Leviticus 5:1-6 (Trespass Offering)

 "And if a soul sin, and hear the voice of swearing, and is a witness, whether he hath seen or known of it; if he do not utter it, then he shall bear his iniquity. Or if a soul touch any unclean thing, whether it be a carcase of an unclean beast, or a carcase of unclean cattle, or the carcase of unclean creeping things, and if it be hidden from him; he also shall be unclean, and guilty. Or if he touch the uncleanness of man, whatsoever uncleanness it be that a man shall be defiled withal, and it be hid from him; when he knoweth of it, then he shall be guilty. Or if a soul swear, pronouncing with his lips to do evil, or to do good, whatsoever it be that a man shall pronounce with an oath, and it be hid from him; when he knoweth of it, then he shall be guilty in one of these. 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: And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the LORD for his sin which he hath sinned, a female from the flock, a lamb or a kid of the goats, for a sin offering; and the priest shall make an atonement for him concerning his sin." — Leviticus 5:1-6 KJV.

 

THE TRESPASS OFFERING.

INTRODUCTORY.

Commentators have found it difficult to draw a well-defined line between the חַטָּאת (chattath) — the sin offering — and the אָשֵׁם (asham) — the trespass offering; the latter is for sins of ignorance or inadvertence as well as the former. The only exception is the case of falsehood, fraud, and voluntary silence when justice calls for testimony. Even these, usually the offspring of fear or some other weakness, would be regarded by Archbishop Magee as sins of ignorance. Leviticus 4:2, note. Some discriminate the trespass offering from the sin offering by attaching reparation of injuries to the former, as the restoration of goods fraudulently gotten; but this can apply only to a few of the sins for which the trespass offering is designed. Gesenius frankly admits that “the precise point of distinction between the two kinds of faults or sins has hitherto been sought in vain.” See verse 6, note. The אָשֵׁם (asham) is used for the offence as well as for its expiatory offering. It then signifies guiltiness, (Genesis 26:10;) sin, (Jeremiah 51:5; Proverbs 14:9;) and trespasses, (Psalm 68:21.) The Seventy have never translated אָשֵׁם (asham) by ἁμαρτία (hamartia), sin, but generally by some such soft word as πλημμελεια (plhmmeleia), mistake, or ἄγνοια (agnoia), ignorance. The Hebrew does not justify this exclusive rendering, as an examination of the above passages will show. The soul or life of the “Man of sorrows” was made an אָשֵׁם (asham), a trespass offering. Isaiah 53:10.

SIN AGAINST JUSTICE — CONCEALING TESTIMONY, 1.

1. Hear the voice of swearing — This does not refer to profaning the Divine name, but to the case of a witness who hears the magistrate adjuring the people to utter the truth for the promotion of justice. If he do not utter — If he refuses to testify. This is not perjury, but a suppressio veri, a withholding of the truth, which in law is regarded as culpable as the suggestion of a falsehood. Since justice depends on evidence, concealment of evidence is indicative of a sympathy with injustice. Bear his iniquity — The right word is used; it is iniquity — in-equity — a crime against right, the primordial basis of human society, which would be subverted by the universal practice of keeping back evidence. The iniquity which he shall bear is that which he screens from punishment by his silence. He has made himself a partaker of the crime.

INVOLUNTARY VIOLATION OF CEREMONIAL PURITY, 2-3.

2. If a soul touch — The soul is here put for the entire man. Any unclean thing — It is difficult for those who have not been ceremonially trained from infancy to group together things differing so widely as the moral turpitude just mentioned and the accidental and innocent contact with a dead mouse or snail, (Leviticus 11:23-43;) yet in the religious development and discipline of the Hebrews there was a perpetual commingling of offences, arbitrary, factitious, and temporal, with immutable and eternal moral principles. It is not for us to deny that this period of ceremonial pupilage was necessary. Things which would be unsuited to the Gospel dispensation, and even ridiculous in contrast with its spiritual sublimities, have their proper place in a law of temporal sanctions, chiefly or solely affecting the present life only. Shall be unclean — He was cut off for the time from certain religious and social privileges, and his citizenship in Israel was in abeyance. From these disadvantages, certain ritualistic acts alone could free him. These were not required in order to magnify the office of the priest, but to impress upon the people a sense of the personality and holiness of God, and of the reality of his covenant. In shadow they suggested the necessity of a spiritual cleansing from moral pollution. Guilty — The verb אָשֵׁם (asham) here expresses a different idea from the iniquity committed by the silent witness of wrong. It signifies primarily to be desert, to lie waste; hence, as applied to man, to fail in duty.

