to the sincere Hebrew the same subjective phenomena as now attend justification by faith; the same conscious relief; and the same joy in the assurance of reconciliation: not flowing from the blood of the victim, but from the blood of its great Antitype appropriated by an anticipatory faith. But the insuperable objection to this is, that there is not in the Pentateuch the first hint of the Lamb of God, the reality of which the victim bleeding on the Hebrew altar is but the shadow. Hence there is no ground laid for faith to build upon in any objective revelation of the Sacrifice to be offered on Calvary. The second view seems to be endorsed by Origen, Theodoret, Erasmus, and Luther, in their explanation of the term ἱλαστήριον in Romans 3:25. It is, that there was in the blood of animals slain in sacrifice by Divine appointment an inherent efficacy to take away the sins of the devout offerer, without any apprehension by faith of the Heaven-appointed Victim yet to pour out his blood. "As the lid of the ark of the covenant, when sprinkled with blood, imparted to the Israelite a firm confidence of the forgiveness of his sins, in like manner the Saviour, and especially his death, is the security for our redemption to which we may believingly look." To the same conclusion Bonar comes. "The sin passes away; it is an instantaneous, complete, perpetual pardon."

THE PRETERMISSION OF SINS.

The third view is based on the explicit statements of Divine inspiration. The writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews reiterates, in various phrases, the declaration that the blood of bulls and of goats cannot take away sins. Hebrews 10:4. Between this assertion and the assurance given by Jehovah that "the priest shall make atonement for him, and it shall be forgiven him," (Leviticus 6:7,) we have a seeming contradiction, of which the best explanation is afforded by St. Paul, who, in explaining the ἱλαστήριον, is very careful to say that "Christ Jesus is set forth to be 'the propitiation,' 'the mercy seat,' through faith in his blood, to declare his (God's) righteousness for the passing over (πάρεσις, the pretermission) of sins that are past (in ages gone) through the forbearance of God." The doctrine of St. Paul is, that the atoning death of Jesus justifies God, by removing his seeming low estimate of sin, or indifference towards it, in passing over and forbearing to punish the sins of penitent, blood-offering Hebrews in past ages. See on Romans 3:25, also Alford and Bengel. The latter says, that "pretermission, (forgiveness,) in the Old Testament, had respect to transgressions until (ἀπολύτρωσιν) redemption of them was accomplished in the death of Christ. Hebrews 9:15. The objects of pretermission are sins; the object of forbearance are sinners." Says Alford, "Where sins are continually called to mind, there, clearly, the conscience is not clear from them. Very similar is the assertion of Ebrard, when speaking of the blood of bulls as incapable of taking away sins: 'It was shed, not as the instrument of complete vicarious propitiation, but as an exhibition of the postulate [assumed need] of vicarious propitiation.'" How far this pretermission of sins applies to pious pagans is a question beyond the range of our present inquiry. See on Acts 17:30. Respecting the emotional experience attending sacrificial forgiveness as thus explained, we have no explicit statements in the Scriptures. But from such expressions as the testimony that his ways "pleased God," given to Enoch, (Hebrews 11:5;) "blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven," (Psalm 32:1); "the secret of the Lord is with them that fear him," (Psalm 25:14); and from the joy that rings out its hallelujahs through the Psalms, we infer that the Holy Spirit, though not yet doing his official work as the Paraclete, the Spirit of adoption, was by his essential presence assuring obedient Israelites of the gracious forbearance of Jehovah towards them in passing over their sins. This implies that the sacrifices were not offered as a dead opus operatum, or mechanical and soulless performance, but with that devout and penitent state of heart which alone can appropriate spiritual good. When this was absent the "vain oblations" of apostate Israel became "an abomination" (Isaiah 1:11-15) to Jehovah, and he proclaims to the sinning nation, "I desired mercy (philanthropy and justice) and not (mere) sacrifice." Hosea 6:6.

The Order of the Levitical Sacrifices

At the first view there seems to be no prescribed order in which these different kinds of oblations are to be offered to Jehovah. There is a prevalent, yet erroneous, idea that this was left wholly to the option or caprice of the worshipper. But a more careful inspection discloses two key-texts which open the question of the order. 

The first is found in Leviticus 5:6, 7, where the law directs that the poor man may bring two fowls instead of a lamb or a kid; one for a sin offering, and the other for a burnt offering. The priest is explicitly directed to offer the sin offering first, and then the burnt offering. 

The second key-text is still more valuable, inasmuch as it opens to us the order of the three classes of offerings. It is found in chap. 8 — the order of offerings at the consecration of Aaron and his sons; the sin offering, the whole burnt offering, and the ram of consecration, which answers to the peace offering. 

In other words, the conscience of the offerer was first to be ceremonially purged from sin to render him acceptable to God before he could dedicate his entire being to him. After this the self-consecratory burnt offering is in order; then the peace offering or the meat offering may be presented, as a medium of communion with Jehovah, who gives the largest part of the peace offering back to be eaten by the offerer and his friends in a joyful sacrificial feast. The beautiful correspondence of these offerings, in this order, to justification, sanctification, the communion of the Holy Ghost, and the communion of saints, will be pointed out in the notes.

It is remarkable that both these key-texts should have escaped the keen eye of Keil, who says that these laws "contain no rules respecting the order in which they were to follow one another, when two or more sacrifices were offered together."

