In the sin and trespass offerings which follow (Lev. 4-6:7) we have another line of truth, in which the person (“soul”) as well as the nature of the offense are characteristically prominent. It is not now the truth of Christ’s dedication of Himself in death as well as life to God; neither is it the eucharistic character of the thank or peace offering in praise, vow or free-will. We have here vicarious offerings for sin, a substitute for the sinner. Different measures are defined.
In the case of the priest that was anointed (Lev. 4:3-42) – for this comes first – a bullock was to be offered “without blemish unto Jehovah for a sin-offering.
And he shall bring the bullock unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation before Jehovah; and shall lay his hand upon the bullock’s head, and kill the bullock before Jehovah. 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 Jehovah, before the veil of the sanctuary.” He had to put some of the blood on the horns of the altar of sweet incense. It is of deep interest to note that here is no promise of expiation for the high priest, nor consequently of forgiveness, as in all the other cases. Is this accident? or part of the profound mind of God in scripture?
It is the same thing substantially when the whole congregation sinned (Lev. 4:13-20). In this case also a young bullock had to be slain, and the elders must do what the anointed priest did in the former case. The blood was sprinkled precisely in the same way, and put on the horns of the same altar, and the rest poured out as before. So too the fat was burnt on the brazen altar, and the rest of the victim burnt outside the camp as in the former case.
But when we come down to a ruler, there is another procedure. The word in this case is, that he shall offer “a kid of the goats,” not a bullock; and the priest was to put of the blood on the horns of the altar of burnt-offering – not on the golden altar.
When a private person or one of the common people sinned, there was to be a female kid, the blood of which was put on the same brazen altar. In neither case of the two last was the body burnt outside.
It is evident therefore, we find a graduated scale in these different instances. Why so? Because of a most solemn principle. The gravity of sin depends on the position of him who sins. It is not so man is prone to adjust matters, though his conscience feels its rectitude. How often man would screen the offense of him that is great, if he could. The same might be hard on the poor, friendless, and despised. The life of such at any rate seems of no great account. It is not so with God, nor ought it to be in the minds and estimate of His saints. And another witness of this in the last instance is not without interest for our souls. Only to one of the common people is allowed the alternative of a female lamb instead of a kid (Lev. 4:32-35), the offering of which for his sin is reiterated with the same minute care.
When the anointed priest sinned, the result was precisely such as if the whole congregation sinned. When a prince sinned, it was a different matter, though a stronger case for sacrifice than where it was a private man. In short, therefore, the relationship of the person that was guilty determines the relative extent of the sin, though none was obscure enough for his sin to be passed by.
Our blessed Lord on the other hand meets each and all, Himself the true anointed priest, the only One who needs no offering – who could therefore be the offering for all, for any. This is the general truth, at least on the surface of the sin-offering. The offense was brought forward, confessed, and judged. The Lord Jesus becomes the substitute in this case for him that was guilty; and the blood was put in the case of individuals on the brazen altar, as it only needed to be dealt with in the place of sinful man’s access to God. But where the anointed priest, or the whole congregation sinned (either interrupting communion), it was done in a far more solemn manner. Consequently the blood must be brought into the sanctuary, and be put on the horns of the golden altar.
There is a sensible difference in the offerings which follow. It would seem that the sin-offering is more connected with nature, although it might be proved by a particular sin, and that the trespass-offering is more connected with that which, while it might be in the holy things of Jehovah, or at least against Him, involved the offender in a fault or wrong towards his neighbor, and needed amends as well as a confession of guilt in the offering. On this however there is no call for discussion at present. There might be a kind of mingling of the two things, and to this there seems to be regard in the beginning of Leviticus 5:1-13. There is nothing more astonishing than the accuracy of the word of God when we submit humbly as well as honestly search into it.
Let it be observed, moreover, that in all the proper sin-offerings, the priest not only put some of the blood on the altar (golden or brazen, as the case might require), but poured all the blood at the bottom of the altar of burnt-offering. It was a substitute for the life of the sinner, and was thus poured out where God, in righteousness but in love also, met him in virtue of Christ, who, lifted up from the earth, drew thither to Himself. There accordingly, precisely as in the directions for the peace-offerings (Lev. 3:9-10), the fat, especially on the inwards, kidneys, and caul (or lobe) above the liver, were taken and burnt on the altar, while the bullock as a whole, skin, flesh, head, legs, inwards, and dung, had to be taken* without the camp and burnt in a clean place there, in testimony to God’s vengeance on sin – at least wherever the blood was sprinkled before Jehovah, before the vail. (Compare Lev. 4:7-12,17- 21.) In the case of an individual Israelite, whether a prince or a soul of the people of the land, there was neither sprinkling of the blood before the vail of the sanctuary nor burning of the body without the camp, and the blood was put by the priest on the horns of the brazen (not the golden) altar.
)* It may not be amiss to give a sample of Bishop Colenso’s critical candor and intelligence in his remarks on Leviticus 4:11-12 (Part 1, ch. 6. I quote from the fourth edition revised, 1863.)
In his citation he ventures to insert (the Priest) after “shall he” and before “carry forth.” His comment is: “In that case, the offal of the sacrifices would have had to be carried by Aaron himself, or one of his eons, a distance of six miles (!); and the same difficulty would have attended each of the other transactions above – mentioned. In fact, we have to imagine the Priest having himself to convey, we may suppose, with the help of others, from St. Paul’s to the outskirts of the Metropolis the ‘skin, and flesh, and head, and legs, and inwards, and dung, even the whole bullock;’ and the people having to carry out their rubbish in like manner and bring in their daily supplies of water and fuel, after first cutting down the latter where they could find it.”
Now even in our language it would be unwarrantable for a man professedly honest or truthful to fix on the words “shall carry” the necessity of personally doing this work in order to cast doubt or ridicule on the record. What shall be said of one ostensibly in the position of a chief servant of Christ so doing by holy scripture? But this is far short of the gravity of his guilt. For a tyro in Hebrew knows that verbs are susceptible of a change in form which gives a causative force. Such is the fact here. The verb originally means to “go forth”; in the Hiphil it means “to cause to go forth,” leaving entirely open the agency employed. If it be sorrowful to make blunders in scripture exposition with good and reverent intentions, what can account for such excessive ignorance as is displayed in this instance? Were it a heathen enemy who thus reproached God and His word, one could understand that the haste to blame what is above man’s mind often exposes itself thus; but what shall we say of one who so comes to us in the clothing not of a sheep merely but of a shepherd?(