INADVERTENCY IN OATHS, 4-5.

4. If a soul swear… to do evil — This refers to an inconsiderate vow. In the light of subsequent knowledge it is found that the performance of the vow would be evil. In this dilemma he must refrain from that evil deed. Nevertheless his broken vow must be accounted a fault to be atoned for by a trespass offering. Or to do good — The good may have become impracticable by reason of circumstances hid from him when the vow was made, or because of neglect or procrastination till the opportunity has passed by. Keil extends the inadvertency in oaths to any thing affirmed with an oath without due reflection, and afterwards discovered to be a deviation from the truth.

5. He shall confess — Confession is the natural expression of true penitence, breaking down pride and promoting the virtue of humility, an essential of true piety. For the traditional form of confession, see note on Leviticus 4:4. Sinned in that thing — The public acknowledgment of specific sins is much more difficult than the vague confession of sinfulness, easily made, because it does not isolate the sinner from a sinful race. While a general confession of sins is required, there are occasions demanding their individual and specific disclosure both to God and man.

TRESPASS OFFERING THEREFOR, 6-13.

6. Trespass offering… sin offering — These are here apparently used as equivalent or convertible terms. This constitutes the difficulty of discriminating between them confessed by Gesenius. He has scriptural grounds for viewing them as essentially identical in Leviticus 7:7, where it is said “as is the sin offering so is the trespass offering, there is one law for them.” Keil endeavours to maintain a difference by denying that אָשֵׁם (asham), trespass offering, or rather guilt or debt offering, in this verse and the following, “means either guilt offering or debitum, (Knobel,) but culpa, guilt, or delictum, offence. But this meaning would not make good sense if substituted for trespass offering in this verse. Keil reads the next verse thus: “he shall bring as his guilt, that is, for the expiation of his guilt.” This is approved by Fairbairn, who resolves this double star into two distinct orbs by assuming that the אָשֵׁם, as an offering, is not spoken of till verse 14, and then is limited to offences admitting of some sort of an estimation and recompense, and quotes Numbers 5:5-8 in proof. This view is now generally concurred in, also, by Hengstenberg, Keil, Bahr, Kurtz, and others. Professor Murphy’s distinction is this, in brief: in propitiation are two distinct things — expiation, the payment of the penalty, and satisfaction, the performance of the righteousness due to the law. The sin offering typifies chiefly the expiation, and the trespass offering the obedience or satisfaction. Every moral offence is both a sin and a trespass, hence both offerings may be made for the same act. But, if this theory be correct, both offerings ought to be made for every sin, in order to its perfect propitiation.

Previous Sins & Christian Ministry

QUESTION: Is it right to refuse to license a man to preach the Gospel because of sins committed before his conversion — since which God has forgiven?

ANSWER: There are sins which cast a long shadow after they have been forgiven, by reason of which I should not vote for a man's admission to the sacred office of the Christian ministry. If Aaron Burr, the grandson of President Jonathan Edwards, had been soundly converted after killing Alexander Hamilton in a duel, and had applied for a license to preach, the church which refused his application would have acted wisely. If St. Augustine, who was converted after he had become the father of a illegitimate son, had not been permitted to enter the priesthood because of this sin of his youth, no wrong would have been done to him. It would have been an unfortunate disability. If after a matrimonial shipwreck by a divorce and a second marriage a man should be converted and ask to be ordained to the Christian ministry while the first wife is still living, the church would be justified in saying to him, we have confidence in your Christian character, but we prefer that you should be a layman and not a preacher. Among Gentile converts were some polygamists, who it seems were baptized and received into the church, but when they wished to become ordained ministers, Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit, laid down the law for all future generations: "Let the deacons be husbands of one wife," i.e., only one at a time.