Levitical Offerings Described

In the Levitical ritual there are various offerings prescribed, each expressed by its appropriate term. In addition there are general terms including all offerings. Of the latter are the קָרְבָּ֖ן, korban, from a verb signifying to approach. As no inferior could approach a superior to ask a favour or to do obeisance without a gift in his hand, this gift of access was called korban. It includes all offerings, bloody and bloodless; all altar and non-altar oblations. For the abuse of this term by an ungrateful son, shirking the support of his parents, see note on Matthew 15:5.

Another term, general in its primary use but specific afterwards, is the  מִנְחָה , mincha, from an old verb signifying to give. Originally it was used to express any gift, from man to man (Genesis 32:13) or man to God. Its specific meaning, especially when joined with korban, is meat offering, or food offering; in the Mosaic law, always bloodless.

The  זֶבַח , zebach, from the verb to slaughter animals, especially in sacrifice, always signifies a bleeding victim; the blood being the central and essential idea. By prefixing a letter to the same word the term altar was made, signifying, primarily, “killing place.” It is natural to connect the notion of expiation with this offering.

The term אִשֶּׁה , ishsheh, is also generic, including all fire-made offerings, and once the show bread, (fire baked.) Leviticus 24:7. It is used also to signify every kind of sacrifice and offering.

The special terms for sacrifices are the following: —

The  עֹלָה , olah, the whole burnt offering, in Greek generally ὁλοκαύτωμα, holocaust, derives its name from going up, first upon the altar, and then to heaven in the smoke. It was always bloody, the entire animal, except the sprinkled blood, being consumed by the fire.

The  שֶׁלֶם , shelem, is the peace offering, or thank offering. It is frequently joined with zebach, and then literally signifies a victim of requitals, or a slain offering of peace. It was always bloody.

The חַטָּאת , chattath, is the sin offering. It is a law-created and bloody sacrifice to relieve the conscience from a sense of guilt. Its primary meaning is sin, ἁμαρτία. Its secondary signification is sin offering. 2 Corinthians 5:21. In the prophets it is used to signify punishment.

The אָשָׁם , asham, is the trespass offering, law-created for particular faults or sins enumerated in the law. Gesenius says that the precise point of difference between the last two has hitherto been sought in vain. The Septuagint translates it by πλημμελεια, a false note in music, faultiness. Like the sin offering, it required the slaughter of a victim.

The נֶסֶךְ , nesek, is the drink offering, always connected with the meat offering or the peace offering, and with the confirmation of covenants.

Pre-Sinaitic Sacrifices (Part 2)

If the patriarchal sacrifices were instituted by the Creator, it is reasonable to suppose that they were not positive and arbitrary requirements, with no hint of the reasons on which they were grounded — man’s dependence on omnipotent power and his exposure to offended justice. This revealed reason would involve the element of propitiation. But if sacrifices were the natural outgrowth of man’s religious nature — the expression of his deepest spiritual necessities — they must have had some reference to sin, the saddest fact in his consciousness. In either case, whether they were ordained of God or were spontaneous with man, the notion of expiation would not have been entirely absent.

At the same time it is reasonable to suppose that this idea was not distinct and prominent in the minds of the patriarchs, because the holiness of God had not yet been emphatically disclosed — that bright background on which the grim deformities of sin are portrayed. To the patriarchs God always turned the benignant and merciful side of his nature. He talks with Abraham as a friend, putting him quite at ease in his presence, and his wife laughs with incredulity while hearing the words of promise from the Lord’s lips. There is no inspiration of painful awe, no putting off the sandals to stand upon ground sanctified by the tread of the most holy Jehovah. From Adam to Moses there is no specific revelation of the holiness of the Supreme One. We look in vain in the book of Genesis, the record of patriarchal life, for the words holy and holiness as descriptive of the Divine character.

The hour for the revelation of this attribute did not arrive till the exiled Moses, at Horeb, turned aside from his flock to “see this great sight,” the bush burning yet not consumed. Exodus 3:3. The footsteps of the inquisitive Hebrew shepherd are suddenly arrested by the awful words, “Draw not nigh hither!” A new aspect of Jehovah’s nature is from this hour to be unfolded with ever-increasing splendour: “I am holy.” Sin having now, for the first time since the fall, its proper measure, becomes, by contrast, “exceeding sinful,” and needs to be purged from the conscience by blood distinctly expiatory.

We arrive at the same conclusion when we trace the history of man through the period in which he had only that internal sense of right and wrong called the unwritten law; which, indeed, constitutes him a subject of God’s moral government, and renders him amenable to the penalties of violated law, but is without that vivid apprehension of guilt which overwhelms his soul when that law, still legible within, takes on the form of an objective code written in stone by the finger of God amid the quakings of burning Horeb. Now, as never before, he regards himself as a sinner. “The law entered, that the offence might abound.” Romans 5:20. Now he needs relief from conscious guilt by a method of expiation bearing the unmistakable signature of his offended God. His forgiveness must be as authentically announced as his guilt has been glaringly demonstrated. Hence the provision for the typical purgation of the conscience is the logical sequence of the decalogue. Sinai has rendered the institution of the sin offering a necessity for the peace and salvation of the penitent sinner. 

— Commentary on Leviticus.