Leviticus 7:1-10

 "Likewise this is the law of the trespass offering: it is most holy. In the place where they kill the burnt offering shall they kill the trespass offering: and the blood thereof shall he sprinkle round about upon the altar. And he shall offer of it all the fat thereof; the rump, and the fat that covereth the inwards, And the two kidneys, and the fat that is on them, which is by the flanks, and the caul that is above the liver, with the kidneys, it shall he take away: And the priest shall burn them upon the altar for an offering made by fire unto the LORD: it is a trespass offering. Every male among the priests shall eat thereof: it shall be eaten in the holy place: it is most holy. As the sin offering is, so is the trespass offering: there is one law for them: the priest that maketh atonement therewith shall have it. And the priest that offereth any man’s burnt offering, even the priest shall have to himself the skin of the burnt offering which he hath offered. And all the meat offering that is baken in the oven, and all that is dressed in the fryingpan, and in the pan, shall be the priest’s that offereth it. And every meat offering, mingled with oil, and dry, shall all the sons of Aaron have, one as much as another." — Leviticus 7:1-10 KJV.

This chapter continues the Divine directions to the priests respecting their office in the presentation of the various sacrifices. In it are rules for the trespass and the peace offerings, the prohibition of eating suet and blood, and the assignment of the priest’s portion in the peace offering.

ADDITIONAL LAWS OF THE TRESPASS OFFERING, 1-10.

1. Trespass offering — See chap. 5, introductory remarks, and verse 6, note. The primary idea involved in the אָשֵׁם (asham), or guilt offering, is that aspect of sin which constitutes it a debt payable unto God, and frequently to man also, to whom recompense must be made when the אָשֵׁם (asham) was offered.

2. The blood… shall he sprinkle — See Leviticus 1:5, note. “The sprinkling of the blood,” says Outram, “was by much the most sacred part of the entire service, since it was that by which the life and soul of the victim were considered to be given to God as the supreme Lord of life and death.” In explaining the significance of this rite, orthodox writers assert that the blood, as representing the life of an innocent animal, was offered to Divine justice as the substitute for the death-penalty inflicted on the guilty soul of the offerer. On the other hand, Socinian and rationalistic writers deny the possibility of rendering a satisfaction to the justice of God. Bahr, with much depth of thought and apparent conformity to the fundamental truths of the Scriptures, insists that there is no symbolical execution of punishment, but rather a typical giving away of the soul of the offerer unto God. “As the presentation of the blood of the beast is a giving up and away of the beast-life in death, so must the natural, that is, selfish life of the offerer, acting in contrariety to God, be given up and away, that is, die; but since this is a giving away to Jehovah, it is no mere ceasing to be, but a dying which, eo ipso, goes into life. Accordingly, the meaning of a sacrifice is in short this, that the natural, sinful being (life) is given up to God in death, in order to obtain the true being (sanctification) through fellowship with God.” This view proceeds upon the supposition that sin is a mere trifle, a bitter-sweet good, a necessary misstep of the infant tottering from his probationary cradle to the state of fixed holiness, and needing no atonement in a universe in which all finite personalities are only manifestations of the one impersonal and nondescript agency called God, and the radical distinction between sin and holiness is an illusion. This exegesis of the blood-shedding on Jewish altars and on Mount Calvary is admirably adapted “to a mystical, pantheistic nature-religion,” but it is extremely repugnant to the plain theistical religion typically set forth by Moses, and actually established by the Son of God.

3. The fat — See Leviticus 3:3, 17, notes. The rump — The fat tail. See Leviticus 3:9, note.

4. The kidneys — Sometimes rendered reins. See Leviticus 3:4, note. The caul — See Leviticus 3:4, note.

7. As the sin offering is, so is the trespass offering — Though much alike in their interior essence and symbolical meaning, they had this difference, the trespass offering was always personal, while the sin offering might be congregational. See Leviticus 5:6, note.

8. The skin of the burnt offering — This was a perquisite of the priest, to be kept or sold at his pleasure. Bishop Patrick suggests that Adam was the first priest who offered a burnt offering, and that the presentation of the skin to him by the Creator established the precedent here ratified by the ceremonial law. The same custom is found among pagans, whose priests superstitiously thought that by lying upon these skins they would be endowed with the gift of prescience. See Virgil’s AEneid, book vii, verses 86-95. The same superstition lingers to this day in the Highlands of Scotland.

9. The meat offering — The bread offering, variously prepared, is described in chap. 2, notes. Shall be the priest’s that offereth it — Thus individual diligence was stimulated and rewarded; but to provide the sick and aged priests with materials for their own sustenance and for offerings to God, the commandment is given in verse 10 that all the sons of Aaron should have the oil and unbaked flour, the largest part, one as much as another — Thus there was a blending of individual interests with community-life as a safeguard against indolence. Moreover, if the whole had been given to the officiating priest there would have been more than he could consume. The cooked-bread offering is supposed to have been small in amount.
 

The Ceremonial Function of the Blood

The most cursory reader of [Leviticus] must be impressed with the prominence that is given to the shedding of blood, and to the vast amount of blood which must have been poured out in the service of the tabernacle and temple, making them perpetually reek with streams of gore, like a slaughter-house whose floor is ever crimsoned by the ceaseless work of death.