— From Steele's Answers pp. 7,8.

Woman's Sphere in the Church (1875)

This is not limited to the duties of the family or household, since she is often by nature and grace pre-eminently adapted for a wider service. Hence women were employed as prophets, that is, in the sense of public religious teachers, including the higher ministerial duties, as appears from the rank next after apostles . I Cor. 12:28; Eph. 4:11. Compare Acts 2:17-18; 21:9; Rom. 16:1-2. So in the Old Testament. Exod. 15:20; Judg. 4:4; II Kings 22:14; Num. 11:29.          

Compare also Ps. 68:11, where the true rendering is, of the women preachers there was a great host; which accords with the wish of Moses, Num. 11:29, and of Paul, I Cor. 14:5.

Some have understood Paul as prohibiting women teaching. I Cor. 14:34-35; 1 Tim. 2: 11-12. But he evidently refers to such only as prayed and prophesied unveiled, as appears 1 Cor. 11:5-13. Paul in this had respect simply to the usage of society, as was his custom in matters of indifference. I Cor. 9:19-23. To say that his prohibition applies alike to all times and conditions of society, is to say that the prudential regulations of a degraded heathen people, eighteen hundred years ago, are universally binding, and that Christianity in this respect has wrought no change in the world it came to reform. Paul surely had a different estimate of woman service. Rom. 16:1-7, 12-15. His first public discourse in Europe was at a meeting of women, and his first convert and host was a woman. Acts 16:9-15. 
        

There is indisputable scriptural and historical proof that subordinate official position was accorded to women in the apostolic Church:-            

1. The correct translation of Rom. 16:1-2, shows that Phebe was a deacon of the Church and a patron of many-the original of patron being radically the same as is rendered, he that ruleth, in chap. 12:8. (182. What is said of his estimate of women? Was official position accorded to her? What is said of Phebe? What exposition of Rom. 16:1-2?) of Deacons not only minister to the sick and needy, but from Phil. 1:1, and I Tim. 3:2, 8, we infer that they preached and discharged other spiritual functions subordinate to the elders or bishops, who correspond to the pastors of modern times.           

2. The rules of conduct laid down for women in I Tim. 3:11, and Titus 2:3, have been referred to the deaconesses by a series of eminent commentators from Chrysostom to Alford.           

3. Dr. Schaff and other scholars interpret the words, "let not a widow be taken into the number," I Tim.5:9. Let not a widow be elected and ordained under threescore years old.           

4. From Titus 2:3-4, we learn that women were employed as teachers in the direct personal application of Christian truth.           

5. Pliny, a few years later, speaks of the order of deaconesses as exercising, in relation to their own sex, functions analogous to those of the deacons.           

The history of the early Christian Church confirms this statement, and adds, also, that women baptized. Signal honors are recorded of woman's devotion to Christ and his cause. Matt. 26:6-13; Mark 12:41-44; Luke 10:38-42. She was first to preach the actual advent of the promised Messiah, both to the Jews and to the Samaritans. Luke 2:36-38; John 4:28, etc.; and first to preach the risen Savior to his doubting apostles. Matt. 28:7-9, 17.

"Not she, with traitorous kiss, her Savior stung; — Luke 22:47-48.

Not she denied him with unholy tongue; — Matt. 26:69-75.

She, while apostles shrank, could danger brave: —Matt. 26:56

Last at the cross, and earliest at his grave." — Matt. 27:55-56 28:1.

— From: Amos Binney & Daniel Steele, Binney's Theological Compend Improved (1875).

---

ADDENDUM: And, for those who would like to see a list of women who were leaders in the Wesleyan movements prior to 1900, see this: Kevin Jackson: Women Leaders in the Wesleyan Movements.

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!

 

Typology and Experience

QUESTION: A lady, relating her experience in a recent issue of "Living Water," says, "Cleansing and the incoming of the Holy Ghost, whereby we experimentally enter Canaan, is not all that we need to insure a victorious march through the land swarming with giants and fenced cities. And some of us have found it out to our cost." Please analyze and classify this experience.

ANSWER: The writer has been led away from the truth of her typology. Thus after crossing the Jordan, typifying, as she thinks, entire sanctification and the fullness of the Holy Spirit, she still finds depravity within her, represented by the imagery of giants and fenced cities. She seems to be mixed in her sacred geography. She has mistaken the passage of the Red Sea and wilderness life for Canaan after Joshua's conquest, regeneration for for perfect cleansing, a mistake not uncommon. Do not state or defend a doctrine by the use of figurative language. This is excellent for theoretical illustration, but fallacious when used for a rational proof. If this good woman found a strong propensity towards sin in her after her supposed entire sanctification, she did not call her blessing by the right name. It was not a complete cleansing.

— From Steele's Answers pp 6, 7. [Emphasis added.]

How Is the Power of God Obtained?

The success of a preacher is not so much in the strength of his logic, or the splendor of his rhetoric, as in the atmosphere of love in which both his pulpit and pastoral work are ensphered. The brainy man will be admired, but admiration is not ministerial success. It converts no sinners. The man of a warm heart will be loved.

Gospel salvation makes sanctified human love its electric wire to souls distant from God, and melts them into penitence. It is not possible for all preachers to be as irresistible in argument as Chillingworth, as brilliant in diction as MaCaulay, or as his gifted limner, Punshon; but all may have the baptism of love, perfect love to God and man, love the fountain of pathos and of power to sway men, drawing them to God.

Does Intellectual Error Block Sanctification?

QUESTION: Do you think any person can be entirely sanctified and still assert that the apostles were not regenerated till Pentecost?

ANSWER: Yes. This is an error of the head and not of the heart. If freedom from intellectual error were a condition of obtaining purity of heart, no one would obtain that blessing, for we all harbor errors of this sort.

— Steele's Answers pp. 66, 67.

Professing Holiness

There are two ways of professing holiness — the wise and the proper way, and the ostentatious and distasteful way. Christ did not say in a bold and offensive style, "I am perfectly holy." He might with truth have used these words; but he would have been needlessly beclouding his own humility, and laying stumbling-blocks in the way of his hearers. At this point some modern advocates of Christian perfection are at fault. In set phrase they profess more holiness in half an hour than Jesus Christ did in all his life. His profession was by a great variety of phrases, and almost always by implication: "Which of you convicteth me of sin?" "I always do those things that are pleasing to my Father." "He that seeketh the glory of him that sent him, the same is true, and no unrighteousness is in him. For the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me. I and my Father are one." These are samples of Christ's implied declaration of his sinlessness.

— From Half Hours with St. Paul and Other Bible Readings, Chapter 1.

Leviticus 3:6-17 (The Peace Offering)

 "And if his offering for a sacrifice of peace offering unto the LORD be of the flock; male or female, he shall offer it without blemish. If he offer a lamb for his offering, then shall he offer it before the LORD. And he shall lay his hand upon the head of his offering, and kill it before the tabernacle of the congregation: and Aaron’s sons shall sprinkle the blood thereof round about upon the altar. And he shall offer of the sacrifice of the peace offering an offering made by fire unto the LORD; the fat thereof, and the whole rump, it shall he take off hard by the backbone; and 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. And the priest shall burn it upon the altar: it is the food of the offering made by fire unto the LORD. And if his offering be a goat, then he shall offer it before the LORD. And he shall lay his hand upon the head of it, and kill it before the tabernacle of the congregation: and the sons of Aaron shall sprinkle the blood thereof upon the altar round about. And he shall offer thereof his offering, even an offering made by fire unto the LORD; 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. And the priest shall burn them upon the altar: it is the food of the offering made by fire for a sweet savour: all the fat is the LORD’S. It shall be a perpetual statute for your generations throughout all your dwellings, that ye eat neither fat nor blood." — Leviticus 3:6-17 KJV.