The directions for the treatment of the blood are very minute and often repeated. It was the centre of the whole system of sacrificial rites. There must be some deep significance in this stream of blood flowing ever fresh through all the Hebrew worship. It is found in Leviticus 17:11, correctly translated, "For the life (נֶפֶשׁ, nephesh) of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that maketh an atonement by means of the life. (בַּנֶּפֶשׁ, banephesh.) In Genesis 2:7, we find that the immaterial principle breathed by Jehovah Elohim into the nostrils of the dust-made statue, constituting it a living soul, is this נֶפֶשׁ (nephesh). Here we find the importance attached to the blood. The blood is the נֶפֶשׁ (nephesh), and the human soul is the נֶפֶשׁ (nephesh). The substitutional atonement, נֶפֶשׁ (nephesh) for נֶפֶשׁ (nephesh), irrational soul for rational soul, is inevitable in the scheme of human redemption. In the treatment of the blood it was required to be sprinkled or spilled from the vessel, and cast abroad around the altar, to be scattered in drops by means of a bunch of hyssop, to be smeared with the finger upon the horns of the altar, not, as one fancifully suggests, because the horns were the highest part of the altar, and nearest to heaven, but because it was the refuge of the accidental man-slayer (Exodus 21:14,) and in clinging to the horns he must lay hold of blood. 1 Kings I:50; 2:28. Finally, the remainder was to be poured out at the base of the great altar, from which, in the temple of Solomon, there were sewers to conduct it away into the brook Kedron. There must have been something like this in the tabernacle in the wilderness, since, in addition to the sacrifices, every animal slain for food in or near the camp was to be slain at the door of the tabernacle.

The emphatic and reiterated prohibition of eating blood is expressly founded on the declaration that it is the נֶפֶשׁ (nephesh), or animal soul. Leviticus 17:10, 11. So deeply was this interdict engraven on the heart of the Jews, that even the first Christian council in Jerusalem classify it with the violation of the law of purity contained in the seventh commandment. Acts 15:29.

Did Christ Suffer the Punishment for Sin?

Hence we repudiate in the interest of sound ethical philosophy and clearness of thought, the following proposition of Dr. Bishop: —

"If the sin of the believing sinner is taken from his shoulders and laid upon the Son of God, then justice, still following after sin, must strike through sin and the person of the Son of God beneath it."

It is a moral axiom that only the guilty can be rightfully punished. If Christ was holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners, to punish Him would be, not only contrary to all human law, but it would outrage all those God-given moral sentiments on which human law rests. It is in vain that Dr. Bishop seeks for analogies to sustain the monstrous injustice of punishing innocence. He says, "When a father commits a crime, his whole family sink in the social scale, though innocent." Here he confounds the natural consequences of sin with the punishment of sin. Dr. Bishop should show that society universally hangs the innocent family on the same gibbet with the guilty husband and father. Then the case would be analogous.

Many persons use the expression "Christ in the stead of the sinner suffered the punishment of his sin," without subjecting this proposition to that rigid analysis which theological accuracy requires. While it is true that Jesus is our substitute, He is our substitute truly and strictly only in suffering, not in punishment. Sin cannot be punished and pardoned also. This would be a moral contradiction. Sin is conditionally pardoned because Jesus has suffered and died. There is no punishment of sin except in the person of the sinner who neglects so great a Saviour. Sin was not punished on the Cross. Calvary was the scene of wondrous mercy and love, not of wrath and penalty.

Says Dr. Whedon, "Punishment in the strict sense implies the guilt of the sufferer as its correlative. Whenever the sinner and the sufferer are not the same, it is only by an allowable inaccuracy that the suffering can be called punishment. It follows that it is not strictly accurate to say that Christ was punished, or that he truly suffered the punishment of sin."

— A Substitute for Holiness or Antinomianism Revived, Chapter 6.

Was Christ on the Cross a Sinner?

We once heard a layman, an ex-president of the Boston Y.M.C.A., assert in a public evangelistic service that "Jesus Christ on the cross was the greatest sinner in the universe!" Such statements are usually attended by the portrayal with terrific distinctness, of the Almighty Father in the act of hurling His thunderbolts, in blasting shocks, down upon the defenseless head of His shrinking and suffering Son.

We indignantly repudiate the monstrous idea that Jesus on the cross was a sinner overwhelmed with the bolts of the Father's personal wrath. What we do affirm is that his sufferings and death were in no sense a punishment, but a substitute for punishment, answering the same end, the conservation of God's moral government and the vindication of His holy character while He pardons penitent believers.

The Antinomian Error

Theological errors move in cycles, some times of very long periods. They resemble those comets of unknown orbits which occasionally dash into our solar system; but they are not as harmless. Often they leave moral ruin in their track. Since all Christian truth is practical, and aims at the moral transformation of men, all negations of that truth are deleterious; they not only obscure the truth and obstruct its purifying effect, but they positively corrupt and destroy souls.

This is specially true of errors which release men from obligation to the law of God. After St. Paul had demonstrated the impossibility of justification by works compensative for sin, and had established the doctrine of justification through faith in Christ which works by love and purifies the heart, there started up a class of teachers who drew from Paul's teachings the fallacious inference that the law of God is abolished in the case of the believer, who is henceforth delivered from its authority as the rule of life. Hence they became, what Luther first styled, Antinomians (Greek anti, against, and nomos, law).