 

9. The whole rump — We know of no more unfortunate translation than this. Instead of rump, it should have been rendered fat tail. In the East there is a species of sheep whose tails are so large that they weigh from twelve to fourteen pounds, and the owners are obliged to fix a thin board or cart beneath the tail to ease the sheep, and to preserve the wool and fat from being torn among the bushes and stones. See Ludolph, History of Ethiopia, p. 53, and Dr. Russell, Natural History of Aleppo, p. 51. The cooks of Syria use this mass of fat instead of Arab butter.

11. The food of the offering — Literally, this means the bread or sustenance of the altar-flame.

Unto the Lord — Jehovah’s altar may be said to be the table which he spreads on the earth. Devout and willing souls bring provision to that table, and are graciously invited to sit down and share the gifts which their loyal hearts have brought, hallowed by his presence and sweetened by his blessing. Numbers 28:2. The flesh of the peace offering, of which no mention is made in this chapter, was to be eaten by the offerer and his friends on the same day or the day following. Leviticus 7:15, 16.

17. A perpetual statute — The Hebrew word עוֹלָם֙, here translated perpetual, is sometimes used for future duration without end, as the eternal existence of God, (Genesis 21:33,) but it often signifies an indefinite future time, conditioned by the context or by the nature of the subject. Hence it may extend to only a few years, as the servant who refused to be made free, after his ear was bored with an awl became a servant, עוֹלָם֙, forever. Therefore the modern Jew cannot logically allege that the perpetual statutes of the Levitical law bind him to the burdensome repetition of types long since done away by the presence of the glorious Antitype in his temple on Mount Moriah, and that the everlasting covenant compels him to feed his hungry soul with the shadows of good things yet to come centuries after the substance, the living Bread, has come down from heaven. The plain meaning of the perpetual statute is, that so long as the Jewish dispensation continues, and the ceremonial law retains its significance, the requirement shall stand.

Eat neither fat nor blood — The prohibition extends only to the suet, and not to the fat diffused in small particles through the flesh, and to the blood in the larger veins and arteries which flows from the animal when the jugular vein is cut. The minute globules of blood in the small veins spreading through the flesh it would be impossible to remove. The prohibition does not extend to the eating of these, since it would have been a virtual interdict of the eating of any flesh. The law relates not only to all sacrifices, but also to all animals slain for food. See notes on Leviticus 7:23, 25.

CONCLUDING NOTE.

Physiologists allege, that the prohibition of fat is the re-enactment of that law of hygiene which demands abstinence from gross animal food on the part of dwellers in hot climates, while it permits the Esquimau to drink with impunity whale oil by the quart, and to feast to surfeiting upon the fat of the white bear. So great is the demand for carbon with which to warm his system, that he would soon die if required to keep this everlasting statute which promoted the health and long life of the Hebrew. Here we have an incidental proof that Judaism was never designed to be universal.

There are also intellectual and moral grounds for this statute. Fat tends to stupify the mind, and blood excites the malevolent propensities, and makes those who drink it fierce, savage, and bloodthirsty. For still higher grounds on which this prohibition rests, namely, on the typology of the fat, see note on verse 3; and of the blood, see The Ceremonial Function of the Blood. That the blood of the sacrificial victim prefigured the blood of Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God, is too obvious to need proof. There is no doubt that the prohibition of blood as food has reference to this fact. The typical significance of the fat as representing Christ’s personal righteousness is a favourite theory with some. See Professor Murphy, quoted verse 3. It is true that the work of mediation is twofold. Says Richard Watson, “For what Christ did in obedience to the precepts of the law, and what he suffered, constitute that mediatorial righteousness for the sake of which the Father is ever well pleased in him.” It is eminently appropriate that the former as well as the latter element of mediatorial righteousness should have its distinct type in the Levitical system. We find them both in the perpetually consumed fat, and in the blood sprinkled without cessation upon Jewish altars.